his yoke easy, and his burden light. When iniquity abounds, and the love of many waxeth cold, our spirits ought to be stirred within us; fearing lest we also be led away with the error of the wicked, and so fall from our own stedfastness. It is only he that is faithful unto death, that shall receive the crown of life. Let us so run that we may obtain. "If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him; but if we deny him he will also deny us before his Father and his holy angels."Many have a form of godliness, but deny its power; but from such you are required to turn a way. To be in friendship with God, and in confederacy with his enemies is impossible. If Christ Jesus be our Lord and Master, let us ever remember, that he who is not for him is against him; and they who are not his friends, cannot be ours. To compromise matters with false professors, is neither the way to preserve ourselves, nor to save them.

You, who have only the name Christian, may be offended at these remarks. But am I be come your enemy, because I have told you the truth? I write not to irritate or offend, but if possible to lead you to consider your ways, and turn to the Lord.

QUESTION.

CYPRIAN.

Are Christians forbidden in the scriptures to eat, at common meals, with an excommunicated person?

As this question is of a practical nature, a right solution of it is of great importance. Though refusing to eat with persons ex

communicated from a church maybe attended with difficulty, and in some cases, be matter of great self-denial; yet if enjoined in the scripture, it is indispensable Divine commands must not yield to our pleasure or convenience. But if not enjoined, it must be a mistaken zeal to multiply crosses, or to seek occasion of self-denial, beyond what is warranted in the word of God.

This question has been often discussed ;* and in respect to it, Christians are still divided both in principle and practice. The affirmative, i. e. that Christians are forbidden to eat at common meals with an excommunicate, is supposed by many to be supported by an express injunction, in 1 Cor. v. 11, and by natural and fair construction, in many other passages of scripture. They will be all brought into view in the course of the toilowing discussion, in which it will be attempted to be proved that those scriptures which are thought to have a bearing upon this question, have been misunderstood or misapplied, and that the opinion and practice deduced from them are foreign to their original design.

1. The scope or object, of the chapter which contains the only direct testimony in support of the affirmative of this question, is, not the treatment which is proper towards those that are excluded from the church, but the proper disciline of those that are in it.

1 Cor. v. 2. "And ye are puffed and have not rather mournup ed, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among

Vide Con. Ev. Mag vol. I. p. 260, and vol VII. p. 454. Panoplist, vol. I. p. 249.

you." Having stated a particular species of iniquity that was practised, he reminds them that the subject of it ought to have been excommunicated. He is still more plain, in the verses immediately following, 3d, 4th, 5th. "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 gather ed 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." Delivering unto Satan undoubtedly means an act of church discipline, and not the individual acts of believers. The same object is kept in view,in the 6th, 7th and 8th verses. "Your glorying is not good: know ye not that a little leaven leaven eth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven-" As by the feast here, all understand the sacramental supper; so keep ing it not with old leaven must intend excluding from it, or excommunicating, those who by the irregular ferment and undisciplined nature of their passions, answer to this character; as it is said, Purge out therefore the old leaven. In the 12th verse, the apostle states expressly, that he is treating of those in the church, and of acts of discipline towards them, and not of those without. "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within." The chapter is VOL. IV. New Series.

closed, and with it this particular subject, in these words, "Therefore put away from among your selves that wicked person." This seems a natural conclusion, if the object in view is the discipline of a church collectively,but not at all applicable,if the object is to give directions to individuals respecting a proper mode of treatment towards persons that are excommunicated.

Now if the true design or scope of the chapter has been stated, it will help us to a right understanding of the 11th verse, which is inserted between those already mentioned. "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 a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat ;* i. e. persons in the church, guilty of these vices, shall not only not be your particular companions and favorites, considered worthy of advancement and peculiar distinction, but shall not even be admit ed to partake with you at the table of the Lord, which is a common privilege of all who have not forfeited their title to the Christian character. They are to be with drawn from, rejected, purged out, taken away, or, delivered unto Satan; all which phrases, as used in different parts of scripture, signify the same thing. See, in addition to the chapter already considered, the following passages. 2 Thes. iii. 6. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly." And Titus iii. 10. "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject."

