most serious infringement on the right of private judgment.

As to the nature of the act itself -the act of excluding a man from church fellowship, we have full information in the fifth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul gives particular directions as to the expulsion of an offender from the Corinthian church. After mentioning the heinous crime which this man had committed, the Apostle proceeds to say, "For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." He afterwards says, on the same subject, "I wrote unto you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolators; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat........ Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.' From all this it appears that to exclude a man from church-fellowship is, 1. To avoid his company, to put him away from among us; and the separation is so complete that we are not even so much as to eat with him. 2. That this putting away is to be regarded as a formal delivery of such an one to Satan. The church is Christ's kingdom; the worldis Satan's. When one of Satan's subjects is discovered in the visible kingdom of Christ, after all efforts to reclaim him have been used in vain, he is to be formally delivered over to Satan, whose subject he is; and, therefore, the exclusion of a person from the church of Christ is a declaration, on the part of the church, that the excluded party has no title to be regarded as any thing but a servant of the devil, and that henceforth he cannot be recognized

as a servant of Christ, and a member of his body. 3. The object of this terrible sentence is, that the offender may be reclaimed, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. That now, unable to soothe his conscience with the reflection that he is a member of the church of Christ, he may awake to a sense of his sinful character, of his sad condition, and of his doleful prospects, and thereby be led to repent of his wickedness, and seek mercy at the hands of God. Of this awful transaction, Harris, in his Great Teacher, speaks thus,-" And let no one speak lightly of this power of rebuke and expulsion. The omnipotence of public opinion, for instance, has almost become a proverbial expression. The world, at present, acknowledges nothing so mighty, though silent, in its operations. Its slightest whisper is law to a nation. It utters a prediction, and all the powers of society rush to accomplish the prophecy. Unable to endure its censure, numbers seek the asylum of the grave; and rather than encounter its denunciations, even thrones have trembled, and hid themselves in the dust. But, in uttering rebuke, the voice of the church is public opinion in its most concentrated form, borrowing mysterious efficacy from the presence and cooperation of an invisible agent, and gathering tones of alarm by passing through the avenues of an affrighted soul. As the necessity of punishing the offender springs from the first principles in the Divine nature, so the sentence of punishment harmonizes with the first principles of his own nature, meets and coalesces with all the remorse in his bosom, finds a ready and loud response from his conscience, and arms him against himself. Sharper than any twoedged sword, it inflicts a wound on the spirit for which earth has no remedy. It is a flash of that consuming lightning, which, leaving the outward man unscathed, passes direct to its mark within, scorching the conscious soul, and turning all its joys to ashes. It is even an anticipation of the last day, a foretaste of that consummation of terrors,— flashing the fires of the lake that burneth on the face of the soul,cutting it off from God, delivering it

over to Satan as a sealed anathema, an eternal outcast from hope and grace. Such is its efficacy when impartially administered, in connection with the other branches of Christian discipline, to preserve the purity of the church, that, were it sufficiently known, Christians would no more think of calling temporal aid into the church, than they would of deputing an arm of flesh to guide and assist the bolt of heaven to its destined object."

I am aware that the above description can be correct only when this solemn act of discipline is performed with justice and impartiality. I know full well that it is one thing for a man to be convicted in his conscience that the sentence of excommunication is justly pronounced upon him by the church on earth, and solemnly ratified by the Almighty in heaven; and another thing for a man to be assured that while man

condemns, God approves, - that while the church on earth rejects, the Saviour graciously receives him. I know that to be able, in the conscious integrity of our soul, to appeal from the decisions of erring mortals, to the tribunal of the great Judge of heaven and earth, takes that away from a sentence of expulsion, which arms it with its most dreadful power. I know all this: but is it not plain that to threaten such a punishment as that above described, against those who judge for themselves, must be calculated to prevent them from exercising their judgments freely; while to inflict a punishment like this on one whose only offence is, that he judges for himself what God requires, and acts upon the judgment that he forms, must tend to deter others from imitating his example? This must be so plain as to be perceived by every one; and how this can be true, and yet a sentence of expulsion from a Christian church be no limitation of the right of private judgment, I confess I cannot understand.

