"rubies." They seem to have carried this matter too far; and to have thought it unwarrantable, to separate, from a Protestant Episcopal church, when established by the civil magistrate. This opinion was manifestly erroneous: for no sanction of the civil power could make any thing in the public profession of the church, or in the worship of God, lawful, which is (as they had a few years before declared prelacy and the ceremonies of the established church to be) contrary to his word. This error, led some of these ejected ministers to desist from preaching the word of God; and others, who preached occasionally, to decline the dispensation of the Lord's supper; and also, to join in the communion of the established church.

To attempt to justify their conduct, in respect of their proposal to leave the surplice, crossing in baptism, and kneeling at the Lord's table indifferent; to set aside the Assembly's Confession, and to establish in its place the articles of the church of England, would be in vain. When the Westminster Confession of Faith was formed, a considerable progress was made in the reformation of the church of God in England and Scotland: ministers and people were bound by the command of God, to hold fast what they had attained, and to carry on the good work which had been begun. These nations were also bound to all the reformation they had attained by the oath of God, into which they had entered. Nothing could be more absurd than the attempts that were sometimes made to reconcile the Solemn League and Covenant to their compliances with the hierarchy and superstition which these nations were bound by that covenant to eradicate. Some have said, that the Solemn League and Covenant could not bind any to an adherence to the confession of faith, form of presbyterial church government, and directory for public worship; because these formularies were not then composed. This would have had some colour of reason, if they had not precisely corresponded with what was sworn to; that is, if they had not actually exhibited the several parts of reformation mentioned in that covenant, a confession of faith, a form of church government, a directory for worship, according to the word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches; in opposition to popery, prelacy, superstition, heresy, schism and profaneness. But this correspondence was evident and undeniable; and therefore these nations were bound, by that covenant, to adhere to the whole of the reformation described in these forms of sound words. While that was the covenanted reformation, it is plain, that the falling away from any part of it, was an open violation of that covenant.

Nor do I understand how their refusal of conformity to the established church can be reconciled, either with the terms on which they professed to conform, or with their occasional communion with that church in her public ordinances. I have no conception of a warrant for communion with any church one sabbath, which would not be a warrant for communion with it every subbath, as Divine Providence affords opportunity.

I know it was said, that though they could not join as ministers with the established church, on account of the subscription required of them as such; yet they could join with it as private members. But if the conformity of the ministers was sinful, how could it be justifiable in others, to hold communion with them under the character of

ministers persisting in and publicly avowing that sinful conformity? How could private christians do so without partaking of the sin of the ministers ?

The terms on which they offered to conform to the established church, seem to be quite irreconcileable with their former profession. They had often declared the worship of the established church, according to the liturgy and canons, to be superstitious and sinful: how then could they consent to join in that worship? They had professed and taught, that presbytery is the only form of church government appointed in the word of God: and how could they afterwards submit to prelacy, which they had found to be only a human invention? They had also professed and taught, that it was unlawful for the civil magistrate, to assume to himself the power of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and therefore that the king's ecclesiastical supremacy was a sacrilegious usurpation: how then could they own that supremacy, exercised in prohibiting some, and appointing others, to preach and administer the sacraments when, and where, and how he judged proper?

They had solemnly avowed, that the reformation of England, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, directory for public worship, form of presbyterial church government, being no more than what the word of God requires, was indispensably necessary: how then could they agree to set all these pieces of reformation aside, and acquiesce in what was far short of, and, in some respects, contrary to them? Was not this to deny, what they had before professed, that such reformation was necessary? Such wavering and inconsistency, would be highly blameable even in worldly things of any importance; but must be unspeakably more so, in the matter of a religious profession. The truth is, both England and Scotland were, at this time, deeply involved in apostacy and perjury. To this day, these evils have never been duly acknowledged by the British nation: and yet, without an acknowledgment of them, we have no good ground to expect a thorough reformation there. Without an acknowledgment of these evils, they are holding fast deceit, and refusing to let it go; refusing to return to the Lord.

