THE Christian religion is a religion of love; love even to enemies; yet the genuine effect of it has been so little experienced by many of its professors, that it has often been a pretence for the most severe censures, and cruel persecutions. In the course of Di­vine Providence, this asperity is worn off in some degree; yet that this benign dispensation of heaven is not yet fully understood, the excommunications still practised by divers churches, clearly demonstrate. The most able and re­gular treatise upon the subject of church authority, and excommunication, is a treatise by Robert Barclay, in­titled, ‘The Anarchy of the Ranters and other Liber­tines; the Hierarchy of the Romanist, and other pre­tended Churches, equally refused, and refuted, in a two-fold apology for the Church and People of God, called in derision Quakers,’ &c.

The publication intitled as above, is ingeniously writ­ten, as are all the works of that pious Author; yet the writer of this, being firmly persuaded that Barclay hath erred, conceives it his business to show wherein.

The principle laid down by him, and upon which his system of church-discipline is founded, is, that the people called Quakers were, in his day, the pure and only Church of Christ; that there should be order in the church, and that excommunication is a part of this order, and ordained by Christ. The people called Quakers, in the present day, hold the same doctrine, and Barclay is esteemed unanswerable. I shall, in the first place, show what the Church of Christ is; in doing this, it will ap­pear [Page 6] that the people called Quakers are not the Church of Christ as described by Barclay; and therefore have not those powers given by Christ to his Church. And, last­ly, that were they the Church of Christ, they could not excommunicate; because Christ hath expressly forbid­den it.

First, the members of Christ's body, are those who are engrafted on him the vine. "I am the vine," saith he, "ye are the branches, he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit, for without me ye can do nothing." The Church of Christ, therefore, includes all those, whoever they are, that by love to Christ are so united to him, as branches are united to the vine; such receive from him that spirit which sanctifieth them, and leadeth them into all truth. This is agreeable to Barclay, see page 84, London edition. ‘None truly ought, nor can be accounted the Church of Christ, but such as are in a measure sanctified, or sanctifying by the grace of God, and led by his Spirit, nor yet any made officers in the church but by the grace of God, and inward revelation of his Spirit." And fur­ther, page 29. "The church is such as are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.’ Now, as no one is a member, much less an officer in the Church of Christ, but those who are thus sanctified, or sanctifying, called to be saints, agreeable to Barclay; and as all who are under this operation, are members of his church, let them belong to whatever society they may; so those righteous persons, collectively, constitute the church over which Christ is head. It will not be controverted, I trust, but that there are pious persons among all other societies. If there are, to whom do they belong? Do the people called Quakers constitute the body of Christ complete in all its parts? and are the pious of other societies merely superfluous members of his body? or do they not apper­tain thereto? The pious of other societies must have the same relationship to Christ, which the pious among the Quakers have; and therefore the pious among each so­ciety constitute the church of Christ in the same sense as the pious among the Quakers constitute his church; and as all societies are made up of those who are virtuous, [Page 7] and those who are not; so neither of them are the church of Christ in contradistinction to all the rest: Upon the whole, then, this truth follows, a truth comfortable to every Catholic mind, that the church of Christ is made up of the righteous of every denomination.

The people called Quakers, are, like other societies, com­posed of persons who are religious and irreligious. Now, the irreligious, tho' not members of Christ's body, are never­theless intitled to membership in this church; it there­fore follows, they are not the pure church of Christ.

A man has a right of membership among the people called Quakers, by being born of believing parents; so that it is rather accidental that many are Quakers: had their parents been of any other persuasion, they them­selves might have been of another society. Now, mem­bership in the church of Christ cannot be by accident, nor lineal descent: it were unreasonable to suppose so extraordinary a privilege depended upon those circum­stances; and, therefore, the people called Quakers can­not be the Church of Christ, in that sense of the word for which Barclay contends.

Christ cannot have a regard for one part of mankind in preference to the rest—he must view them with equal love; it is then far from Catholic in any society, to sup­pose they are his church, distinguished from the rest of Christendom.

The terms of union among the people called Quakers consist very much in things which may be strictly com­plied with, by corrupt men, and which may yet be vio­lated by the virtuous: It is not so in the church of Christ.

Again. Christ gave his life for his church, that he might sanctify it, and cleanse it with the washing of wa­ter, by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Can this be applicable to the people called Quakers, or to any distinct society whatever? Did Christ give his life for them alone? The truth is, that no one church or society can appropriate this sacred character to themselves: it [Page 8] belongeth only to the righteous of all societies, who joint­ly constitute the church over which Christ is head.

What those persons meant, who, as Barclay says, de­ny any such thing as a Church of Christ, I cannot tell. Barclay has not quoted their expressions, nor explained their meaning. If they meant that there was no society of Christians that could with propriety call themselves the Church of Christ, in contradistinction to all the rest, they were right. Barclay has asserted, that all churches are fallen, and only pretended churches, excepting the one of which he himself was a member. Now, if it can be proved, as I trust it will be in the sequel, that this Church (supposing the people called Quakers in the pre­sent day to be the same Church) is not the chaste spouse of Christ, but is a mixed multitude, composed of persons of various descriptions, as other churches are,—it will then follows, upon Barclay's own principles, that Christ hath not a distinct and visible church on earth.