And then look at the consequences of expulsion, even when the expelled individual is supported by the testimony of a good conscience, and the approbation of God. From the sanctuary where he has worshipped, and which is associated in his mind with a thousand hallowed and de

lightful recollections, he is banished. From the sympathy and friendship of numbers whom he has highly respected, and by whom he himself has been so highly esteemed, he is cut off. They once took sweet counsel together, but they are now to do so no more; they once went to the house of God in company, but this they may no longer do. He visited his friends, and they visited him; but now they exchange visits no longer, for the sentence of expulsion requires that they keep not company with him, no not so much as to eat! A brand of disgrace is fixed upon his character, and he becomes an object of general suspicion. With many it is quite enough to know that a man has been expelled from one of the leading denominations of the day; they thenceforth regard him as a suspicious or a dangerous character. Should he be disposed to labour in God's cause, his labours are impeded; his former associates array all their influence in society against him. Though he may have no object in view but the general good, and though he may abstain from all party strife, still those with whom he was formerly united, regard his movements as hostile to their interests, and do what they can to prevent his success. And the public are slow to place confidence in an excommunicated man. They naturally suppose that the men with whom he has associated intimately for years, should be better acquainted with his character than strangers; and they do not readily believe that men professing a religion of love, can excommunicate one another for mere harmless differences of opinion. The result is this: the expelled individual has to encounter a vast amount of personal prejudice in all his efforts to promote the glory of God and the happiness of mankind; and it is not until he has established his character by a long-continued course of holy, exemplary conduct, that he recovers the influence of which he has been deprived by his expulsion from the church which he was formerly united.

Of course, when I speak thus, I do not mean to be understood as though there were no exceptions.There are exceptions to every general rule; and in some cases, the ex

clusion of an individual from the church is such a manifest violation of love and equity, that public sympathy is excited in his favour, and his influence, instead of being diminished, is greatly increased. It is likewise true, that there are always some ready to sympathize with one supposed to be a persecuted man, and if expulsion from the church deprives a man of influence with one class of people, it gains him influence with another. But still these considerations do not change the natural tendency of the act. The act of expelling a man from communion with any church, necessarily deprives him of all influence with those who are prejudiced in favour of that church; and it naturally awakens suspicion in the minds of others.* That its effects are not unmixedly evil, is a wise and merciful arrangement of Divine Providence; but it proves nothing whatever against the views here propounded. The persecution at Jerusalem was overruled by Providence, so as to promote the extension of Christianity; and that the blood of the Martyrs is the seed of the church, has become a proverb: but it does not follow from hence, that banishment and death are no punishments, or that persecution is no interference with the right of private judgment. And though it is true, that a good man, when excluded from a voluntary church, does not lose all the influence that he possessed; though, in some cases, his influence may be increased in one direction, more than it is diminished in another, it does not follow, that no ill-effects whatever result from his expulsion, or that his explusion does not interfere with his right to judge for himself what it is that God requires.

Let it be remembered, that the question is not now whether it be just to expel a man from a voluntary church for freely exercising the right of private judgment; but whether it be possible for a voluntary church to interfere with this right, by the mere expulsion of one of its members from

* And if expulsion be not that mass of terror and affliction described by Harris, it is because the Church, so called, has been so accustomed to expel members without just cause,-to expel where there was no criminality.

its communion? That is the question, and now let the reader judge. If communion with a voluntary church be a privilege, must not exclusion from its communion be a loss? And must not the extent of the loss be exactly proportioned to the value of the privilege? And have we not seen that a number of other hardships attend this privation? And is it possible, for a voluntary church to inflict those hardships and losses on its members for exercising the right of private judgment, without interfering with that right? That it is in the power of such a church to inflict those hardships and privations on its members is so plain, that to assert it is only to say, that such a church has the power to expel its members; that a voluntary church may expel its members, and thereby subject them to these privations and sufferings for no other crime than the barest exercise of their judgment in religious matters, we need not to be told; but that this can be done without setting aside and denying the right of private judgment is what, I suppose, but few of my readers will believe, after considering what has

been stated above.

Obj. 2. "But has not the church a right to expel members for heresy? Are there not a number of Scripture passages which clearly teach that the church possesses this right?"

Ans. Yes, there are: and that the church possesses the right to expel heretics, cannot be questioned or denied. But then the question is, Who are heretics? If we examine the various passages in the New Testament where heretics are spoken of, we shall find that they were not men who believed the testimony of God's inspired messengers to be true, and honestly and freely exercised their minds in inquiring what that testimony implied. No, they were men of a different stamp ;-men, who both impiously rejected the testimony of God's inspired servants, and men of bad character, who had impure, dishonest, guilty reasons for rejecting the testimony of God. How it can be proved that because the church has a right to expel men like these, it is therefore authorized to expel men for honestly exercising their judgments in the fear of God,

I am at a loss to imagine. The church has a right to expel a thief; therefore, it has a right to expel an honest man! The right of the church to excommunicate an ungodly wretch, who regards not the authority of heaven, nor receives the testimony of the Most High, is unquestioned; therefore, we ought not to question her right to expel the saints who do regard, and who hum bly receive God's testimony, and implicitly bow to his authority!What sort of reasoning is this? But to show you that the heretics mentioned in Scripture were such as have just been described, I shall separately examine each passage in the New Testament that refers to this subject; and I fear not but the candid reader will perceive with me, that a good man, anxious to know God's will and do it, cannot be a heretic.

