Part 70

_2dly_, If a person propagate a doctrine subversive of the gospel, or that faith on which the church is founded, he is to be excluded. It is such an one, as I humbly conceive, whom the apostle styles an _heretic_, and advises Titus _to reject him_, and speaks of him as _one that is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself_, Tit. iii. 10, 11. Some think, that the person here spoken of, is one who pretends to believe one doctrine, but really believes another which is of a most pernicious tendency, and therefore is to be rejected, not for his sentiments, but his insincerity, and, upon this account, he is said to be _self-condemned_[277]. But I cannot acquiesce in this sense of the text; for, though there may be some in the world who think, to find their account, gain popular applause, or, some way or other, serve their worldly interest, by pretending to believe those doctrines which they really deny; yet this cannot be truly said of the person, whom the apostle, in this scripture, describes as an _heretic_: he is, indeed, represented as inconsistent with himself; and this is supposed to be known, and alleged, as an aggravation of the charge on which his expulsion from that religious society, of which he was a member, is founded: but did ever any man propagate one doctrine, and tell the world that he believed another, so that he might, for this, be convicted as an hypocrite? And certainly this could not be known without his own confession, and the church could not censure him for it, but upon sufficient evidence. If it be said, that they might know this by divine inspiration, which, it is true, they were favoured with in that age, in which, among other extraordinary gifts, they had that of _discerning of spirits_; it is greatly to be questioned, whether ever they proceeded against any one upon such extraordinary intimations, without some apparent matter of accusation, which was known by those who had not this extraordinary gift; for, if they had a liberty to proceed against persons in such a way, why did not our Saviour reject Judas, who was one of that society that attended on his ministry, when he knew him to be an hypocrite, or _self-condemned_, in a most notorious degree, yet he did not; and the reason, doubtless, was, because he designed that his churches, in succeeding ages, should, in all their judicial proceedings, go upon other evidence, which might easily be known by all, when they expelled any one from their communion.

Besides, if this be the sense of the text, and the ground on which persons are to be rejected, then no one can be known to be self-condemned now; for we have no such extraordinary intimations thereof, since miraculous gifts are ceased: and is there any thing instituted as essential to the church’s proceedings, in the methods of their government, which could not be put in practice, except in the apostolic age? and, if so, then having recourse to extraordinary discerning of spirits, as a foundation of this procedure, will not serve the purpose for which it is alleged.

It must therefore be concluded, that the person here said to be _self-condemned_, was not deemed so, because he pretended to hold that faith which he really denied; but because his present professed sentiments were the reverse of what he had before pretended to hold, which was a term on which he was admitted into the church; and in this sense he is said to be _self-condemned_, as his present errors contained a contradiction to that faith which he then professed, in common with the rest of that society, of which he was admitted a member.

_3dly_, Persons are to be excluded from church-communion for immoral practices, which not only contradict their professed subjection to Christ, but argue them to be in an unconverted state. When they were first received into the church, they were supposed, by a judgment of charity, to be Christ’s subjects and servants: their own profession, which was not then contradicted by any apparant blemishes in their conversation, was the foundation of this opinion, which the church was then bound to entertain concerning them; but, when they are guilty of any crimes, which are contrary to their professed subjection to Christ, the church is to take away the privilege which they had before granted them; for hereby they appear to be disqualified for their communion; and this is necessary, inasmuch as, by it, they express a just detestation of every thing that would be a reproach to them, or an instance of disloyalty to, or rebellion against Christ, their Head and Saviour.

(3.) We are now to speak concerning the method of proceeding in excluding persons from church-communion. We must consider this as a judicial act, and therefore not to be done without trying and judging impartially the merits of the cause. A crime committed is supposed to be first known by particular persons, who are members of the church; or if any injury be done, whereby another has received just matter of offence, he is supposed to be first apprised of it, before it be brought before the church. In this case, our Saviour has expressly given direction concerning the method in which he is to proceed when he says, _If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother: but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that, in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen-man, and a Publican_, Matt. xviii. 15-17. If this scripture be rightly understood, it will give great light to the method of proceeding in this matter.