Barclay, in explaining what is, or may be properly un­derstood by the church, says, ‘Some were afraid of the church, the power of the church, the order of the church, the judgment of the church, and such-like pretences; because, saith he, these have been the wea­pons wherewith Antichrist, and the apostate christians, have been these many generations persecuting the wo­man, and warring against the man-child. And in­deed great disputes have been among the Rabbies in the apostacy concerning this church; what it is, or what may be so accounted, which I find not my place to dive much into; but shall only give the true sense of it, according to truth, and the scriptures plain testi­mony.’ Barclay here refers to a church which for many generations had been invisible; to explain which he found not his place to dive much into; but only to give, he says, the true sense of it, according to truth, and the scrip­tures plain testimony. Now, to give the true sense of this subject, according to truth, and the scriptures plain testimony, is certainly diving into it; yet he has waved it altogether, and proceeds to give an explanation of the word church—‘That it is a gathering of certain people together, in the belief of the same principles.’ He [Page 9] then goes on to distinguish between that church, gather­ing, or assembly of people, whereof Christ truly is the head, from such as pretend falsely thereto. "Foras­much," saith he, ‘as sanctification and holiness is the great and chief end among Christians, which moves them to gather together, therefore the apostle Paul defines the church in his salutation to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 1.2. Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be saints.’ This is a proper explanation of the Church of Christ, and it is much to be desired that all churches or societies in Christendom were such; but what pretensions have the people called Quakers, more than other societies, to this distinguishing character, of saints, and sanctified? wherein do they demonstrate this? are their affections weaned from the world, and more placed upon things that are above? have they more di­vine benevolence, and philanthropy, and do they follow more perfectly, than others, the great example of Christ? No doubt but divers among this people, as well as Bar­clay, will answer in the affirmative, and roundly condemn all others; and we should find some among all societies asserting the same of themselves, and as confidently con­demning their neighbours; but what would an impartial being say? An impartial being would say, that no one church, or society, is the pure Church of Christ; that they are all fallen, and therefore none of them have those powers, and that authority which was vested in the primitive church, and which we hope the church will again possess, when she shall be brought out of the wil­derness, leaning upon the breast of her beloved: and for any church in the present day, to pretend to those pow­ers, is presumption. Were an individual, solely led by the spirit of Christ, and vested with miraculous powers, he would make no high pretensions to extraordinary endowments; and the authority that he was clothed with, would make itself manifest, without any pains of the creature to set it off; and its authority would be, altoge­ther, of the benevolent, and god-like kind; it would be that of opening the eyes of the blind, unstopping the ears of the deaf, healing the sick, raising the dead, and [Page 10] preaching the everlasting gospel to the poor. And wherever there are extraordinary pretensions to sanctity, not accompanied with extraordinary love, and benevo­lence to mankind, we may be assured they are preten­sions only. So great a degree of modesty always accom­panies real sanctity, that the possessor can never sound forth his own fame. The sanctified in Christ Jesus re­member the rock from which they were hewn, and the pit from whence they were digged: They do not forget when they were upon the brink of the pit of destruction, and that it was of the Lord's mercy they were rescued, and that it is by the guardian angel of his presence they are preserved and enabled to sing upon the banks of de­liverance. A remembrance of the Lord's gracious deal­ings with them, keeps them in his fear, and from every thing that looks like boasting. This is the disposition of all who are sanctified; and as Christ's Church is made up of those individuals, so is she his chaste and humble bride. If any one society in Christendom was wholly composed of such members, that society would be as a city set on an hill, which could not be hid: there would be light, and love, and good works, accompanied with the greatest humiliation and modesty; the possession of the pearl of mighty price, the real riches of eternity, being a gift of God, is accompanied with the deepest humiliation.

The writer of this would be sorry to asperse an indivi­dual, much less a whole society: he knows the Friends are respectable; that there are many among them who are eminently virtuous; yet having shewn, he conceives, they are not the Church of Christ, according to Bar­clay's definition of the church, it follows they have not those powers given by our Lord to his Church, which some may think they possess; that what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven, and what they loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven, and to gainsay the whole flock draws after it a far deeper judgement, than if a millstone was hanged about the offender's neck, and he was drowned in the depth of the sea. In this respect the society of Friends are as weak as any other society. ‘God hath not through them restored the golden age," as saith Bar­clay, [Page 11] "and bringing them into the holy order and go­vernment of his own son, who is ruling and to rule in the midst of them, setting forth counsellors as at the beginning and judges as at first, and establishing truth, mercy, righteousness and judgment again in the earth:" Neither have they "power in cases of faith and conscience, to give a positive sentence and decision, which may be obligatory upon believers, or such as are of their society, under pain of being bound on Earth, and bound in Heaven, and lying under a far deeper judgment, than if a millstone was hanged about the offender's neck, and he drowned in the depth of the sea.’ Anarchy of the Ranters, page 14, 41, and 47.

As all the arguments of Barclay, on the power and authority of the Church, apply only to the true Church of Christ, or powers possessed by the primitive Christi­ans; and as it has been shown, that the people called Quakers are not the sanctified church or spouse of Christ, it follows they have not those powers; neither hath any other society in Christendom, and it is the height of pre­sumption in any to assume them in the present day.

When Christ, the head of the Church, shall be pleased to restore the golden age, bring his Church out of the wilderness; and give her counsellors as at the beginning, and judges as at the first, and establish truth, mercy, righteousness and judgment again in the earth; then will order be restored; for God is a God of order; but what will be the rules and regulations, in this renovated state of things, is not for us to determine: they will be ac­cording to the mind of Christ, altogether benevolent, and worthy of him the great law-giver.

It has been generally taken for granted, that excom­munication is a prerogative of the Church of Christ; all churches who exercise it, do it upon this principle. The design of this essay is to show that Christ hath not au­thorised it. Barclay, to prove his position, quotes the following expressions of our Lord: ‘Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go 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 [Page 12] 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 the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and publican; verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. From which scripture," saith he, "it doth manifestly, and evidently follow, First, that Jesus Christ intended there should be a certain method and order in his church, in the proceeding towards such a transgress. Secondly, that he that refuseth to hear two, is become more guilty than hardened in refusing to hear him that first reproved alone. Thirdly, that refusing to hear the judgment of the church, or whole assembly, he doth thereby exclude himself, and shut out himself, from being a member, and is justly judged by his brethren as a heathen and publican.’

