kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Eph. v. 5-6. From this it seems that they were some who sought to entice the Ephesians to return to the vile impurities which prevailed in the Gentile world. Respecting these the Apostle says: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Eph. v. 11. But it is clear enough, I should suppose, that the persons against whom the Ephesian church is warned, were not good men labouring to know and do God's will, but bad, corrupt, deceitful men ; men whose principles and proceedings were alike corrupt, immoral, and abominable.

Persons of the same class as those above described, are referred to in the epistle to the Philippians. "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." Philip. iii. 18-19. Such were the heretics of those days. They were not men inspired with a quenchless love of truth, and a solemn determination to do the will of God; men who, for the sake of God and of the truth, were prepared to submit to the greatest hardships, and to welcome the most painful privations and the severest persecutions; no, they were selfish, earthly-minded, sensual men: men who loved gain, whose belly was their God, and who supremely regarded earthly things. What man would argue, that because men like these were to be expelled from the church of Christ, it is lawful to expel men of a confessedly opposite character? The men who reason thus, to be consistent with themselves, should argue, that because a murderer may properly be put to death, it is right to execute an innocent man!

Another passage which claims our notice is Coloss. ii. 8. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." The persons referred to here were

evidently not mistaken Christians, but opposers of Christ's authority. and abettors of a system directly the reverse of his. They were the Judaizing teachers against whom the Galatian Church was warned, or the Gentile philosophers who sought to seduce and mislead the Ephesian believers. The character of both these classes of men we have already ascertained; and we have seen that the necessity of expelling men like these, proves nothing in favour of the expulsion of Christ's followers from Christ's church.

Paul gives directions as to the disownment or expulsion of certain members of the church, in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, "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 that he received of us; for yourselves know how ye ought to follow us." 2 Thess. iii. 6-7. He says afterwards, "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy bodies." v. 11. Still further he says, 66 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."

v. 14. The heresies here spoken of, you see, are practical heresies; the persons to be disowned are those who walk disorderly; and to walk disorderly is not to oppose the authority of men, but the authority of God. The heretics in the Thessalonian church were those who obeyed not the word delivered by Paul in his epistles, or in other words, those who obeyed not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In Paul's epistles to Timothy, there are two or three passages which shed a considerable amount of light on the subject under consideration. In one of these passages he gives us a full length portrait of a heretic. After directing Timothy as to the doctrines he should teach and the duties he should inculcate, he says, "If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, where

of cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of currupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thyself." 1 Tim. vi. 3-5. How strikingly does this description agree with all that has gone before. How plain that the men described in this passage were, 1. Infidel opposers of Christ's doctrine and authority, not mistaken interpreters of Christ's words. 2. That the doctrines which they taught were corrupting and immoral in their tendency. 3. That they were bad men, men of corrupt minds; and 4. That their motives were utterly impure, "supposing that gain is godliness." Well might the Apostle command Timothy to withdraw from such; but how either the description or the command just quoted, can sanction in any way the expulsion of men from the church of Christ who are acknowledged to be real Christians, I confess I am at a loss to understand.

"Yes, but are not Hymeneus and Philetus represented as heretics, merely for maintaining that the resurrection was past already?" I remember this objection being urged with great confidence and boldness by one who was advocating the principle, that it is right to expel good men from the church, because they differ in sentiment from a majority of their brethren. "Was it not simply for error, apart from immorality, that Hymeneus was excommunicated?" said he. "Was it not for maintaining that the resurrection was past already?" Read all that is recorded on the subject in the two epistles of Paul to Timothy, and you will find that there is nothing to controvert the principles maintained in this article. If you turn back to 1 Tim. i. 18-20, you will find this charge addressed to the youthful evangelist. "This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare. Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." And is their nothing immoral in blas

phemy? Was it simply for error that Hymeneus was excluded, when the Apostle himself declares that his object in excommunicating him was, that he "might learn not to blaspheme?" I have nothing to say against the excommunication of blasphemers; but I see neither reason nor justice in arguing that because a blasphemer may be expelled from the church of Christ, a sincere disciple of the Redeemer may be expelled likewise. It is worthy of observation also, that in the above passage, Alexander is joined with Hymeneus, and if you turn to the second epistle iv. 14-15 verses, you will find these words, "Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil, the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words." assist us to understand the passage first referred to. "But shun profane and vain babblings; for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker; of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Tim. ii. 16-18. From all this it is evident 1. That these men taught that the resurrection was past already. 2. That they taught this, not from any idea that this was the doctrine of the Apostles, but in avowed opposition to the Apostle's doctrine: they "greatly withstood the Apostle's words." 3. That in doing this, or besides all this, they were guilty of blasphemy. 4. That their doctrines were not only infidel in their character, but also licentious in their tendency, "increasing unto more ungodliness." 5. That they had made shipwreck of conscience. And 6. That the faith of some was overthrown by them. They did not lead some to change their opinion as to the meaning of what the Apostles said. No, they shook and overthrew their faith in the Apostle's testimony, leading them to regard the Apostles as false teachers, and therefore, of course, uninspired. But what resemblance such men as these bear to those who humbly and reverently receive the testimony of Christ and his Apostles, and only differ from

These two passages

their brethren in the interpretation they put on some parts of that testimony, I leave the reader himself to ascertain.