And here we must consider, that the crime is called a _trespass_, and accordingly is, in some respects, injurious to others, whereby the offender contracts some degree of guilt, which he is to be reproved for, otherwise there would be no room for a private rebuke, or admonition, in order to bring him to repentance; nor, upon his obstinate refusal thereof, would the church have ground to proceed in excluding him from its communion: nevertheless, we are not to suppose the crime to be of such a nature, as is, in itself, inconsistent with a state of grace, or affords matter of open scandal to the Christian name; as if a person were guilty of adultery, theft, or some other notorious crime; for, in this case, it would not be sufficient for the person, who is apprised of it, to give him a friendly and gentle reproof; so that, upon his confessing his fault, and repenting of it, all farther proceedings against him ought to be stopped; for herein, I humbly conceive, that he that has received information concerning it, ought to make it known to the church, that so the matter might not only be fully charged upon him, but his repentance be as visible, as the scandal he has brought to religion, by his crime, has been. If I know a person to be a traitor to his Prince, a murderer, or guilty of any other crime, whereby he has forfeited his life, it is not sufficient for me to reprove him privately for it, in order to bring him to repentance; but I must discover it to proper persons, that he may be brought to condign punishment: So, in this case, if a person be guilty of a crime, that in itself disqualifies for church-communion, and brings a reproach on the ways of God, the church ought to express their public resentment against it, which will tend to secure the honour of religion; and therefore it ought to be brought before them immediately, and they to proceed against him, by excluding him from their communion; though, for the present, he seem to express some degree of sorrow for his crime, as being made public; and if they judge that his repentance is sincere, and the world has sufficient ground to conclude it to be so, then they may express their forgiveness thereof, and so withdraw the censure they have passed upon him.

But, in crimes of a lesser nature than these, a private admonition ought to be given; and if this be to no purpose, but the person go on in sin, whereby it appears to be habitual, and his repentance not sincere, after this, the cause is to be brought before the church; but, in order hereunto, the person that first reproved him, must take one or two more, that they may join in the second reproof; and, if all this be to no purpose, then they are to appear as evidences against him, and the church is to give him a public admonition; and, if this solemn ordinance prove ineffectual, then he is to be excluded, and his exclusion is styled his _being to them as an Heathen-man, or Publican_, that is, they have no farther relation to him any more than they have to the _Heathen_ or _Publicans_, or no immediate care of him, any otherwise than as they are to desire to know whether this censure be blessed for his advantage. And this leads us,

(4.) To consider the temper with which this censure ought to be denounced, and the consequences thereof, with respect to him that falls under it. The same frame of spirit ought to discover itself in this, as in all other reproofs, for sin committed, in which there ought to be a zeal expressed for the glory of God, and, at the same time, compassion to the souls of them, who have rendered themselves obnoxious to it, without the least degree of hatred redounding to their persons. The crime is to be aggravated in proportion to the nature thereof, that so he that has committed it may be brought under conviction, and be humbled for his sin, and yet he is to be made sensible that his spiritual advantage is intended thereby.

This is very contrary to those methods which were taken in the corrupt state of the Jewish church, who, when they excommunicated persons, denounced several curses against them; and their behaviour consequent thereupon, was altogether unjustifiable. We have an account, in some of their writings, of two degrees of excommunication practised among them, one of which only deprived them of some privileges which that church enjoyed, but not of all. Another carried in it more terror, by reason of several _anathemas_ annexed to it, which contained a great abuse and perversion of the design of that law relating to the curses that were to be denounced on mount Ebal, mentioned in Deut. xxvii. which was not given as a form, to be used in excommunication, but to shew them what sin deserved, and that this might be an expedient to prevent those sins, which would expose them to the divine wrath and curse[278]. And though they pretend to have a warrant for this from Deborah, and Barak’s _cursing Meroz_, Judges v. 23. or Joshua’s denouncing _a curse_ upon him that should rebuild _Jericho_, Joshua vi. 26. yet this does not give countenance to their proceedings herein; for we must distinguish between those _anathemas_, which were denounced by immediate divine direction, by some that had the spirit of prophecy, and those curses which were denounced by others who were altogether destitute thereof[279].

