Images de page
PDF
ePub

Ruf. But it appears, that neither the design nor the success of such attempts invites us to imitate their example. The Racovian or Socinian catechism, reduces the credenda, or things necessary to be believed, to six: namely, That there is a God; that he is one; that he is eternal; that he is perfectly just; that he is perfectly wise; and that he is perfectly powerful. Many Arminians supposed, that all religion was comprehended in three points: The belief of the Divine promises; obedience to the Divine precepts; and the reverence due to the scriptures. It is obvious, that these enumerations, in which the peculiar doctrines of the christian religion are not mentioned, cannot, with any propriety, be called an enumeration of the fundamentals of that religion. We may, however, make an observation on the Arminian enumeration, which is applicable to some other lists that have been given of fundamentals. The Arminians say, that the things necessary to be known and believed, in order to salvation, are very few; only three things. But each of these things includes many particulars. The Divine precepts, for example, are comprehended in the ten commandments. But that the truths concerning sin and duty, which are comprised in each of these commandments, are exceedingly numerous, appears sufficiently in every tolerable explanation of them. And does not a reverential regard to the scriptures comprehend a reverential regard to every doctrine, command or promise contained in the scriptures, whether fundamental or not so? Thus the essentials, enumerated in this and other lists, rightly understood, are found to include non-essentials. Thus men's attempts to draw the line between essentials, and non-essentials; to separate what God has revealed as one and indivisible; produce nothing but vanity, confusion, and contradiction. Some have considered the twelve articles of what is called the Apostles' Creed, as an enumeration of the essentials of the christian religion but this creed, if it is understood according to Ruffinus, or any other judicious expositor of it, comprehends a great multitude of particular doctrines. The articles of this creed, considered as an exhibition of the essentials of the christian religion, are defective, while the important doctrines of original sin, and that of the covenant of grace, that of the union of believers to Christ, and other fundamental doctrines are not mentioned. They are also redundant, as it is not evident, that the understanding of Christ's descent into hell, as there stated, is essential.

[ocr errors]

Alex. It has been said, that no church should require an assent to any proposition which is not found in the express words of scripture; and that no inference or deduction from the words of scripture can be a lawful term of communion.

Ruf. This supposition seems to be at variance with the opinion, that a church should not require as a term of communion any other profession, than that of fundamental truths; the knowledge of which is absolutely necessary to salvation. For if, according to the opinion you have stated, a church's warrant for requiring of those, whom she admits to her communion, their assent to any proposition, is, because it is found in the express words of scripture, then the knowledge of many truths might be required as terms of communion, which, no one will say, are fundamental in the sense now mentioned: such as, that Paul shore his head at Cenchrea; or that he left his cloak at Troas; because

these propositions are found in the express words of scripture. On the other hand, according to this supposition, truths, that have the best title to be ranked among the fundamentals, might be expunged from the list of the church's terms of communion: such as, that the Holy Spirit is a person of the Godhead distinct from the Father and the Son; and that it is the personal property of the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son as well as from the Father. According to this supposition, the church of God, while it had only the five books of Moses, must have tolerated the denial of the resurrection from the dead; because, though, as our Lord shews, this doctrine is really contained in these books; yet it is not expressed in so many words. Whatever is justly deduced from the words of scripture, belongs to the true meaning, which God intended to communicate by the words; and which we ought to know and believe. The church and her members are bound, not only to read, but to search the scriptures: and whatever doctrines or duties they have found to be contained in the import of the words in any part of scripture, according to the scope of the place and the analogy of faith, they are to adopt as a part of their public profession: what they have thus attained, they are to hold fast as a church; nor ought they afterward to join with the obstinate opposers of such an article in sacramental communion. It has ever been the approved practice of the church of Christ, to use and apply the scripture, as the rule of her proceedings, by deducing consequences from the words of it. Thus, in the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, it was required as a term of communion with the church, that persons should profess their assent to this truth, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of God. This verbal proposition is not to be found in the Old Testament, which was then the whole written word of God. But it was deduced as a necessary consequence from the words of it. On the same principle, the renunciation of Arian and Pelagean opinions was afterwards required of those who sought the communion of the church: and, in like manner, abstaining from gambling, promiscuous dancing, attendance on stageplays, though these evils are not expressly mentioned in the scriptures, was required.