That there should be order and method in the church is granted, but what that order and method should be, is the question. The propriety of excommunicating is de­nied; there being no warrant for it from the text, as will appear upon examination. ‘If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go tell him his fault between thee and him alone." Here is a personal injury done by a brother. "If he refuses to hear thee, take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he 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 publican.’ The plain sense of the text is, that although he be thy brother who has done thee this injury, yet refusing to hear thee, and your friends, and the church, he shews by his injustice, that the state of his mind is that of an heathen man and publican.—Here is no excommunication in the case. Jesus does not say, let him then be cast out of the church. It will be said, that it is implied, because heathen men and publicans do not belong to the Church of Christ; but it shall be shewn, that excommunication is contrary [Page 13] to the first great principle of Christianity, and by Jesus expressly forbidden; and therefore could not have been the meaning of our Lord. This man, although he may remain within the pale of the church, is necessarily ex­cluded membership from the mystical body of Christ; he is to be considered in the state of an heathen man and publican. Now, what is the business of the church with heathens and publicans? Is it not to inform their under­standings, and to convert them to the Christian faith? So that, instead of casting the man out, and having nothing further to do with him, the church has a great and an important work before it; it is to open and manifest the grounds and reasons of the Christian faith; to shew this man, that although he has been a professor of Christ, he is yet unacquainted with the first rudiments of the gospel. All this is to be done, and whatever more which in divine wisdom may be manifested as proper. And for the encou­ragement of the disciples, Jesus assures them that this labour of their's in this important work shall be approved in heaven; whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, is bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth is loosed in heaven. This is evidently the doctrine from the text, and context, as will clearly appear if it be taken together. That which is recommended by our Lord to his disciples, corresponds with his own great work and labour of love. He introduced what he said respecting the brother who trespassed, as follows: ‘The son of man is come to save that which was lost. How think ye, if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountain and seeketh that which is gone astray, and if so be, that he find it, verily I say unto you, he re­joiceth more over that sheep than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so, it is not the will of your father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Jesus then adds to the fore­going, "moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, tell him his fault between thee and him alone,’ and so directs, how this trespassing brother is to be dealt with, in order to be reclaimed: to restore the lost sheep is the object in view. And can it be supposed, that he [Page 14] who came to seek and to save that which is lost, and gave his life for this purpose, would direct, that any person whatever should be placed in such a situation as to be de­prived of the blessing of the church? But it may be said, the man refuses that help which is offered by the church, and is as an heathen man and publican. Why not then set him aside? To which I reply: Because Jesus hath expressly forbidden it, as will be further shewn in the sequel. Jesus knows it is impossible for men to make such a discrimination, as that the righteous shall make up a distinct society from the rest of mankind. He who knows what lodges in men, has with infinite wisdom warned his followers against the attempt: he could have expelled Judas from the company of his followers; but as an example of compassion, and a lesson to future ge­nerations, suffered him to remain with them, until the last solemn supper. The salvation of men being of infinite importance; what situation can a man be placed in, so favourable to him in this respect as within the pale of the church? If he be cast out, whither is he to go? If he may be reformed as well out of the pale, as within, then indeed his being within is but of little consequence; but if it operates as an injury, or is less favourable to him, it is wrong to set him aside. The truth is, it is not proper for us to say, when men may, or may not be re­formed, nor should we do any thing which might operate to the discouragement of a person, in a matter of so much importance to him as his reformation. Times and seasons in this respect, are neither in the power of those who wish the man's good, nor in the man himself: the Lord's gracious visitation is the time in which alone he can be reformed. This he will meet with either sooner or later, and if he then be obedient to the gracious call, he shall be sanctified.

That our Lord hath expressly forbidden excommuni­cation, is plain from the following parable. ‘The king­dom of heaven," says he, "is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way; but when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the [Page 15] tares also; so the servants of the household came and said unto him, sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? he said unto them, an enemy hath done this: the servants said un­to him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? but he said nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them: let both grow to­gether until the harvest, and the time of harvest. I will say to the reapers gather ye together, first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ And when his dis­ciples requested an explanation of the parable, Jesus said unto them, ‘he that soweth the good seed is the son of man, the field is the world, the good seed is the chil­dren of the kingdom, but the tares are the children of the wicked one, the enemy that sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels; as therefore the tares are ga­thered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of the world. The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things which offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire, there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their father.’ Jesus concluded this explanation very remarkably, "who hath ears to hear let him hear." Happy had it been for the professors of Christianity, if their ears had been open to hear the gracious word of their master. Has not every church in Christendom dis­regarded the doctrine contained in the parable? The tares in their opinion must be separated from the wheat; but in this attempt, have not all churches uniformly done as Jesus said there would be a danger of doing? ‘The servants said unto him, wilt thou then that we go and gather them up:" meaning the tares? "but he said nay, lest while ye gather up the tares, yet root up also the wheat with them?’ What mischief has the Roman church made in this attempt, much precious grain has been destroyed, under a pretence, or from an appre­hension they were tares. Many virtuous men have been [Page 16] excommunicated by that church; and most, if not all other churches, have done the same; excommunications are not confined to immoralities only; but men are dis­owned for their sentiments also, and even the people called Quakers have expelled men from them for that which was highly meritorious. As a proof of this, I may instance Ralph Sandiford, and Benjamin Lay, who were disowned for their testimony against keeping Ne­groes in bondage.

It is impossible, by any literal rule, to separate the tares from the wheat: this can never be done, until the son of man shall send forth his angels, and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who do ini­quity. It may be queried of me, wouldst thou then suffer immoralities of every kind to remain in the church, and go unrebuked? No: Rebuke, exhort, testify against all evil, from time to time, as thou mayest be enabled. But what if sinners stiffen their necks, and harden their hearts, are they still to remain in the church? It is not in the wisdom of man to separate the virtuous from the vicious. But may not divine wisdom direct us to make such rules as will keep the church clean? This hath never yet been done. Divine wisdom, foreseeing the evils that would ensue in the attempt, hath forbidden it. How is it possible a line can be drawn, or any rule made, so as that all virtuous characters shall constitute a distinct society? We will suppose, for example, that a good moral character shall be the test to entitle to member­ship in society; but how shall we establish a criterion to determine this good moral character? A man may not steal, or be guilty of a manifest act of injustice, yet so close, artful, and hard in his dealings, as in the sight of heaven shall amount to the same thing: a man may be covetous, over-reach his neighbour, and grind the face of the poor, and no rule can lay hold on him. Then, covetousness, which is as the sin of idolatry, remains in the church. Further, we will say a drunkard shall be disowned; but may there not be so great a degree of sensuality, as to be equally criminal with drunkenness, and yet no rule which can lay hold on the man? Again, what is worse than pride? and can a rule be made so as [Page 17] to point it out? May it not remain in the church in de­fiance of all rules? May it not be active in church affairs? May not envying, back-biting, and evil reports prevail, and yet no rule so to discriminate offenders as they can be excluded from membership? Again: may there not be a total lifelessness in religion, a dry and barren state, as far from any thing which is good, and divine, as immo­ral conduct; and yet, as we cannot see the hearts of men, no rule would point out such cases? Those things may and will prevail. Seeing, then, it is impossible, so to cleanse the church, but that there will be as unworthy characters within the pale as without; and when no good can be done by disowning; but, on the contrary, many individuals and families made extremely unhappy by it, is it not then better to let it alone?