Moreover, as the Jews, in the degenerate ages of that church, abused the ordinance of excommunication, as above-mentioned; so they discovered such a degree of hatred to those whom they excommunicated, as ought not to be expressed to the vilest of men. An instance of this we have in their behaviour towards the Samaritans, who, according to the account we have from Jewish writers, were excommunicated in Ezra’s time, for building a temple on mount Gerizzim, and setting up corrupt worship there, in opposition to that which ought to have been performed in the temple at Jerusalem. For this they were justly excluded from the Jewish church[280]; but their morose behaviour towards them was unwarrantable. That there was an irreconcilable enmity between them, appears from the woman of Samaria’s answer to our Saviour, when desiring her to give him water; from whence it is evident that he was far from approving of this behaviour of the Jews towards them: the woman was amazed that he should ask water of her, and hereupon says to him, _How is it, that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans_, John iv. 9. that is, they retain that old rancour and prejudice against them, that they will not have any dealings with them which contain the least obligation on either side. These things were consequences of excommunication which they had no ground for in scripture.

As for the Christian church, they seem to have followed the Jews too much in that, in which they are not to be imitated. Hence arose the distinction between the greater and the lesser excommunication, which is agreeable, though expressed in other words, to that which was before mentioned; and those _anathemas_, which were denounced against persons excommunicated by them, how much soever it might have argued their zeal against the crimes they committed, yet it is no example for us to follow. It is beyond dispute, that they endeavour to make this censure as much dreaded as was possible, to deter men from committing those crimes that might deserve it. Tertullian calls it, _An anticipation of the future judgment_[281]; and Cyprian supposes such an one to _be far from a state of salvation_[282].

And some have supposed, that persons, when excommunicated, were possessed by the devil, which they conclude to be the sense of the apostle, 1 Cor. v. 5. when he speaks of _delivering_ such _unto Satan_[283]; and that Satan actually seized, and took possession of them; and that God granted this as an expedient, to strike a terror into the minds of men, to prevent many sins being committed; and that this was more necessary at that time, when they were destitute of the assistance of the civil magistrate, who took no care to defend the church, or to punish those crimes that were committed by its members: but I cannot think that there was ever such a power granted to the church, how much soever the necessity of affairs be supposed to require it. We read nothing of it in the writings of those Fathers, who lived in the early ages thereof; such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, or Cyprian, who would, doubtless, have taken some notice of this extraordinary miraculous punishment attending excommunication, had there been any such thing. Some of them, indeed, speak of the church’s being favoured, in some instances, with the extraordinary gift of miracles, and particularly that of casting out devils, after the apostles’ time;[284] but we have no account of the devil’s possessing any, upon their being cast out of the church.

We read, in scripture, of delivering a person excommunicated to Satan, 1 Cor. v. 5. but I cannot think that the apostle intends any more by it, than his being declared to be in Satan’s kingdom, that is in the world, where he rules over the children of disobedience; and, if his crime be so great, as is inconsistent with a state of grace, he must, without doubt, be reckoned a servant of Satan, and, in this sense, be delivered to him. And there is a particular end thereof, mentioned by the apostle, namely, _The destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus_; so that the person’s good is to be intended by it, that he may be humbled, brought to repentance, and afterwards received again into the bosom of the church.

Thus we have considered the general description of a church, the matter and form thereof, and the power granted them of receiving persons into, or excluding them from communion. Now from hence we may infer,

_1st_, That nearness of habitation, how much soever it may contribute to answer some ends of church-communion, which cannot be attained by those who live many miles distant from each other, is not sufficient to constitute persons church-members, or to give them a right to the privileges that attend such a relation. Parochial churches have no foundation in scripture, for they want both the matter and form of a church; nor are they any other than a human constitution.

