the connexion in which it is used, seem clearly to imply, that Christian brethren are not to use so great a degree of familiarity with one, who is cast out of the church, as to eat with him at common meals. As the church is yet small, and Christ has but few faithful followers, and these scattered up and down amongst unbelievers, their circumstances necessitate them to company in some degree with those who are strangers to Christ. It is not practicable for Christians to keep at such a distance from persons of this description, as God made it the duty of his ancient covenant people to keep from the heathen nations. But Christians need meet with no difficulty in separating themselves altogether from the company of one, who is cast out of the church. Therefore, says the apostle, I have now written unto you not to keep company with such an one, no, not to eat,

But it is said that, after a person is excommunicated, he cannot, with propriety, be called a brother; therefore it cannot be, that he is the person intended, when it is said, with such an one, no, not to eat. Of course, this prohibition must relate to one, who is found to walk disorderly, previously to his excommunication. In support of this opinion it is urged, that the Apostle directs, 2 Thess. iii, 14, If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. But it is to be observed, that he immediately adds, Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brotheras much as to say, "I do not mean that you should refuse

companying with him, until you have taken those brotherly steps with him, which Christ requires in case of offences, and the ad monitions of the church appear to be without effect: This would be to treat him, not as a brother, but as an enemy" And surely, no church can have any right to refuse companying with a brother, whatever offence he have committed, until he has been admonished, both in that private and more public manner, which, in such cases, Christ requires; and yet, under all, he remains impenitent. When the Apostle says, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. it ought not to be thought, that the prohibition of companying with such an one, does not include those, who are rejected from the church. For the treatment required to be given to such an one, can respect no other. To treat any other brother in this manner would be contrary to the rules of Christ—to the rules of love. But to treat one, whom the church is obliged to reject from her communion, in this manner, is an act of brotherly love, and of the greatest friendship, which the brethren, in that case, can express for him: For, if any thing would touch the feelings of the excommunicated brother, soften his mind, and bring him to reflect with shame upon the offences he has committed, it seems that this must do it. Whereas, on the other hand, to treat him with all that familiarity, with which he had been wont to be treated before he joined the church, tends rather to make him unmindful of his offence, and harden him against remorse.

With the construction, which it has been supposed is to be put on the apostolic direction under consideration, the command of Christ entirely agrees. When an offender refuses to hear the kind and brotherly admonitions to be administered to him, Christ says, Matt. xviii, 17. Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. As this direction was given to Christ's Jewish disciples, it is to be supposed, that they would feel themselves required to treat one, who is rejected from the church, in the same manner as the Jews thought themselves required to treat the heathen and publicans. And as this direction was to be a standing rule in the Christian church, it could convey no instruction at all to churches gathered from amongst the heathen, unless it required them also to treat an excommunicated person in the same manner as was required of Jewish Christians. If this be a just construction of the words of Christ, the question, respecting the treatment of a person excluded from the communion of the church, is decided; and Christians are forbidden to use that degree of familiarity with him, which was permitted previously to his profession of religion.

Some may here object, that Christ both ate and drank with publicans; and it would be unreasonable to suppose, that he would restrain his disciples from freedoms, of which he himself had given an example.

But, respecting Christ's eating and drinking with publicans, it does not appear that the Mosaic law required the Jews to exclude one of their brethren

from the congregation merely for holding an office under the Roman government. Had this been the case, we can hardly suppose that Christ, who so carefully observed all the laws of the Mosaic Institution, would ever have indulged a freedom with publicans, which might justly be offensive to the Jews. And it is to be further observed, that to suppose Christ intended, that his eating and drinking with publicans should be an example to his disciples of the treatment they were to give to excommunicated persons, would render his direction, Matt. xviii, perfectly unintelligible. Christ did eat and drink with publicans; but, he did not, with heathen men. How, then, would it be possible for Christians to imitate Christ's example in their treatment of an excommunicated person? It cannot, then, otherwise be, when Christ said of the offending brother, If he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican, than that they should suppose him to mean, that they were to treat such an one as the Jews treated heathen men and publicans. In any other view, the direction must be wholly without meaning.