The following query, is often read in the meeting. Is tale-bearing, back-biting, and evil reports discouraged? And yet, administering the rules of the society often spread scandal far and wide. The overseers of the church are spies upon the conduct of the members. (I doubt not they mean well.) Scarce one can pass unnoticed; and when any thing of an immoral nature is heard of, the matter is sifted to the bottom; and if a person is found guilty, his case is taken to the monthly meeting, and laid open before great numbers. Suppose a young woman, seduced by a man, who had gained her affections: She is expo­sed before some hundreds; many of whom are giddy and thoughtless: we see them smiling perhaps in the meeting at her disaster; and when they mingle among their acquain­tance, are repeating the sorrowful tale. The case of this poor creature is called over once a month, until she is pronounced either a penitent, or not so. In either case, she is further exposed: if a penitent, she condemns her conduct, and it is read at a public meeting for worship before some thousands: if she is supposed not penitent, she is publicly cast out of the church. Oh! Jesus, thou compassionate Saviour of men, thou friend of publicans and sinners, is this done in thy name, and by thy autho­rity? Thou, who rescued the poor woman who was taken in adultery, from the hands of the Pharisees; thou who cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalen, and who reveal­ed [Page 18] thyself more clearly and explicitly to the woman at Jacob's well than to many others; thou who swate drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane, and who died upon the cross to save sinners, and whose whole divine process was a mystery of love, which angels desired to look into! are those things done in thy name? Hast thou authorised sinners thus to deal with sinners? Verily, nay. But as has been before observed, it is not for things which are sinful only, but for those which are innocent, that some are disowned. Persons are disowned for marrying those of another society: men may be disowned for pay­ing a tax, or a fine, or for defending that government, by which those very persons, who exercise this authority of excommunication, hold their lives and their property. Persons may be disowned who are virtuous, and yet the vicious escape^*. Can those rules be of divine authority, [Page 19] which operate thus? But was the end attainable, which is aimed at by the discipline, which is that of separating the vicious from the virtuous, it would even then be im­proper, as will be further shewn in the sequel.

Christ came into the world to save sinners: he laid down his life for such. Is it possible, then, to reconcile ex­communication with such love? But saith Barclay, ‘were such a principle to be received, or believed, that in the Church of Christ, no man should be separated from, no man condemned, or excluded from the fellowship and communion of the body, for his judgment or opinion in matters of faith, then what blasphemies so horrid, what heresies so damnable, what doctrine of devils but might harbour itself in the Church of Christ, what need then of sound doctrine, if no doctrine make unsound.’ To this I reply: No man should be so separated from the fellowship and communion of the body, as implies an inconsistency, with that funda­mental of the gospel, viz. Christ laying down his life for the sins of the world. The virtuous cannot have fellowship, or be pleased with the conduct of the vicious, or they would cease to be virtuous; but the virtuous, and the vicious may belong to the same outward society, and assemble together in a place appointed for divine worship, and this may well be supposed without coun­tenancing that which is wicked. It is the case in all socie­ties. And if there should be in the church, even horrid blasphemies, and damnable doctrines of devils, it does not follow, that unless the persons who hold them are disowned, that those evils are countenanced; and there­fore, it is not to the purpose to say, as Barclay has said, what need of sound doctrines, if no doctrine make un­sound? what need of convincing, and exhorting gain­sayers, if to gainsay be no crime? Does this follow, as a necessary consequence, if persons are not excommuni­cated [Page 20] for evils? Is there no alternative between excom­municating and countenancing them? May not all who abhor iniquity bear as strong a testimony against it, if wicked or mistaken men remain within the pale of the church, as if they were turned out? If we were at liberty only to reprove wickedness, may we not detest it as much as if we were obliged to put sinners to death? So that, when I contend against excommunication, and maintain it inconsistent with the gospel, it is not to make light of evils of any kind: There is great need of sound doctrine; and there is none more worthy of atten­tention than that of love to mankind. Let those who are influenced by it, endeavour to convince: let them ex­hort, and testify with great zeal, against all that is wrong: The virtuous must of necessity do it; yet there is a wide difference between that detestation and testimony, which the righteous bear against iniquity, and that testimony against transgressors, which often operates to their injury. To omit disowning, therefore, would not be an inlet, as Barclay asserts it would, ‘to all manner of abominations, and make void the whole tendency of Christ and his apostles' doctrine, and a bidding farewell to all Chris­tianity, or to the maintaining any sound doctrine in the Church of Christ:’ (page 51.) All that can possi­bly be done to prevent those evils, may be done more effectually, without excommunicating the sinner. It is generally the case, after a few months visiting such who act amiss, if there is no appearance of reformation, they are disowned, after which they are lightly esteemed, and neglected; and are in danger of being lost; whereas, were they still members of the society, and favourable oppor­tunities taken with them in brotherly love, many might be restored to virtue.

One argument, urged in favour of disowning, is, that it is necessary for the reputation of the society. To allow wicked persons to remain in the church, it is said, would be a reproach to it. Were sinners suffered to retain a right of membership in society, with a view to countenance that which is evil, it would then be reproachful indeed; but no such thing is contended for. Barclay has taken for granted, that the people called Quakers were the [Page 21] Church of Christ; that Christ's Church is pure, having no spot or blemish or any such thing; therefore, all evil must be condemned, and the sinner, unless he repent, expelled from the church; but, it has and will be fur­ther shewn, that until Christ Jesus shall come again, no such church can exist, and that which is true of the in­visible Church, the bride of Christ only, is assumed by a society of frail and imperfect men.

All mankind are, or were sinners; and, therefore, while so, are not members of Christ's mystical body, or of his pure church; but he came to seek and to save that which is lost, or to initiate them into membership in his church. Now, can putting away be right, when the sole object of Jesus is to save that which is lost? If membership in so­ciety be an advantage, must not disowning be a disad­vantage? Must it not place a man in an unfavourable si­tuation; and is it not strange, that sinners who have been reclaimed, or improved in virtue by means of mem­bership in society, should be zealous for putting others away, and thereby deprive them of those advantages, which they themselves profess to have received? It will be said they are not put away, until they are laboured with, and refuse to be reclaimed; but it is not for us to set limits to the love of Jesus, neither should men set li­mits to their own labours of love: We ought never to give over striving: it is imitating the great example of him who sleepeth not by day, nor slumbereth by night; but is always waiting to be gracious to every son of fallen Adam.