There may be thought an ob

jection to the foregoing construction of the passage under consideration, from the injunction, "not to keep company." But whatever may be meant by this phrase, it undoubtedly refers to those in the church, and can therefore be no guide, as to a proper mode of treatment towards those that are without. Some have supposed, that "not to keep company" was an injunction upon individuals, when the church was in a broken or divided state, and unable to execute gospel discipline, that their personal disapprobation might have the nature, and produce the effect of an ecclesiastical censure. Though this construction would not militate a gainst any sentiment that has been advanced, yet it appears more natural to conclude, that the apostle meant to forbid a familiarity with, and especially conferring favors upon those who were guilty of such vices, even before the act of excommunication could consistently take place; as it must be preceded by repeated admonitions, and various means of amendment and reformation. There was a propriety in treating offenders in a Christian community differently from the heathen; for if they were equally particular in regard to them, they "must needs go out of the world," or have no commerce with it; as the whole world was considered in a state of idolatry, and indeed under the dominion of the prince of darkness. But this mode of censuring vice was not to supersede the necessity of excommunication. Those that are wedded to iniquity must be debarred from the Christian sacrament; and therefore the apostle adds, "no not to eat."

Vide Pol. in loc.

This additional injunction, it is thought by some, must refer to eating at a common table, and not at the Christian sacrament, from the mode of reasoning the apostle adopts. He had before forbidden them to "keep company," and now adds, "no not to eat," which (if by it is meant partaking of the sacrament) is the highest act of fellowship, and therefore must have been included in the forme injunction; as a prohibition of the less necessarily implies a prohibition of the greater.

This difficulty is more specious than real. For though it be conceded that mutually partaking at the Lord's table is the highest individual act of Christian fellowship, yet it is a common privilege. Less than this cannot be granted to any who have a standing in the church, And there are additional acts of fellowship, and peculiar marks of respect and honor, due to those who are eminent in gifts and grace. If it should be said, that in this view of the subject, the prohibition, "not to keep company," was unnecessary, as it cannot be supposed that any community,worthy the name of a Christian church, could so misapply the tokens of their affection, esteem and honorary distinction, as to foster irregularities; it may be replied, that churches are not perfect, and therefore as liable to err in this respect as in any other. And it appears in fact that the Corinthian church was in this error. Paul tells them," ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned.-Your glorying is not good." And in ch. iv. 19. "I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power." St. James also complains of those to

whom he wrote, as "having the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect to persons ;" and their peculiar respect was shewn to those least worthy of it. See James ii. 1, 7.

It has been objected, that by the phrase "no, not to eat," Paul probably did not refer to the Lord's supper, because a different Greek word is made use of here, from that which is used in the 8th verse of the chapter, where "keeping the feast" is mentioned. There

is no need of going to the orig inal for this difficulty. It is the same in the translation. It is not uncommon,in any language, when the same object is brought into view in different connexions, to use a different phraseology. The apostle, in this same letter, ch. xi. 24, 25, uses two different words, applied to partaking of the Lord's supper, both of which are different from either of these.

But that Christians are here forbidden to eat at common meals with a person excommunicated from a church (though the general scope of the chapter is against it) is supposed to be probable, if not absolutely certain, from its coincidence with Christ's direction, relative to a person in that condition. Mat. xviii. 17. "Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." They did not eat at common meals with the heathen.

It may be remarked, however, that Christ, by this declaration, does not say whether their treat ment towards the heathen was proper or not; much less that it would be proper for Christians in all succeeding ages to treat them in a similar manner. He only observes, that excommunicates and heathen ought to be held in

the same light. When persons' had forfeited their Christian privileges, they ought to be deprived of them, and treated as though they had never possessed any. If it was right for the Jewish Christians to have no commerce with the heathen, not even to eat with them at common meals, it was undoubtedly right for them to refuse these same civilities to persons excommunicated; for they were bound to treat both in the same manner. But as we treat the heathen otherwise, and have Christ's example to justify us in it, so we must treat excommunicates otherwise. Christ's words, and not the practice of the Jews, is the rule of our duty. The declaration of Christ then, that an excommunicate shall be viewed as an heathen man and publican, together with his example in the treatment of such,is pretty strong evidence that we are not bound to refuse the common civilities of life to, and especially not forbid den to eat with, those who are excommunicated from the church, and deprived of Christian privileges.

II. The apostle's remarks upon the conduct of the Corinthian church, in complying with his directions, give us reason to think that gospel discipline of church members was the object he had in view, and not a particular mode of treatment towards excommunicated persons. See 2 Cor. ii. 4, 5, 6. "For out of much affliction and anguish of heart, I wrote unto you with many tears; not that you should be grieved, but that ye might know the love, which I have more abundantly unto you, But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me but in part; that I may not overcharge you all.