Alex. Such inferences and deductions, however just and necessary, are not formally binding on the consciences of christians, farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that the propositions inferred express the doctrine of God's word.

Ruf. That it is our duty to believe the doctrines necessarily implied, as well as those that are literally expressed in the words of scripture, appears from our Lord's reproving the Sadducees for their not believing the resurrection, as contained in the words which God spoke to Moses out of the bush; and also reproving his disciples as fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken; for their not perceiving, in his sufferings and death, the fulfilment of what the prophets had spoken. It does not follow from a person's not actually perceiving a doctrine, which is necessarily implied in the words of scripture, that his conscience is not bound to know and believe that doctrine: because his not perceiving it must be owing to the natural blindness of his mind, to his aversion to the light of God's word, or to some contrary prejudice, to which he is obstinately attached. The natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; they are foolish

ness to him, neither can he know them: yet it is unquestionably his duty to know and receive the things of the Spirit of God. The church may judge, whether a person's public profession of religion accords with the scriptures, and with the general tenor of his practice, as far as it comes under their observation; but how far it accords with his inward conviction and perception of evidence, they cannot judge. Hence it follows, that the church must be regulated by the former, and not by the latter, in determining with whom her members ought to join in sacramental communion.

Alex After all, the distinction between the essentials and nonessentials of our most holy religion cannot be abolished; and that it is attended with important consequences, no man of sober sense will deny.*

Ruf. It is granted, that the distinction, between the first principles of the oracles of God, and other Divine truths, is necessary to be attended to in teaching the doctrines of the christian religion in their due order and connection; and also, in forming a judgment of charity concerning particular churches and their members; that we may bless God for whatever is agreeable to his holy word in their profession and practice. This distinction, as it shews what errors and sins are more heinous and pernicious than others, should excite us to guard against the least, as leading to the greatest. But then it is greatly abused, when it leads us to make little account of some of the doctrines and commands of God's word, under the notion of their not being essential. The scheme of joining in church communion with all churches and persons who hold the essentials, cannot well be denied to have a tendency to that abuse. As our cultivating the most particular and habitual intimacy and friendship with persons openly and incorrigibly addicted to any vice, must have a native tendency to lessen or even to annihilate our sense of the evil of that vice; so the practisers of occasional communion with churches that deny what they term the nonessential articles of the christian religion, will, of course, become more and more insensible of the sin and danger of denying such articles.

Alex. All the members of the human body belong to its perfection, and have their peculiar uses. Yet a toe does not hold the same place in the system with an arm or a leg; nor an arm or leg the same place with the head or heart. A person may lose a limb and yet be active, useful, honored, happy. But if a man be run through the heart, he dies. So if a man, for whatever cause, renounce the obviously vital doctrines of the gospel, he cannot be a christian. These doctrines, therefore, must be the basis of all christian communion. While persons maintain these doctrines pure and entire, holding the head Christ Jesus, they may and should have open fellowship with each other, and ought not to refuse each other on account of inferior differences.†

Ruf. That there are some doctrines of the christian religion, more essential and necessary to salvation than others, is not denied. It is also evident, that the denial of such doctrines is peculiarly pernicious. But it does not follow, that we may lay it down as a rule, that sacramental communion is to be held with all that retain the essential doctrines and duties of the christian religion. Because, before this could be admitted as a rule, it would be necessary to determine, whether an,

* Plea, &e. page 100. † Id. page 101, 105.

assent to all the essential articles of our holy religion, or only to some of them, be required. In either case, they can be no rule to us, till we know precisely what they are.

pur

Alex. Without any nice and subtle discrimination between the essentials and non-essentials of christianity, they may be distinguished with sufficient accuracy for every practical purpose. You are in no danger of mistaking a man's arm for his finger, his head for his foot; nor of supposing, that they are equally important to his life. As one cannot imagine for one moment, that the question, whether Christ chased temporal benefits, or not, for all mankind? is like the question, Whether he bought his people unto God by his blood, in making a true, proper and meritorious sacrifice for sin, when, through the eternal Spirit, he offered up himself? Nor that dispute, Whether the covenant of redemption be different from the covenant of grace? or, what is so called, be really one and the same covenant, viewed under different aspects? is to be classed with the dispute, Whether Jesus the Lord our righteousness is a mere man like ourselves, or the true God, and therefore eternal life.*