As to the reproach which would fall on the church, from the unrighteous, let it be remembered that Christ Jesus left that society who possess transcendant virtue, and came among sinners. He conversed with Mary Magdalen, with the woman at Jacob's well, with the woman taken in adultery, and was frequently a guest with sinners. And was it not because all men are sinners that he came into the world? If, then, it was no reproach to Jesus, that he accompanied with sinners, it would be no reproach to any society, if bad characters were among them, if those persons were continued in membership with a view to their reformation.

[Page 22]Suppose there were a society of Christians, every member of which was perfect: If it be right to dis­own men because they are imperfect, it could not be right to admit any into membership unless they were perfect; and if men may attain perfection independent­ly of such a society, what advantage could they derive from joining them? as improvement in virtue is that which is proposed by all religious associations.

Imperfect men will constitute a great part of all so­cieties; and if so, how shall we ascertain, what charac­ters to admit, and what to reject? Is there a line so clear­ly visible, as that we can draw it with safety, and say all on one side are of right members, and all on the other side are properly excluded? Attempts have been made by most societies; a line has been drawn; but as injudi­ciously, as if an ingenious geographer should attempt to mark out the boundaries of heaven, and of hell, and the line which separates them. It is granted, there is a perfect distinction between good and evil, yet good and evil are often blended together in the same person; and among virtuous men, some are more eminently so than others; so among bad characters, there are some more depraved than others, and as there are degrees of virtue and vice, so the least among the virtuous must approach so near to the least among the vicious, as that no man can say to which class they belong; and, therefore, Je­sus hath forbidden to discriminate by expulsion from his Church, having reserved it to a future day.

Improvement in piety and virtue, is the object inten­ded by all religious associations. Is it not then highly im­proper to expel men from society, merely because they want that which is aimed at by the association?

A religious society should be a spiritual infirmary, where measures ought to be taken to heal the diseased. Shall we then, if persons appear dangerously ill, turn them out of doors?

It will be objected to the foregoing, that the primitive Church was in the practice of disowning. Barclay has quoted much scripture to prove this, and that the church he was a member of had the same authority. I trust it [Page 23] will appear he was mistaken in both cases. He proceeds, (See Anarchy of the Ranters, page 18, 22, and 49.) ‘1. Corinthians, 5. Chap. 3 and 4 ver. I, indeed, 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, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." And 2d Thessalonians, 3d Chap. 6th ver. "Now we com­mand you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us;" Verse 14th, "and if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed. (Galations 1st Chap. 8 Verse:) But though we or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him be accurs­ed: as we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Again, (1. Tim. 1st chap. 19th and 20th verses) Holding faith and a good conscience, which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck, of whom is Hymenias, and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.’

The foregoing is produced, together with various other texts to prove the propriety of disowning. What the apostle meant by delivering persons over to satan that they may learn not to blaspheme, or the curse denounced upon such as preach any other gospel than that he had preached, is not easy to understand. It is sufficient for us to know what Barclay meant. Now, cursing, or de­livering persons to satan, or assigning them over to fu­ture damnation, or disowning, are all synonimous with him; and it must be so, if his first principles are admit­ted; for if the people called Quakers are Christ's Church on earth, all who are expelled from this church, are ab­solutely excluded membership from Christ's Church in [Page 24] Heaven; because, the same power and spirit rules in both. The people called Quakers profess to be led and guided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit. Upon this principle they call themselves the Church of Christ. If, then, they are led by the Holy Spirit to disown, the persons so dis­owned are in a most fearful situation. Barclay has taken a great deal of pains to prove that the people called Quakers were the Church of Christ: that what they bound on earth, was bound in Heaven, and what they loosed on earth was loosed in Heaven; and that for a man to offend one of those little ones, it were better that a mill-stone hanged about his neck, and he drowned in the depth of the sea, and to gainsay the whole flock, must be more criminal, and draw after it a far deeper judg­ment. Now, what can this deeper judgment mean? Eter­nal damnation upon Barclay's principles. Let me ask the Friends of the present day whether this is what they mean? If they mean this, is it not presumption to pronounce a sentence in the name of the most high, against a man of sober life, which implies he is assigned over to damnation? Here some will exclaim, and say, that no such thing is meant. Those Friends may be told, that excommunica­tion from the Church of Christ, implies an exclusion from the kingdom of Heaven, which Barclay well un­derstood, and has strongly expressed in the treatise now quoted; and if the Friends of the present day do not mean it, I may ask them whether they have not departed from the principle of their forefathers? All churches who have excommunicated, have done it upon this ground, that they were the pure Church of Christ; and excommunication with them meant damnation. The Roman Catholics speak plain, and curse such whom they disown, with a most fearful curse.

If friends do not mean by it an exclusion from the kingdom of heaven, it may be asked what do they mean? It will be replied, we mean to bear our testimony against certain conduct which we disapprove. And might you not bear your testimony against those things without dis­owning for them? There are many things for which men are disowned, which will not be alledged against them, as sinful, by the judge of all the earth; and on the other [Page 25] hand, there are many evils, for which you do not disown which will at the day of judgment, exclude men from admittance among the blessed.

Having remarked as above, I proceed to take some notice of those anathemas of the apostle Paul. It is granted, that on some extraordinary occasions, the apos­tle pronounced a fearful curse. What was the ceremony, on those occasions, we are not told in the text, though some ecclesiastical writers have given their conjectures. It does not appear that those persons were cast out of the church; the incestuous Corinthian, though he was delivered over to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, yet it was, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord. This cen­sure and process, whatever it might have been, was in­tended to be salutary, and so it proved; for the apostle, in his second epistle to the Corinthians, recommended it to them to forgive and comfort this man, lest he should be swallowed up with over-much sorrow. And the Thes­salonians, although commanded in the name of the Lord Jesus, to withdraw from every brother that walked dis­orderly, and to note the man who obeyed not the word of that epistle, to have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet the apostle adds, count him not an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. So that, whatever was done to the man, his salvation was kept in view: they were not to forget he was their brother, and therefore he could not have been excommunicated.

