2.6.

ii. iii. is alfo brought forward to fhew, that in the first churches there was a mixed communion. There were indeed many evils in these churches, but of what kind? In Ephefus they had left their first love, Rev. iii. 4. Their fervour and zeal were abated, but there is no evidence of a mixed communion there of faints and ungodly men. On the contrary, they are commended for exercifing difcipline in trying and rejecting false apostles, and for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitans, ver. The church at Smyrna is not blamed. That in Pergamos is commended for holding fast Christ's name, and not denying his faith; and the only thing for which they are reproved and threatened is the neglect of difcipline, in not putting away thofe who held false doctrine, ver. 13, 14, 15. The church at Thyatira is much commended, and is reproved only for fuffering a woman to feduce Chrift's fervants, ver. 20. The church at Sardis was in a backfliding ftate, Rev. iv. 1,-6. They had a name to live while they were dead. They had loft the life and power of religion. They are exhorted to be watchful, and to ftrengthen the things which remain which are ready to die, for, fays the Lord, I have not found thy works perfect before God. They are called to remember how they had received and heard. The Lord had already, by his apoftles, delivered his laws to his church, and the neglect of these had probably

have been improper characters in the church of Sardis, but this does not neceffarily follow from our Lord's words*. Do good men never need to be called to repentance? It is highly probable that the decay of religion had produced inattention to difcipline; but are we to judge of the ftate of the apoftolic churches, by the practice of one fo feverely condemned by the Lord? Or do any fuppofe, that because all Chriftians are bound to follow the practice of the churches recorded in the Scriptures with approbation, that therefore they have a right to imitate thofe who were guilty of manifold but cenfured abufes? Do not the examples they plead aggravate their guilt, as they are always mentioned in connection with the Lord's disapprobation of their conduct? As individuais, we are bound to be followers of those

* Our Lord mentions, that there were a few names in Sardis who had not defiled their garments, and who should walk with him in white, but he gives them no commandment to leave the church; and hence fome infer, that Chriftians are not bound to feparate from worldly focieties, called churches. But the cafes are completely different. Many things were indeed reprehenfible in the church at Sardis, but it no where appears that its constitution was changed. This was no doubt still the fame with that of the other apoftolic churches, and hence there was no neceffity for calling any to separate from it; but if the church had begun to walk disorderly, and contrary to the tradition received from the apostles, all the difciples of Jesus would have been, and were called, by the authority of God, to separate from it. See Theff. iii. 6. Had they neglected the admonition given them by Jefus, Rev. iii. those who valued his authority muft have turned away from them, as having merely a form of godli

who through faith and patience inherit the promises; but shall we presume to vindicate adultery or murder, because a very eminent servant of God was guilty of these? or fhall we not rather take warning from such paffages of scripture, and avoid the rocks on which others have split? 1 Cor. x. 6.

Philadelphia is commended, and exhorted to ftedfaftness. Laodicea is condemned as lukewarm, and threatened with rejection, Rev. iv. 15. &c.; but we have no hint of a mixed communion. A believer may fall into a state similar to that of this church, and if he does not repent he shall perish; but by the warnings and threatenings of the word of God, his people are recovered, while others, after all their profeffion, draw back to perdition; and we cannot tell but in their cafe the Lord's threatening may have produced their recovery. The Lord concludes his exhortation with words calculated to prevent them from being swallowed up of overmuch forrow: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chaften.”—Thus it appears, that so far from the addreffes to these churches countenancing mixed communion, the churches were reproved and threatened when they permitted improper perfons to remain amongst them.

Another argument has been founded on our Lord's conduct to Judas. It has been said, that he was not removed from the table, but permit

ciples, when this ordinance was inftituted. Hence it is inferred, that we may fit down at his table with ungodly people, whom we know to be fuch. But we have reason to believe that Judas was not prefent. John informs us that he went out immediately on receiving the fop, xiii. 30. Now, as this could take place only at the paffover, he could not be present at the Lord's fupper which followed it. Luke differs from the other evangelifts in the order in which he relates thefe events. Nor is this uncommon. But admitting for a moment that he was present: Judas was unknown to any but to the Lord. His character was not even suspected. When the Lord faid to the difciples, one of you fhall betray me, each of them answered, “Lord, is it I?" It is not maintained, that those who make a credible profeffion of religion fhould be excluded, nor that hypocrites may not obtain admiffion into the beft regulated churches. But what would our objectors infer from Judas being prefent at the Lord's fupper? If they conclude that fuch perfons ought not to be put away from the fellowship of Chriftians, it will follow, that murderers, and characters the moft abominable, (for we fhall not find a worse than his), ought to be admitted, and continued among them. Thus they not only fet afide the order of Chrift's houfe, but condemn their own practice in profeffing to exercife any degree of discipline whatever.

is also adduced as a proof that we ought not so to difcriminate. This proceeds on a mistake. Our Lord has told us that the field is the world, ver. 38. not the church. But the view of the parable taken by fome would prove too much, viz. that we ought not to put away any wicked perfon from a church of Chrift, 1 Cor. v. 11. but to let both the righteous and the wicked grow there together until the harvest. I know not that any fociety, calling itfelf a church, profeffes to carry matters fo far. This confequence, however, cannot be avoided, if the parable was defigned to countenance a mixed communion of Chriftians and unbelievers. In that cafe, we must admit an exprefs contradiction in the New Teftament. But the intention of the parable was at once to teach the disciples of Jefus, that he permits no perfecution for religion, and to fhew them the reason of his sparing wicked men in the world.

In the kingdom of Israel, the sword was to be used against idolaters, &c. (read Deut. xiii. 6,-17.) but now this is at an end. Vengeance belongs to God, and although he has delegated power to magistrates to use the sword for the preservation of order in civil society, he has given to none the power of punishing men for unbelief and false religion.

Besides, we are informed by Jefus that an enemy had fown the tares. Surely this ought to make every one of his profeffed disciples (who apply the parable to church members) tremble at the