pension from the Lord's table is in some cases necessary; when a case is dubious, and there is not time thoroughly to inquire into it, and yet offence and scandal arises upon it: a person, indeed, may be desired to abstain from the Lord's table, and a man that seeks the peace of the church will consent to it; but he cannot be obliged to abstain; if he is obstinate and refractory, there is no other way but to expel him; for a man is either in communion with a church or he is not; there is no middle state; to withdraw from a disorderly person, or to withdraw and separate him from communion, are the same thing. -4. Excommunication is no other than a removal of a man from the communion of the church, and from all privileges dependent upon it; it is a disfranchising him from all the immunities of a fellow-citizen with the saints, and taking from him a place and a name in the house of God; for a church can take no more from him than what it first gave him.-5. This act is expressed by various phrases; as by avoiding familiar conversation with such; by not keeping company with them; and by not eating with them at the Lord's table; by purging out from them the old leaven; and by putting away the wicked from among them; by withdrawing from disorderly persons, and cutting them off from fellowship with them.

II. Who they are that are to be excommunicated.-1. Such who are disturbers of the church's peace, who cause divisions and offences, who are litigious and quarrelsome, 1 Cor. xi. 16. Such who are troublers of God's Israel, ought to be cut off from his people, Gal. v.12.

2. Who do not keep their places in the church, do not attend when the church assembles together for religious worship, but forsake the assembling of themselves together, and in a sense forsake the church; whose places are empty, as David's was at supper-time, and who do in a sort cut off themselves from the communion of the church, Jude, verse 19.3. All such who walk disorderly, as the above persons do, are irregular in their lives and conversations, guilty of immoralities, though it may be thought of a lesser kind, which they continue and indulge themselves in; as sloth and idleness, not working at all, busybodies, going from house to house, doing mischief, and living upon others; from such the apostle commands us to withdraw ourselves, 2 Thess. iii. 6-14.-4. All such who commit atrocious crimes, unrepented of, and continued in; as fornicators, covetous, idolaters, railers, drunkards, extortioners, &c., with such we are bid not to eat, especially at the Lord's table; for such ought to have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, that is, in the church of God, 1 Cor. v. 11, Eph. v. 5.-5. All erroneous and heretical persons, who hold and propagate doctrines contrary to what has been learnt from the word of God, and in the churches of Christ: such are to be avoided and declined from, Rom. xvi. 17; all such who bring in damnable heresies, as the apostle calls them; denying the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, the Deity of Christ, &c., 2 Pet. ii. 1; who bring not with them, but oppose the doctrine of Christ, concerning his person and grace: these, as they are not to have a place in the private houses of the saints, ought to have none in the church of God; which is commended

for not bearing them that are evil, either unsound in principle, or immoral in life.

m. By whom excommunication is to be performed.

1. Not by a member himself; no man has a right to cut off himself; such a man is a felo de se; as a man cannot come into a church without the consent of it, so neither can he go out of it, without its consent; for a man to depart of himself, is not standing fast in one spirit, but is a cowardly running away from a church; and to go without giving a reason, without asking leave, or desiring a dismission, to say the least of it, is a rude and unmannerly way of departure; and such churches who receive such persons, do not as they would be done by yea, such men are covenant-breakers with a church, which is a great evil, and breakers up of churches, as much as in them lies; for what one member may, do, others may; yea, if a member may leave a church at pleasure, a pastor may do the same: in a word, notwithstanding such departure, such persons may be proceeded against by direct excommunication; or, which amounts to much the same, should be declared by a vote of the church, non-members, and no longer under its watch and care: which is by some called indirect excommunication. --2. Nor is it to be performed by any single person of himself, whether an ordinary or an extraordinary minister, it never was done by an apostle, an evangelist, or any other one man; for it is a punishment inflicted by many. 3. Nor is it to be done by the elders of a church separately; much less by the elders of other churches; but by the elders of churches, with the consent of the members of them; for they have a right to do this, previous to their having elders, and when they have none, as to receive members, so to expel them; the power of it originally lies in the church; the authority of executing it lies in the elders with the consent and by the order of the church; as the directions to the churches concerning this matter testify.