As to the curse pronounced upon those who preached another gospel than that which the apostle preached, it is to be presumed, that such did not wish to associate with the apostles of our Lord, and so going off from them, if they ever belong to the church, there could not be a necessity for an excommunication. If the apostle saw such were in a state of damnation, it was his duty to declare it, as a warning to the believers not to be deceiv­ed by them. This affords no argument for excommuni­cation. With respect to Hymenius, and Alexander, whom the apostle delivered to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme, we must suppose the same was intended as was in the case of the incestuous Corinthian: whether the same salutary effects followed, we are not informed; but that they were not disowned, is evident from the con­text. [Page 26] This Hymenius is probably the same person the apostle has spoken of in his second epistle to Timothy: he has there Philetus for a companion. It appears they were ‘prophane bablers, whose words eat as doth a canker, who concerning the truth had erred, saying the resur­rection is past already, and overthrew the faith of some" Nevertheless," says the apostle, "the foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, the lord knoweth them that are his, and let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." He then adds, But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. It a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto ho­nour, sanctified and meet for the master's use, and pre­pared unto every good work.’ From the foregoing, it is plain, that Hymenius, Alexander and Philetus were not disowned. The great house here spoken of, is no doubt the church; in this house, there are not only ves­sels of gold, and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour and some to dishonour. Now altho' Hymenius, Alexander, and Philetus, could not be mem­bers of Christ's mystical church, they yet might belong to the visible church, or society; they were vessels of some kind or other in the great house, and although not ves­sels of gold, or of silver; not vessels of honour, not sanctified and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work, they might comparatively be vessels of wood, or of earth, or of dishonour. The apostle has here given a striking illustration of the out­ward church, and such as corresponds exactly with what is contended for in this essay; but far different from that which was attempted by Barclay, and his bre­thren. According to them, none ought to belong to this house, but such as are sanctified and meet for the matter's use, expressly contrary to the words of the apostle, who admits that unsanctified vessels may remain in the house. Yet after all the pains taken by the Friends, thus to purge their society, they are nevertheless such an house, who have among them vessels of various kinds, vessels of gold, of silver, of wood, and of earth; some to honour, and some to dishonour. The apostle, no doubt, made use of [Page 27] the above similitude, to shew it was best to let Hymenius and Philetus, together with other unsanctified persons, remain in the house. And to excite in them, a virtuous emulation, says, If a man purge himself from the evils above, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. The apostle holds up the possibility of this, and therefore admits them a part of the great family. And let me ask the people called Quakers, whether they have not in their great house, unsanctified vessels, for which ne­vertheless they find some use?

Altho' virtue is very desirable among men, as it adds to their usefulness in all the various concerns of life, yet we must not put away those persons that appear not to pos­sess it. All mankind are vessels in the house of the great master, he hath those of gold, of silver, of wood, and of earth; he has his vessels of honour and of dishonour, and they are all used by him according to their fitness for his purposes.

At the time John wrote his revelations, the Christians were numerous: there were seven churches in Asia; and yet only two of them that were not rebuked, some of them very severely, many great evils had crept in among them. Had the apostles seen it were possible to prevent those evils, there is no doubt but they would have used means for the purpose. If they had ever excommuni­cated, and it was well adapted for this end, there must have been great remissness in the churches to have per­mitted evils to have gotten to such a heighth; but we can­not suppose during the life of John the Divine, any mea­sures were omitted that were proper to preserve the church pure, and therefore the churches could not have excom­municated. And it deserves especial notice, that this se­vere reprehension of our Lord, was the effects of his love, such as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent. We may therefore fairly infer, that those men tho' wicked, being the objects of the love of Jesus, were permitted to remain in that situation, which was the most likely to favour their reformation: that situation is the outward church of Christ.

I trust it is already proved, that disowning cannot be reconciled with the great principle upon which Christ [Page 28] came into the world. Had it even appeared, that in some instances it was practised in the days of the apostles, that would not make wrong right. Many of the primitive Christians had belonged to the church of the Pharisees, and as excommunication was a part of their discipline, so those converts might have carried with them a preposses­sion in favour of the practice. We read that Diotrephes, loving to have the pre-eminence, cast some out of the church. This is the only plain instance mentioned in scrip­ture of an excommunication, and which was censured by John; but as is above observed, if in other instances it had been practised in the church, and that it was what ecclesiastical writers suppose it to have been, assigning men over to the Devil, with all the curses of the Mosaic law denounced against them; what have we to do with this Judaism? Are we under that dispensation? And is it not surprising, that Barclay should have produced the curses of the Mosaic law, to illustrate, or to prove disowning to be agreeable to the nature of the gospel? If it be jus­tifiable to curse a man for some horrid crime, did Moses, or the apostle Paul, ever mean, that all the curses of the law should be pronounced upon every member of the con­gregation, who should defend his own life, or his friends, or the government under which he lived, or who mar­ried a woman except of a particular tribe? The gospel is not cursing, but blessing, and doing good even to ene­mies.

Disowning even in criminal cases is a remnant of Ju­daism. The Pharasaical church disowned for things inno­cent, and praise-worthy, and it will always reduce that society who practises it to a resemblance with them. Such will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Innocent per­sons will be disowned, and sinners remain in the church: the rules operate thus unavoidably. Many have been dealt with for that which was not sinful, who yet have been made sinners before the meeting had done with them. There is scarce a member of the society who has not heard of the famous, or rather infamous George Keith; yet but few are acquainted with his case; and it calls for more pity, than has been generally bestowed upon it. George was a man of great talents, and learning, an emi­nent minister among Friends, and high in esteem; but [Page 29] holding an opinion respecting the future state of the soul, different from what was generally held, and happening to express this sentiment in his public testimony, he was called to an account, as one not orthodox; he supported his opinion, as might be expected, and so a field of con­troversy was opened. George being a man of high tem­per, and those who opposed him, men not thoroughly sanctified, or they would have been wiser than to have made a man an offender, for an opinion in metaphysics. The breach, by degrees, grow wider, and wider, until George was at length disowned. This, to a man who had been so much esteemed, and one perhaps of an irritable temper, was more than he could bear: It so operated up­on his mind, that at length he cast off the Quaker entire­ly, and opposed the society with great acrimony. Many a man since his day has met with a fate somewhat similar.

Numbers have been dealt with for that which was not sinful, and far the doing of which they were not sorry; yet have been obliged to condemn it rather than be dis­owned, and thereby were made sinners, when they were not so before. In many instances, persons have deliberate­ly planned a violation of the rules of the society, and at the same time planned an acknowledgment for the trans­gression; which has been received and all seemed well.