Ruf. If it be once admitted as a rule, that we should communicate with all who hold the essentials of christianity; then it will not be sufficient to point out some of the least important of the non-essentials ; and, to say, that these are easily distinguished from some of the most obviously fundamental doctrines. For if you receive any into sacramental communion on this ground, that the truths or duties they deny are non-essentials; then you cannot, without being chargeable with partiality, refuse that communion to others on account of the multitude or importance of the non-essentials which they reject, or on account of the obstinacy with which they reject them. According to your rule, they have a right to communicate with you, though they renounce the non-essentials, which lie nearest the fundamentals; and you will be in danger of receiving into communion those who deny the closely connected fundamentals, unless you distinguish with the utmost precision. You may smile; but, if you allow me to use your own simile, I can scarcely help saying, that, in this matter, there is a danger of mistaking the head for the foot; there is a danger of being induced by this scheme to think, that we may have communion with such as deny the Deity and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, as well as with those who hold other errors. Such great men as Grotius, Episcopus, Limborch were led to think so, by the notion they entertained of a general communion among christians. Such as plead for catholic communion, have generally allowed that it might be extended to Arminians: and no one acquainted with their system and their history, needs to be told how closely they are connected, and how ready they are to have church communion, with the Socinians.

The denial of the necessary and eternal Sonship of Christ as the second person in the Godhead, an opinion, which now prevails much even among those who profess to be Calvinists, is contrary to the scripture doctrine of the Trinity; as that opinion plainly implies that there is no necessary personal distinction in the Godhead revealed in scripture: for the Sonship of Christ can be no such distinction, if it depend upon his office as Mediator. An error may be far more dangerous,

* Plea, &c. page 105, 106.

than it appears to be upon a slight and superficial view of it. So the notion of Christ's having purchased for all mankind the common benefits of life, duly considered, may be found to be more inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of Christ's suretyship for a certain number of mankind, as declared in scripture, than you have imagined. So the more we search the scripture, we may come to see more clearly that the consideration of the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption as two different covenants, is inconsistent with the unity, the immutability, and the freeness of that everlasting covenant.

It is not even safe to say, that an article of Divine truth is a nonessential, because it has sometimes not been duly acknowledged by some of the saints, Peter, on a certain occasion, did not duly acknowledge the necessity of Christ's death for the salvation of his people, Matth. xvi. 21, 22, The disciples doubted of Christ's resurrection, John xx. 9. A true believer, says Mr. Rutherford, may fall in temptation, so as to deny this or that fundamental article.*

In short, the want of precision in drawing the line, between the essentials and the non-essentials of christianity, is an objection against making this distinction a rule of sacramental communion, which has not yet been, and which, I am persuaded, never will be satisfactorily answered.

Alex. It would be improper to attempt answering it at present, after our conversation has been so much protracted. But, I hope, the good providence of God will afford us farther opportunities of continuing our examination of the question concerning catholic communion.

DIALOGUE II.

The scheme of catholic communion now pleaded for, inconsistent with the regard due to all the truths of God..... This scheme unwarrantable on account of the uncertainty of the grounds on which it proceeds.....The evils tolerated by this catholic communion, not mat. ters of mutual forbearance according to the scriptures.....Confessions of faith justly con、 sidered as terms of church communion.....The catholic communion pleaded for, incon sistent with the due exercise of church discipline.

ALEXANDER one day met with RUFUS, where a company of militia were going through the military exercises. After the usual salutations, Alexander observed, that he took a pleasure in seeing our young countrymen improving themselves in tactics. which they might afterward have occasion to employ against an invading enemy.

Ruf. With how much more solicitude ought we to arm ourselves, and prepare for the combat with our spiritual enemies; according to the apostle's exhortation: Take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day.

Alex. You put me in mind of the subject of our last conversation. You apprehend that the practice of catholic communion is among the evils of our day. I wish to hear you more fully on this matter. That

* Due Right of Presbytery, p. 376.

« PrécédentContinuer »