except according to the reftric- | oufly confider, that this gofpel, ations of the gospel. Again, bove all other things, renders it evident, that fuch an hope is in vain ! MİKROS.. FOR THE CONNECTICUT EVAN- THE 9-11. I wrote unto ny with fornicators. Yet not al6 together with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, C or extortioners, or with idola6 ters; for then muft ye needs go out of the world. But now have I 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 fuch an one, no 'not to eat." 6. The law did not say that no mercy fhould be exercised towards tranfgreffors: But the gospel fays explicitly, that no mercy shall be extended to any, except according to the limitations it contains; no, not in any future period; but that all others fhall go away into ever-you in an epiftle, not to compa Jafting fire, and fhall be utterly destroyed. Thefe, and numerous declarations of the like import af fure us, in a way which engages the truth of God, that there will be no further exercife of grace. The threatnings of the gospel are therefore effentially different from the penalties of the law. So that the confideration, that God does in a fpecial cafe, carefully defcribed and limited, difpenfe with the penalties of the law, in confideration of the atonement of Chrift, does not give any ground of uncertainty, whether he will alfo dif-ly penfe with the threatnings of the gofpel, which are pofitive affertions, that the penalties of the law fhall not be remitted, beyond the limits expreffed in the gospel. The threatnings of the gospel are nothing more nor leís, than the exprefs declarations of God, in addition to the penalties of the law, that he will not difpenfe with thofe penalties, in favor of any, who live and die in unbelief, with an additional penalty against finners, who have the light of the gospel, for unbelief itself. And fo, inftead of opening a door of hope for fuch as die in unbelief, they are defigned to make it evident, that their cafe is altogether defperate. All agree that, if a member of the Chriftian church become open immoral, he is to be calt out. But all are not agreed refpecting the treatment, which is to be given him, after the fentence of excommunication is paffed. Some fuppofe that Chriftians are here forbidden to eat with him at common meals; others, only at the Lord's table. The following observations are offered in fupport of the opinion, that Chriftians are forbidden to eat, even at a common table, with a perfon, who is excommunicated from the church, viz. 1. The terms, in which the prohibition is expreffed, naturally lead us to fuppofe that, when the apoftle fays, with fuch an one, no not to eat, he meant, at a common meal. In the eighth verfe, the apostle fpeaks of the facramental fupper; and there makes use of a term, which he appropriates to this gof pel feaft; but which cannot be ap O that all fuch as cherish a fecret hope, that God will fhew them mercy, though they die in unbelief, because he has provided the gofpel falvation for those who were condemned by the law, would feri-plied to eating, at a common nieal. eat, expreffes the prohibition by a term, which as certainly comprehends eating together at common meals, as, at the Lord's table; it appears unquestionable, that, eating at a common table, with a perfon excommunicated from a church, is as much, as ftrictly, and as literally forbidden, as eating with fuch an one at the table of the Lord. Nor can the reverse be made appear, unless evidence can be produced, (which it is prefumed never can be,) that the term, in which the prohi When he fays, "Therefore let us keep the feast," he maks ufe of a verb, which he evidently appropriates to the facramental feaft; and, which cannot be ufed, with propri. ety, to fignify any other eating, but that at a feat. When he fays, in the eleventh verfe, with fuch an one, no not to eat," he varies the term from that of feafling, to one, which is expreffive fimply of eat ing together; and, which conveys no idea whatever of keeping a feaft. But, when the Apoftle fays, with fuch an one, no not to cat, had hebition is expreffed, exclufively fig. meant the fame eating together, which he had, just before, expreffed by keeping the feaft; it cannot be accounted for, that he should vary the expreffion to one, which contains in it no idea of a feaft; nor, any thing more, than that of two, or more perfons eating together at a common table. It is true, that keeping the feaft, is eating together but it is equally true, that the word made use of, where the Apoftle fays, with fuch an one, no not to eat, naturally conveys no further idea than fimply that of two, or more perfons eating together. When the Apoftle is exprefsly treating on the subject of Chriftians communing together at the Lord's table, and makes ufe of a word, which he appropriates to the facramental action, and which neceffarily conveys the idea of keeping a feaft; had his object been merely to forbid Chriftians to fit down at the Lord's table, and keep the gofpel feaft, with a perfon excommunicated from the church, it can hardly be conceived that he should drop the term, which he had before appropriated; and, adopt another in its ftead, which conveys no idea of feafting, but fignifies fimply eating together. Seeing the Apoftle, when he fays, with fuch an one, no not to nifies eating together at the Lord's table; or, that the Apostle's argument neceffarily requires fo limited a construction. 