Manifold are the evils that attend disowning: it leads to insincerity, subterfuge, and dissimulation; and not only individual members are embarrassed in this respect by it, but the society at times are so likewise. A remarkable in­stance of this kind happened some years ago.

A number of wicked men, inhabitants of Lancaster county, having an hatred for the Indians without excep­tion, assembled together, and fell upon a settlement in said county, and murdered every one who happened to be at home. The rest of the tribe being dispersed about the country, selling their baskets and brooms; upon hear­ing of the sad catastrophe which befel their relations, fled, some of them to Lancaster, and begged the protection of the inhabitants. The best protection which could be given these poor creatures, was to lock them up in a prison; but bolted doors and brick walls, were poor defence. These soon gave way to those desperate men; and every man, woman, and child, inclosed within the walls, were murdered. The re­mainder [Page 30] of this wretched tribe collected together, and hastened to Philadelphia, and put themselves under the protection of the inhabitants. They were pursued, and ex­presses came to this City, giving an account that those wicked men, not only vowed destruction to the Indians, but the death of several Friends likewise. At length, an express came in the morning, before the dawning of the day, with information, that those insurgents were within a few miles of the city. The inhabitants were called up, and assembled in the streets in great numbers, and a con­sultation was held, to know what measures should be ta­ken at this alarming crisis. What could be done? There was no doubt of the bloody design of the men: they had given an unquestionable proof of this. Nothing could be done, but either quietly give up the Indians, and some Friends as a sacrifice, or gird on the sword, and defend them. It was determined to defend them: great expedi­tion was used accordingly; and such of the inhabitants who had some knowledge in military affairs, took the lead, and prepared for defence. Divers Friends joined in the mi­litary parade. Not an individual in the society appeared to discountenance the thing. Why should they? A formida­ble appearance was soon made, which so intimidated those assassins, that they halted at some distance from the city, gave over their design, and returned home. Thus, this black and terrible storm blew over—a storm, which in ap­pearance, seemed to portend something more desperate and bloody, than what had happened before, bad as it was. A calm ensued, and serious reflection returned to the people called Quakers. They saw their testimony was vi­olated, and it became a question of importance, to know what should be done, to wipe away the reproach, as it was termed by some. Strange, indeed, that it should be thought a reproach, for men who were not in danger themselves, to step forward, and at the risk of their own lives, defend the lives of others! every other part of man­kind, would term it an high instance of heroic virtue. There were divers conferrences held upon this subject, in which the members of the society were divided in opini­on: some thought they should proceed as the discipline directs; which requires an acknowledgment for such con­duct, or that the society should bear a testimony against [Page 31] the violators of the rule. But there were other persons, men of virtue, and superior understanding, who could not proceed to condemn men for doing that, which, at the time of trial was generally approbated. These Friends prevailed over the others, and the business ended: had the sentiments of the other Friends prevailed, the society would have merited the highest reproach.

In many respects men are free agents. Were there se­veral roads all leading to the same place, a traveller might take his choice. A man intending to visit his friend may do it to day, or to-morrow, or at another time. If a man should think the plain language most agreeable, he can use it. If he likes a plain dress, he can put it on. He may go to any place of worship which suits his inclina­tion, or accomplish his marriage in a way he likes best. But with respect to resistance or non-resistance, the case is very different. A man cannot either resist, or let it alone, as he may please: no man can say, I will not defend my life, or the life of my wife and children, or the life of my friend, or my country. And to make a rule, that a man should not do it, is above all things the most un­reasonable and improper; much more so, than it would be, to make a rule, that a man should neither rejoice nor be sorrowful, upon any occasion whatever. Men are not machines, or automatons: they cannot act, in many in­stances, even according to their own previous determi­nation, much less according to that of others.

Since the people called Quakers first came forth, the evils occasioned by their discipline, to many families, and individuals, have been numerous^*.

[Page 32]To require one uniform sentiment, and line of conduct, of every individual, is very injudicious. In this case, men nave not liberty for the free exercise of that understand­ing bestowed by the Deity upon them; when at the same time, there is scarce any subject whatever, upon which men will not differ in opinion. The occasions for censure, according to the discipline are so numerous, that it is im­possible to expect any other than that great numbers will get entangled therein. There are the tythe and church rates in England, marrying persons of another society, or marrying a member of the society not according to the rules of the society, paying a tax for military purposes, or paying a fine for non-compliance with the laws, or defending the government under which a man lives. Ma­ny other things are contrary to the discipline; but for violating the rules of the society in the above cases, many respectable characters have been disowned.

This essay is to show that disowning is wrong in any case; but to disown a man for defending his life, or the life of his friend, or the government under which he lives, are extraordinary cases. The people called Quakers, from the first, have been advocates for government, they ad­mit that it is a divine ordinance; have held the highest of­fices in government; hold large property; claim of go­vernment a protection for their persons and property, and yet if a member of the society should join with his fellow-citizens in supporting this government, in the on­ly way in which in extreme cases it can be maintained, this man is disowned. They bear a testimony against de­fensive war, and yet admit the necessity of government. I ask them, if government itself is not a defensive war? Is it not under an absolute necessity to lay hold on the wicked disturbers of its peace, and to punish them, some by con­finement to hard labour, and others by putting them to death? I will grant all this may be done without an appa­rent warfare: there may be no military parade. But sup­pose an armed banditti should assemble, as in the affair of the riot before mentioned, and should be determined to massacre the citizens; what is to be done in this case? Supposing all the officers of the government were of the people called Quakers, what would they do? They would be under an absolute necessity of violating their testimo­ny. [Page 33] I may be asked how I know that would be the case?— might not divine providence interpose? Divine providence might interpose: far be it from me to set limits to his pro­tection But I ask, why is government instituted? Might not divine providence interpose and prevent those evils which government is intended to suppress? The forming a government, arises from the probability of a combination of wicked men to do mischief; and to repel such attacks it is ordained. It would seem strange, that a person should take on him an office of a coersive nature, and yet when an occasion offered for exerting this power, he should de­cline it, on a presumption that divine providence might interpose, and render his exertions unnecessary. If those were his sentiments, why hold the office? If government is a divine ordinance, it cannot be a want of confidence in divine protection, to use means for its support.