In his epistle to Titus, c. iii., v. 10, the Apostle says, "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject?" But then he immediately adds, "Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." And in the first chapter of the same epistle, commencing at the tenth verse, he more largely describes those heretics of whom he speaks. "For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." Any one may see that those passages most strikingly confirm all that has been said on the character of those who were regarded by the Apostles as heretics: they prove that the heretics spoken of in the New Testament were bad, ill-designing men; men whose own consciences convicted them of sin, and condemned them for their evil ways.

This view of the case is still further confirmed by Peter in the second chapter of his second general epistle. In that chapter he largely describes the character of heretics and false teachers. I have not space to give the whole of this description; but I shall give an extract or two, and refer the reader to the chapter itself, for the whole. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." Ver. 1. "Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while they feast with you; having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls; an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness." 13-15. Who does not perceive that heretics

and false teachers like these, were not honest, well-disposed men, anxious to know God's will and do it, and only differing from their brethren in the sense in which they understood some portions of God's word? Heretics such as those described by Peter, ought to be excluded from the church of Christ, and thus far we have not met with the slightest intimation in the New Testament that there are heretics of any other class.

False teachers are again referred to in the first general Epistle of John. "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." 1 John ii. 18, 19. In the 22nd verse he tells us who these antichrists were. "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son." It appears, then, that these persons denied the Messiahship of Jesus; it appears that they had never sincerely believed in Christ; that they had only pretended to believe in him for their own selfish ends; and when it suited their sinister ends, to throw off the mask, they did so, and openly avowed their unbelief. This is apparent also from another passage in the same epistle. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world: hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John iv. 1-3. It is in reference to those who thus deny this capital, or foundation doctrine of Christianity, the Sonship or Messiahship of Jesus, that John says in his Second Epistle, "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him

God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John x. 11. That such is the case you may see by looking at the seventh verse: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." So that it turns out after all, that the passage so confidently cited by those who contend for the expulsion of Christ's followers on account of mere harmless differences of opinion, is neither more nor less than a direction to Christians to avoid the company of infidel rejectors and opposers of Christianity. The testimony of the Apostle John on the point is most decisive and triumphant. He, in fact, furnishes us with a text whereby to detect heresy. "He that knoweth God heareth us (the Apostles); he that is not of God heareth not us (but rejecteth our testimony). Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." 1 John iv. 6. As an application of this test, he thus writes in his third epistle, "I wrote unto the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words; and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church." 3 John 9, 10. Diotrephes, the heretic, therefore, was not a sincere, though a mistaken follower of Christ, but an ambitious, intolerant man; a man who proudly resisted the divine authority with which the Apostles were invested, and unjustly and intolerantly cast out of the church those who respected their authority, and received the doctrines which they taught. Whether there be any thing here to sanction, or whether there be not every thing here to discountenance the exclusion of the saints from the church of Christ, I would have the reader himself to judge.

In the Epistle of Jude we have another full description of "certain men who had crept in unawares, ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus

Christ." Jude iv. As the description, however, exactly corresponds with that given by Peter, and as these observations have already been pro longed too far, I shall not insert it here, but only request the reader to peruse it for himself, and determine whether it be not in perfect agreement with all the preceding remarks.

In the Revelation of John the Divine we have particular mention made of certain heretics and false teachers, and it will be found on examination, that their principles and character were just such as have been described again and again. In the letter to the angel of the church in Pergamos are these words, "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate." Rev. ii. 14, 15. To the angel of the church in Thyatira the following words are addressed-"Notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." These were the persons (most likely) alluded to by the Apostle Paul, where he exhorts the Ephesians to let no man deceive them with vain words.-See the observations on that passage in a former part of this article.

There is but another passage that I am aware of, that is adduced in favour of the right which some suppose the church possesses, to exclude true Christians from its communion. And when this passage comes to be examined, it will be seen that it says as little in favour of such a right as any that have been already considered. It is the passage in Matt. xviii. 15-18, in which the Saviour gives directions for the peaceful adjustment of all personal disputes between his followers. These directions are, 1. That the offended party tell the offender of his fault between their two selves. 2. That if the offender will not make reparation and be reconciled to his brother, his brother