2. It appears that the Apoftle is here giving fome new and additional directions, beyond what were already contained in the epiftle, of which he here speaks. He fays, "I wrote unto you in the (it fhould be rendered) epiftle, not to company with fornicators." He confidered himself as already having given directions, to the Corinthian church, to feparate themselves from that focial intercourfe and familiarity with the openly wicked and profane, which all would fuppofe was proper and commendable among Chriftian brethren. Nevertheless, as Chriflians are mixed and united in the fame civil fociety with others, there is a certain degree of companying with them, to which they are neceffarily compelled by their fituation; and, which cannot be avoided without going out of the world. | This companying, therefore, with the fornicators of the world, the covetous, the extortioners, &c. is not forbidden to Chriftians. And, as this conpanying and intercourfe cannot be avoided without going out of the world, it is manifeft that the Apostle did not mean to include, in it, communion at the Lord's table :-For he well knew that fuch companying and communion with the openly wicked, might, well enough, be avoided, by Chriftians, without their leaving the world. And, as this gospel was written, many years before the epistle to the Corinthians, we have abund. ant reafon to conclude that it was already in their hands. But 3. It hence appears that there is a certain degree of companying with the fornicators, &c. of the world, which is not forbidden to Chriftians; which is nevertheless, unadmisible with a brother, who becomes openly vicious. If this be not the cafe, it is manifeft that the Apostle gives no direction, refpecting the treatment to be given fuch an one, but what was contain. ed in the direction already given not to company with fornicators. that companying with the fornicators of the world, which is allowable, is not eating with them at the Lord's table: For this may be avoided, by Chriftians, without their going out of the world. If, then, a lefs degree of companying with a brother, who becomes openly vicious, is permitted to Chriftians; and this difference, with refpect to companying, confift in not eating with the brother; it is plain that the eating with a brother, which is prohibited, muft be at common meals. For this reafon, we may naturally fuppofe, it was, that the Apoftle, when he forbade eating with a brother, &c. made ufe of a very different term, from that in which he had, juft before, fpoken of Chriftians partaking together of the facramental fupper; and this, fuch an one as imports nothing more than fimply eating togeth But he has ftill farther directions to give, respecting feparating from a brother, who is a fornicator, covetous, &c. than were included in what he had already written to them against companying with other wicked men. The manner of expreffion would naturally imply this. "I wrote unto you in the epiftle, not to company.-But now I have written to you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, ' &c. with fuch an one, no not to • eat.' If Chriftians were not to company with fornicators, they would know, well enough, that they were not to admit them, with them, at the Lord's table :-A prohibition of the lefs, neceffarily including that of the greater. And if the Corinthian Chriftians confidered, even a lower degree of companying with the wicked of the world, than communing with them at the Lord's table, to be unlawful; they, certainly, needed no new precept, or direction, to convince them that, fhould one of their own members abjure his Chriftian profeffion and character, it would be unfuitable for them to admit him to that highest act of Chriftian communion, fitting down with them at the table of the Lord. So much as this might naturally beer. concluded, without any new and Special direction. So much at least might naturally be inferred, from our Saviour's own words, in the xviiith of Matthew, where he gave particular directions, how an offending brother was to be treated, if he refused to hear the church. The word in the original, by which the prohibition under confideration is expreffed, is funefthiein, which fignifies nothing more than eating with fame one. But all will acknowledge that Chriftians may, (funefthiein,) eat with one, who has made no profeffion of chriftianity: And yet (funefthiein) to eat &c. One, being named a brother, may yet become a perfon of an immoral character: And the direction is plain, how the brethren of a church are, in that cafe, to treat him-with fuch an one they are not to eat. But to fuppofe the Apof tle's object was, only to prohibit a Chritian church, the liberty of keeping the gospel feaft together, after one of its members is charged with a fault, left they foould com with a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, is frialy forbidden.And it is worthy of obfervation, this conftruction of eating with, and this only, comports with the Apoftle's general argument, the object of which is, to show that the company of an excommunicated perfon is to be more avoided, than that of those wicked people, who never made a profeffion of chrif-mune with a guilty perfon, is, to tianity. To all this, however, it is objected, that " a perfon, after ex'communication, does not sustain the character, or