Thus does it appear, that the Scriptures plainly forbid Christians to eat with an excommunicated person, even at common meals. And if this be Christ's rule, it ought carefully to be observed by all Christian churches; and a blessing may be expected to follow. Nothing tends so much to render Christian churches respectable as a careful adherence to the laws of Christ in discipline, as well as in other respects. This renders a church

the connexion in which it is used, seem clearly to imply, that Christian brethren are not to use so great a degree of familiarity with one, who is cast out of the church, as to eat with him at common meals. As the church is yet small, and Christ has but few faithful followers, and these scattered up and down amongst unbelievers, their circumstances necessitate them to company in some degree with those who are strangers to Christ. It is not practicable for Christians to keep at such a distance from persons of this description, as God made it the duty of his aneient covenant people to keep from the heathen nations. But Christians need meet with no difficulty in separating themselves altogether from the company of one, who is cast out of the church. Therefore, says the apostle, I have now written unto you not to keep company with such an one, no, not to eat,

But it is said that, after a person is excommunicated, he cannot, with propriety, be called a brother; therefore it cannot be, that he is the person intended, when it is said, with such an one, no, not to eat. Of course, this prohibition must relate to one, who is found to walk disorderly, previously to his excommunication. In support of this opinion it is urged, that the Apostle directs, 2 Thess. iii, 14, If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. But it is to be observed, that he immediately adds, Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brotheras much as to say, "I do not mean that you should refuse

companying with him, until you have taken those brotherly steps with him, which Christ requires in case of offences, and the admonitions of the church appear to be without effect: This would be to treat him, not as a brother, but as an enemy" And surely, no church can have any right to refuse companying with a brother, whatever offence he have committed, until he has been admonished, both in that private and more public manner, which, in such cases, Christ requires; and yet, under all, he remains impenitent. When the Apostle says, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, &c. it ought not to be thought, that the prohibition of companying with such an one, does not include those, who are rejected from the church., For the treatment required to be given to such an one, can respect no oth

er.

To treat any other brother in this manner would be contrary to the rules of Christ—to the rules of love. But to treat one, whom the church is obliged to reject from her communion, in this manner, is an act of brotherly love, and of the greatest friendship, which the brethren, in that case, can express for him: For, if any thing would touch the feelings of the excommunicated brother, soften his mind, and bring him to reflect with shame upon the offences he has committed, it seems that this must do it. Whereas, on the other hand, to treat him with all that familiarity, with which he had been wont to be treated before he joined the church, tends rath er to make him unmindful of his offence, and harden him against remorse.

With the construction, which it has been supposed is to be put on the apostolic direction under consideration, the command of Christ entirely agrees. When an offender refuses to hear the kind and brotherly admoni tions to be administered to him, Christ says, Matt. xviii, 17. Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. As this direction was given to Christ's Jewish disciples, it is to be supposed, that they would feel themselves required to treat one, who is rejected from the church, in the same manner as the Jews thought themselves required to treat the heathen and publicans. And as this direction was to be a standing rule in the Christian church, it could convey no instruction at all to churches gathered from amongst the heathen, unless it required them also to treat an excommunicated person in the same manner as was required of Jewish Christians. If this be a just construction of the words of Christ, the question, respecting the treatment of a person excluded from the communion of the church, is decided; and Christians are forbidden to use that degree of familiarity with him, which was permitted previously to his profession of religion.

Some may here object, that Christ both ate and drank with publicans; and it would be unreasonable to suppose, that he would restrain his disciples from freedoms, of which he himself had given an example.

But, respecting Christ's eat ing and drinking with publicans, it does not appear that the Mosaic law required the Jews to exclude one of their brethren

from the congregation merely for holding an office under the Roman government. Had this been the case, we can hardly suppose that Christ, who so carefully observed all the laws of the Mosaic Institution, would ever have indulged a freedom with publicans, which might justly be offensive to the Jews. And it is to be further observed, that to suppose Christ intended, that his eating and drinking with publicans should be an example to his disciples of the treatment they were to give to excommu. nicated persons, would render his direction, Matt. xviii, perfectly unintelligible. Christ did eat and drink with publicans; but, he did not, with heathen men. How, then, would it be possible for Christians to imitate Christ's example in their treatment of an excommunicated person? It cannot, then, otherwise be, when Christ said of the offending brother, If he refuse to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican, than that they should suppose him to mean, that they were to treat such an one as the Jews treated heathen men and publicans. In any other view, the direction must be wholly without meaning.

Thus does it appear, that the Scriptures plainly forbid Christians to eat with an excommunicated person, even at common meals. And if this be Christ's rule, it ought carefully to be observed by all Christian churches; and a blessing may be expected to follow. Nothing tends so much to render Christian churches respectable as a careful adherence to the laws of Christ in discipline, as well as in other respects. This renders a church