Suppose a man was alarmed at midnight, by a num­ber of villains, who meant to rob and murder him, his wife and children; the discipline says, in effect, he must submit to it, rather than prevent it by violence; and if the man could prevent it no other way than by the death of those men, and should slay them, he must condemn his conduct, or he is liable to be disowned.

This doctrine of non-resistance does not stand upon the same ground as other doctrines do. A man may change his opinion from time to time, and as he changes, may be esteemed a proper member of that society, whose doctrines correspond with his own; but with respect to non-resistance, the criterion of fellowship is made to con­sist, not in sentiment, but in so acting, as not one man in an hundred thousand could act, were he brought to the test; and those very men, who excommunicate for self-defence, would do the same thing, were the trial brought home to themselves. Must not that discipline then be founded in error, which requires an impossibility?

It is agreed that government is a divine ordinance: the people called Quakers admit it. I trust it is here shewn that government cannot exist without defence, the sword being its sinews. Government in its essence is a defensive war; a defensive war therefore of that kind is not sinful.

But tho' a defence of this nature is not sinful, yet our blessed Lord has pointed to a state more desirable, even [Page 34] that in which there is no strife—a state of absolute chris­tian perfection. And, as he said upon another occasion, so let it be said upon this occasion, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it; but few among the professors of christianity, since the coming of Christ, have been able to receive it. It is a different thing from embracing a system of religious tenets, which may render a man a member of that society, which is distinguished for holding them. To be a christian, is to be made a new creature; it is to experience a thorough sanctification; being inward­ly made, such as Christ was, and thereby manifesting an outward conformity to the great example set us by him. This state is not to be attained instantly, even by those who sincerely wish to attain it: It is therefore as unrea­sonable to expect that all who profess the christian name, should, in all cases, act the part of perfect christians, as it would be, to expect that a new born babe, should pos­sess all the faculties, and bodily strength, of a man in the prime of life. As it is only the perfect man in Christ who resisteth no evil, so to expect this of all, under pain of ex­pulsion, is to expect children to read, who have never learned their letters, and yet, for their deficiency, to expel them the college.

The impropriety of disowning, has been discussed, chiefly upon the principle of its being supposed a prero­gative of the Church of Christ. But there are some that approve it, who found their opinion upon other grounds: they will not contend, that Friends are the pure Church of Christ; but they say, that all societies have a right to lay down such rules as they may think proper, for the well-ordering of the body, and for a test of christian fel­lowship: that all who do not comply with those rules, have no reason to complain when they are disowned, as they should not have violated them. Friends of this des­cription, do not suppose that a testimony given against such who transgress, implies an exclusion from heaven, they yet contend, it is expedient to keep up the rules of the society. Here are two kinds of men, who differ widely in their principles, yet practically agree. Those who believe the society of Friends are the Church of Christ, that they have the mind of Christ, and that disowning necessarily implies an exclusion from heaven, are, according to the ancient [Page 35] principle laid down by Barclay, the true and orthodox Qua­kers. The others who do not suppose the society are the pure Church, who do not pretend to binding, and loosing in hea­ven and on earth, are most catholic and modest. But let me ask those Friends, supposing a number of men were form­ing themselves into a religious society, for the purposes of improvement in piety and virtue, would the present disci­pline of Friends be the most proper rules to produce this effect? Would they agree, that no one among them should marry a person of any other society, tho' ever so amiable, under pain of being expelled from the body; nor even a member of their own society, unless they ac­complished their marriage agreeable to one particular form? that no man should defend his own life, nor the life of his friend, nor the government under which he lived, nor pay taxes for military purposes, nor a fine for not complying with the laws in certain cases? that no man should publish a religious, or political treatise, with­out consent of the society, under the penalty of being ex­pelled from the body? Can it be supposed, that any num­ber of men of sound understanding, would, in the present day, lay down such a plan, and make a compliance with those rules the test of christian fellowship? If then it is impossible to suppose such a case, are they wise, who make those rules the test of christian fellowship, merely because they were made the conditions of fellowship by their an­cestors? How much more reasonable would it be in them to say, the design of this institution is, that we may be mutually instrumental in promoting the temporal and eternal felicity one of another. We feel the importance of a virtuous life, we will therefore use all the means with which divine providence may favour us solely for this end. If then a brother should be overtaken in a fault, we will endeavour to restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering ourselves, lest we also be tempted; but in no case whatever, shall any one be expelled from the so­ciety, lest it should prove his ruin. How greatly prefera­ble would such a system of church government be? How much better adapted to the purposes of religious associa­tion? How perfectly corresponding with the gospel of our Lord and Saviour, and the great end and design of his coming? Such then is the plan of the religious society of Free-Quakers in the city of Philadelphia.

[Page 36]It may be objected to the foregoing, that if every man is to enjoy his opinions without censure, he must be at liberty to publish or to preach them, and that this would render the society, rather a Bable, than a Christian church.

ANSWER.

The most perfect plan that can be formed for a reli­gious society is liable to some inconveniences; but those inconveniences are to be submitted to, in order to avoid greater. The evils of disowning are manifested in the foregoing treatise. Although the right of individuals are to be maintained, yet the church has its prerogative also, which is that of determining, whether what is offered to them is edifying or otherwise: here wisdom is necessary, mutual love and forbearance ought to be exercised; and although the individuals who compose a society, may differ in opinion in lesser matters, yet if the love and fear of the Lord prevail, they will be favoured with discern­ment, so as to encourage that which is good and edify­ing; and suppress that which is otherwise. It does not then follow, that because no one shall be disowned, that therefore that which is evidently of evil tendency is to be received, or countenanced. A variety of opinions may prevail, yet perfect order and decency may be maintain­ed in the church. After all the pains taken by the differ­ent societies in Christendom to preserve what each of them call orthodoxy, yet contradiction frequently appears. If then, a diversity of sentiment is unavoidable, may it not as well be admitted, and acquiesced in? Is it not a vain attempt to aim at that which is impossible? And may not a variety of opinions be made an occasion of mutual love, forbearance, and charity? and so a means of manifesting more conspicuously, the graces of the gospel? Religion consisteth more in love to the Lord, and to one another, than in sameness of opinion: the latter is desirable, but not essential: it may happen where there is but little vir­tue; and on the other hand, there may be a diversity of sentiments accompanied with a virtuous life this is pre­ferable. Such then is that which is proposed and desired by the religious society called Free Quakers.