relation of a 'brother And, therefore, that, in the paffage before us, it is not to be fuppofed that the Apostle gives any direction whatever, reIpecting the manner, in which Christians are to treat one, who ' is caft out of the church :-And, 'confequently, that the brethren of a church are only forbidden to keep the feaft with a brother, 'who is charged with a fault, un'til they have examined the charge, ' and acted upon it as the case shall ' require." To this objection it may be replied, 1. That had it, in fact, been the defign of the Apoítle, to give directions to the church, how to treat one, who is now a brother, in cafe he should violate the laws of his holy profeffion, and be caft out; it would be no more than natural to fuppofe, that he would have expreffed himself in the very words, which he makes ufe of in the paffage before us. When he fpeaks of one that is called a brother, it is obfervable that, to exprefs the idea, he makes ufe of a participle of the paffive. The phrafe, literally rendered, is if any one being named a brother, be a fornicator, fay no more, a fuppofition without the leaft folid foundation. 2. But if we reflect that excom. munication is a mean, divinely inftituted, for the recovery of an offending brother, as much and as really as any of the steps, which are previously to be taken with him; this will give additional strength to the argument, which supposes that the Apoftle is here giving directions, to Chriftians, how they are to conduct themselves towards one, who is rejected from the church. He had, just before, informed the Corinthian Chriftians, that a great object, which they were to have in view, in cafting out an offender, was his recovery from his fall :He directs to deliver fuch an one to Satan for the deftrudion of the flesh, that the spirit may be faved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Nothing, therefore, can be more natural than to fuppofe, that particular directions fhould be given to the church, how to treat a rejected member, in order that this laft flep, which they could take with him, for his recovery, might, through the bleffing of God, become effectual. And if this be the end, for which an offending brother is to be excommunicated from a Chriftian church; it evidently appears to be a matter of very great importance, that Chriftians fhould know in what manner they are to con duct themselves towards him: In- | parchments might contain fome docafmuch as his recovery is to de- uments, or be a deed or diploms pend; under God, upon the treat- of fome confequence to the matment which he receives from the ter in question. But as to the church, from which he is rejected. cloke, there is fomething more parAnd as fuch an one is in another, ticular. In the original the word is and a very different predicament, Phelones or Phailones, which is unfrom one who never made a profef-doubtedly a corruption from Phaifion of christianity; and, his of-noles, and it is fo read in fome anfences are much more heinous, than cient manuscripts. This word was thofe of the fornicators of this probably grecifed from the Roman world; reason, and the circum-word Panula. This is no more ftances of the cafe, all concur to than was done frequently in other evince the propriety, of his being languages and in other countries. treated in a different manner from When the Roman ftate degeneratthofe, who always appeared to be ed into an abfolute monarchy, maof the world. With the latter, ny citizens laid afide the Toga and Chriftians are not to company in wore the Panula, or the Lacerna keeping the feaft: but with the for- in its ftead. Auguftus highly dif mer, they are forbidden to eat. approved of this change in their drefs. As the Panula was fo fpecifically a Roman garment, St. Paul might wifh, as a flight confirmation of his point, to fhow what was his customary drefs. It may be further remarked that the Panula was a vestment which the Romans generally wore upon a journey; therefore the apostle fays that be left it behind him at Troas. This is only written as a merely literary remark to hint, that in the minuteft paffages of fcripture there may be fome meaning; and that nothing can be fo contemptible as a foolith and profane ridicule, on any paffage in the facred writings, founded on ignorance. There is no paffage in the Hebrew or Greek fcriptures which will not admit of fuch an illuftration or explanation, either philologically or critically, as may put to filence the gnorance of foolish men." If thefe be the means, which the head of the church has inftituted for the recovery of an offender; it must be an inftance of manifeft unfaithfulnefs to Chrift, and alfo of great unkindness to one who is rejected from the church, for Chriftians to company with him even fo much as to eat. FOR THE CONNECTICUT EVAN- 2 Timothy iv. 13. "The cloke that I left at Troas, bring with thee, and the books, but efpecially the parchments." The following remarks on the above paffage are extracted from a note in The Purfuits of Literature. "THIS epiftle was written from Rome when Paul was brought before Nero the fecond time. In the 224 chapter of the Acts, Paul was tenacious of the privilege of Roman citizenship, and it proved of much advantage to him before the Centurion. It may be matter of probable conjecture, that he might be required to prove himfelf a citizen of Rome, when he was to make his defence. The |