_2dly,_ The scripture gives no account of the church, as National or Provincial; and therefore, though persons have a right to many civil privileges, as born in particular nations, or provinces, it does not follow from thence, that they are professedly subjects to Christ, or united together in the bonds of the gospel. Therefore if a church, that styles itself National, excludes persons from its communion, whether it be for real or supposed crimes, it takes away that right which it had no power to confer, but what is founded on the laws of men, which are very distinct from those which Christ has given to his churches. And this leads us,

5. To consider the government of the church, by those officers which Christ has appointed therein. Tyranny and anarchy are extremes, inconsistent with the good of civil society, and contrary to the law of nature, and are sufficiently fenced against by the government which Christ has established in his church: he has appointed officers to secure the peace and order thereof, and has limited their power, and given directions that concern the exercise thereof, that so it may be governed without oppression, its religious rights maintained, the glory of God, and the mutual edification of its members hereby promoted.

We have already considered those extraordinary officers which Christ set over the gospel-church, when it was first constituted, namely, the apostles and evangelists:[285] But, besides these, there are others which he has given to his churches; and these either such as are appointed to bear rule, more especially, in what respects the promoting their faith and order, who are styled Pastors and Elders; of others, who have the oversight of the secular affairs of the church, and the trust of providing for the necessities of the poor committed to them, who are called Deacons.

Concerning the former of these, to wit, Pastors and Elders, we often read of them in the New Testament: nevertheless, all are not agreed in their sentiments, as to one particular relating hereunto, namely, whether the Elders spoken of in scripture are distinct officers from Pastors; or, whether Christ has appointed two sorts of them, to wit, preaching and ruling Elders? Some think the apostle distinguishes between them, when he says, _Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and doctrine_, 1 Tim. v. 17. the _double honour_ here intended seems to be not only civil respect, but maintenance, as appears from the following words, _Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the labourer is worthy of his reward_. Now these suppose that this maintenance belongs only to such as _labour in word and doctrine_, and not to those other Elders, who are said to _rule well_; therefore there are elders that _rule well_, distinct from those that _labour in word and doctrine_.

Others, indeed, think, that the apostle, in this text speaks only of the latter sort, and then the stress of his argument is laid principally on the word _Labouring_, q. d. Let every one who preaches the gospel, and presides over the church, have that honour conferred on him that is his due; but let this be greater in proportion to the pains and diligence that he expresses for the church’s edification.

Nevertheless, I cannot but think, since it is agreeable to the laws of society, and not in the least repugnant to any thing we read, in scripture, concerning the office of an Elder, that, in case of emergency, when the necessity of the church requires it, or when the work of preaching and ruling is too much for a Pastor, the church being very numerous, it is advisable that some should be chosen from among themselves to assist him in managing the affairs of government and performing some branches of his office, distinct from that of preaching, which these are not called to do, as not being qualified for it: these are helpers or assistants in government; and their office may have in it a very great expediency, as in the multitude of counsellers there is safety, and the direction and advice of those who are men of prudence and esteem in the church, will be very conducive to maintain its peace and order: but I cannot think that this office is necessary in smaller churches, in which the Pastors need not their assistance. And this leads us to speak concerning the office of a Pastor, which consists of two branches, namely, preaching the word, and administring the sacraments on the one hand; and performing the office of a ruling Elder on the other.

_1st_, We may consider him as qualified and called to preach the gospel. This is an honourable and important work, and has always been reckoned so, by those who have had any concern for the promoting the glory of God in the world. The apostle Paul was very thankful to Christ that he conferred this honour upon him, or, as he expresses it, that _he counted him faithful and put him into the ministry_, chap. i. 12. and elsewhere he concludes, that it is necessary, that they, who engage in this work, be sent by God; _How shall they preach except they be sent?_ Rom. x. 15. This is a necessary pre-requisite to the pastoral-office, as much as speech is necessary to an orator, or conduct to a governor: nevertheless, a person may be employed, in the work of the ministry, who is not a pastor; these may be reckoned, if they discharge the work they are called to, faithfully, a blessing to the world, and a valuable part of the church’s treasure; yet considered as distinct from Pastors, they are not reckoned among its officers. This is a subject that very well deserves our consideration: but, inasmuch as we have an account elsewhere[286] of the qualifications and call of ministers to preach the gospel, and the manner in which this is to be done, we pass it over, at present, and proceed,

_2dly_, To consider a minister, as invested in the pastoral office, and so related to a particular church. The characters by which such, who are called to it, are described, in the New Testament, besides that of a Pastor, are a Bishop or Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, who labours in word and doctrine.