-

The first passage to which I would call attention, a passage often quoted by those who contend for the right of churches to expel men for mere harmless differences of opinion, -is Romans xvi. 17. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." It might be sufficient to observe here, that the persons spoken of were not those who received the Apostle's tes timony, and merely differed from their brethren as to the sense in which it should be understood; but men who maintained and taught views 66 contrary to the doctrine which" the churches had learned of the Apostles: in other words, they were men who rejected and opposed the doctrines which the Apostles taught. I say that this would be a sufficient answer to those who adduce this passage to prove that the church has power to excommunicate good men followers of Christ;— but to place the matter beyond dispute, I need only refer to the next verse, where the Apostle particularly describes the character of the persons of whom he speaks:-"For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." Whether this description can apply to any man who sincerely

loves the truth and labours to conform his life to its requirements, judge ye!

The next passage to which I would refer, is one that has been quoted already on another subject. It is one in which the Apostle explicitly directs the Corinthian church to expel certain persons from its communion. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or å railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner ; with such an one no not to eat." 1 Cor. v. 11. Whether there be any thing here to favour the expulsion of good men from the church of Christ for the free and honest exercise of their individual judgment, let any man determine.In the light of this passage also, let the reader judge whether I had not good reason to say, in the first of these papers, that the churches generally act on an opposite plan to that established by the Redeemer. They receive numbers who, they have every reason to believe, are rejected by Christ, on account of their unfaithfulness to his service; they reject others, respecting whom they cannot doubt but that Christ has received them as his faithful, obedient followers." I have in some few instances known men expelled from churches for fornication and drunkenness; but when was there a case in which covetousness or extortion was deemed sufficient to exclude a man from church communion? I question whether any one who reads this article can remember such an instance, however long he may have been connected with the church of the Redeemer. Truly, it is high time that the traditions of men were laid aside, and the pure, unadulterated Gospel of Christ adopted as the only standard of church discipline, as well as of individual doctrine and practice.

The next passage is 1 Cor. xvi. 22. "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha;" That is, let him be excommunicated or accursed, until the Lord come. But who are they that are to be excommunicated thus? Those who love Christ, and show that they do so by refusing to do what they believe to be contrary to

his will, though it should cost them all they hold dear on earth? No, if any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema-Maranatha. This passage, at least, can furnish no pretext for expelling the Disciples of the Saviour from the church that he has redeemed with his blood.

One passage frequently appealed to by those who plead for the right to expel persons from the church for mere harmless differences of sentiment on religious matters, is the following;-"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 8-9. On this passage it might be sufficient to inquire who does bring a new Gospel? Is it he who reverences the authority of that Gospel which has already been unfolded, and honestly and freely exercises his mind to ascertain its meaning and requirements? Is this the man who brings another Gospel? Or is it he who opposes the authority of Christ and his Apostles, maintaining that to be true which they have declared to be false, and denouncing that as false which they have declared to be true? It might be sufficient to propose these questions, and rest the case on the answers that must necessarily be given to them but there is no need to leave the matter here. Let any man impartially examine the Epistle, of which the passage under consideration forms a part, and he will see that the persons referred to by the Apostle, did actually set themselves in opposition to the doctrines that he and his fellow-apostles preached: so that it became necessary for him to appeal to the miracles that he had wrought, as proofs of the Divine mission with which he was entrusted. "He, therefore, that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith." Gal. iii. 5. The persons against whom Paul guards the Galatian church, sought to subvert the whole Gospel of Christ, and bring the church again under bondage to

the law of Moses. They sought to effect this, not by pretending that the instructions of the Apostles were to be thus or thus understood, but by opposing their authority, and seeking to undermine them in the estimation of the Galatian believers. And then their motives were as corrupt, as their proceedings were Antichristian. "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." Gal. vi. 12-13. From all this it is plain, 1. That they of whom the Apostle speaks were not sincere though mistaken followers of Christ, but infidel opposers of the Saviour and his inspired Apostles. 2. That they were induced to pursue the course they did pursue, by corrupt, impure motives. A desire for vain glory and an anxiety to avoid the reproaches and persecutions to which a profession of the truth would have exposed them, were the motives by which they were actuated. 3. The right of the church to expel such men as these, can never prove anything in favour of a right to expel men, whose principles, motives, and proceedings, are directly the opposite.

The views unfolded in this article are still further confirmed by the epistle to the Ephesians. Though heresies and heretics are not mentioned by name in this epistle, it yet contains several passages which clearly relate to the subject. The Apostle exhorts the Ephesian believers in these words: "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftimess, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Eph. iv. 14. So that it appears there were false teachers then, cunning, crafty men, lying in wait to deceive. In another part of the epistle, we have some intimation as to the nature of the doctrines that they taught. "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the