IV. What are the ends of excommunication.

1. The glory of God, which is the ultimate end of it; for as his name is dishonoured by the evil practices or principles of churchmembers, so this is the most open and most effectual way of removing that dishonour that is brought upon it; this ought to be always the chief aim and the sincere view in the administration of it; though sometimes this is only pretence, and under the cover of it churches gratify sinful passions and resentments; as the Jews of old, in a similar case, Isaiah Ixvi. 5.-2. Another end is to purge the church, and preserve it from infection; a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and therefore the old leaven must be purged out, that a church may become a new lump; evil communications corrupt good manners, and therefore evil men must be put away from among the saints, 1 Cor. v. 7, 13; lepers were to be put out of the camp, that they might not infect others; and erroneous persons, whose words do eat as a canker, must be removed from the communion of churches.-3. A church of Christ is like a garden, or vineyard, which, if not taken care of, and this ordinance of excommunication not made use of, will be like the vineyard of the slothful, overrun with thorns and nettles and other weeds; but

by means of this it is cleared of the weeds of immoralities, and the bitter roots of false doctrines are plucked up and eradicated, and withered branches are gathered and cast out.-4. The good of persons excommunicated is another end, and is sometimes effected by it, God blessing his own institution when rightly performed, which is for edification, and not destruction; for the saving of the souls of men; and who are hereby brought to shame and repentance for their sins, and an acknowledgment of them; when they are to be received again with all love and tenderness, and to be comforted, that they might not be swallowed up with over-much sorrow.

BOOK V.

OF THE PUBLIC ORDINANCES OF DIVINE WORSHIP.

OF BAPTISM.

As the first Covenant, or Testament, had ordinances of divine service, which are shaken, removed, and abolished; so the New Testament, or gospel dispensation, has ordinances of divine worship, which cannot be shaken, but will remain until the second coming of Christ : these are few, and easy to be observed, and of a very expressive signification. Among which, Baptism must be reckoned one, and is proper to be treated of in the first place; for though it is not a church ordinance, it is an ordinance of God, and a part and branch of public worship. When I say it is not a church ordinance, I mean it is not an ordinance administered in the church, but out of it, and in order to admission into it, and communion with it; it is preparatory to it, and a qualification for it; it does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it. Admission to baptism lies solely in the breast of the administrator, who is the only judge of qualifications for it, and has the sole power of receiving to it, and of rejecting from it; if not satisfied, he may reject a person thought fit by a church, and admit a person to baptism not thought fit by a church; but a disagreement is not desirable nor advisable: the orderly, regular, scriptural ruleof proceeding seems to be this: a person inclined to submit to baptism, and to join in communion with a church, should first apply to an administrator; and, upon giving him satisfaction, be baptized by him; and then should propose to the church for communion; when he would be able to answer all proper questions: if asked to give a reason of the hope that is in him, he is ready to do it; if a testimony of his life and conversation is required, if none present can give it, he can direct where it is to be had; and if a question is put to him, whether he is a baptized person or no, he can answer in the affirmative, and

give proof of it, and so the way is clear for his admission into churchfellowship. So Saul, when converted, was immediately baptized by Ananias, without any previous knowledge and consent of the church; and it was many days after this that he proposed to join himself to the disciples, and was received, Acts ix. 18-28; and as it is water-baptism which is meant, I shall,

I. Prove that this is peculiar to the gospel dispensation, is a standing ordinance in it, and will be continued to the second coming of Christ. This is opposed to the sentiments of such who say baptism was in use before the times of John, of Christ and his apostles; and of such who restrain water-baptism to the interval between the beginning of John's ministry and the death of Christ, when they supposed this, with other external rites, ceased; and of such, who think that only the first converts to Christianity in a nation are to be baptized, and their children, but not their after-posterity. There were indeed divers washings, bathings, or baptisms, under the legal dispensation, for the purification of persons and things unclean, by the ceremonial law; which had a doctrine in them, called the doctrine of baptisms, which taught the cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ; but there was nothing similar in them to the ordinance of water-baptism, but immersion only. The Jews pretend, their ancestors were received into covenant by baptism, or dipping, as well as by circumcision and sacrifice; and that proselytes from heathenism were received the same way; and this is greedily catched at by the advocates for infant-baptism; who fancy that John, Christ, and his apostles, took up this custom as they found it, and continued it; and which they imagine accounts for the silence about it in the New Testament, and why there is neither precept for it, nor example of it; but surely if it was in such common use as pretended, though no new precept had been given, there would have been precedents enough of it; but no proof is to be given of any such practice obtaining in those times, neither from the Old nor New Testament; nor from the apocryphal books written by Jews between them; nor from Josephus and Philo the Jew, who wrote a little after the times of John and Christ; nor from the Jewish Misnah, or book of traditions: only from later writings of theirs, too late for the proof of it before those times. John was the first administrator of the ordinance of baptism, and therefore is called the Baptist, Matt. iii. 1, by way of emphasis; whereas, had it been in common use, there must have been many baptizers before him, who had a like claim to this title; and why should the people be so alarmed with it, as to come from all parts to see it administered, and to hear it preached, when, had it been in frequent use, they must have often seen it? and why should the Jewish sanhedrim send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, to know who he was, whether the Messiah, or his forerunner Elias, or that prophet spoken of and expected? and when he confessed, and denied that he was either of them, they say to him, Why baptizest thou then? by which it appears it was a new thing, and which they expected when the Messiah came, b See the Dissertation concerning the Baptism of Jewish Proselytes, at the end of this work.