Nothing seems to have contributed more to precipitate both England and Scotland into this enormous guilt, than the unfaithfulness of ministers. Their sinful compliances encouraged the profane, wicked rulers in their nefarious design of breaking down the carved work of reformation; induced the more ignorant to walk willingly after the commandments of the rulers; and damped the resolution and efforts of many, who were well affected to the cause of God and truth. There were, however, a few ministers, both in England and Scotland, who dared to exercise their office without submitting, as others did, to the unwarrantable restrictions and limitations of their rulers. Some of them, particularly in Scotland, loved not their lives unto the death for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.* These refused to have communion in public ordinances, not only with prelatical ministers, but even with the accepters of indulgences or licences from the civil power, to exercise their ministry under certain limitations. The Informatory Vindication, which certainly contains the genuine

* Revel. vi. 9.

principles of church communion, held by the sufferers for the cause of Christ in that period, declares, that they could by no means own or countenance the administrations of the indulged ministers; because they considered the indulgence, in any of the forms in which it was granted by the civil power, as derived from the supremacy claimed by that power in ecclesiastical matters; as laying the office of the ministry under unwarrantable restrictions; and as tending, in a great measure, to suppress and bury the covenanted reformation.* How much more would these sufferers disapprove such direct compliances as these which you have mentioned?

§ 65. Alex. John Claude, in his Defence of the Reformation, which received the official sanction of the church of France, agrees with the advocates for catholic communion; condemns the practice of declining sacramental communion with churches on account of errors or superstitions of less importance. The points, says he, which divide the Papists and Protestants, are not points of simple discipline; nor simply scholastic questions, which consists in terms far removed from the knowledge of the people; nor crimes nor accusations purely personal; nor even a general corruption of manners, though it was very great in the clergy in the days of our fathers. The articles which separate us are points which, in our view, trouble, essentially, the faith whereby we are united to Jesus Christ; points which alter, essentially, the worship we owe to God; which damage, essentially, the sources of our justification, and which corrupt the means, internal as well as external, of obtaining both grace and glory. In a word, they are points which we believe to be altogether incompatible with salvation. There are some other points held by the Papists, in which we readily perceive there was error and superstition to correct, but which were not sufficient to cause a rupture of communion: such as the question about the Limbus of the ancient fathers, Christ's local descent into hell, the distinction between presbyters and bishops by Divine right, the observation of lent.t

it

Ruf. With regard to the official sanction of the churches of France, may be observed, that at the time referred to, these churches had lost much of their former purity by the spread of erroneous opinions, such as those of Amyraldus and Pajonius, and by the relaxation of their discipline. This decline is alluded to by the collector of their acts, in the following pathetic expressions: "O," says he, " that the genera"tion which succeeded the first Reformers had not relaxed the reins ! "how happy might they have been! In the morning of the Reforma"tion they were fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an with banners. The greatest princes of France submitted their "necks to the golden yoke of Christ."

66

army

I am far, however, from denying the excellence of Mr. Claude's Defence, and even from censuring the passage which you have quoted. But I may observe, with regard to this and other quotations to the same purpose, that they respect the question concerning the grounds of a lawful secession: whereas the question, which we are now considering, is, Whether churches and their members that are already

Informatory Vindication, Head iv. † Plea, &c. pages 289, 290, 291. #Quick's Synodicon, Introduct. page 16.

separated, on sufficient grounds, from any particular church, may, notwithstanding the continuance of these grounds, have sacramental communion with that church? In this view, the greater the evils which this and the other passages, which you have quoted, represent as necessary to justify a secession from any particular church; the more do such passages militate against your scheme of catholic communion: because the greater these evils are, on account of which you have justly separated from a particular church, your sacramental communion with that church continuing in the same state, is so much the more manifestly inconsistent and impure. This consideration is sufficient to shew, that the quotation from Mr. Claude's work is nothing to your purpose. It seems unnecessary to say any thing more of this quotation; especially considering what was formerly observed concerning our secession from the church of Rome. But the regard due to the character of the excellent author, and to the important subject of which he treats, lead me to observe one or two things more, in vindication of this passage.

In the first place, it was necessary for Mr. Claude, in shewing the necessity of secession from the church of Rome, to set his argument in as strong a light, as matter of fact would bear; and therefore it was requisite for him not only to state, in general, what might render secession from a corrupt church warrantable; but to shew the peculiar weight and urgency of the cause of secession from the church of Rome; to shew how she had subverted the article of justification by faith in Jesus Christ; and how grossly she had corrupted the means, both internal and external, of obtaining grace and glory; to shew, that, though in respect of her acknowledgment of the scriptures,-of the Trinity and other heads of christian doctrine, and in respect of the godly, who may still be within the pale of her communion, she may, in a lax sense, be called a church of Christ; yet, in respect of her damnable doctrine, and habitually corrupt administration, she is rather to be accounted a synagogue of Satan. But, from the enormity of corruption which in the case of the church of Rome, rendered secession from her peculiarly necessary, it does not follow, that a less degree of corruption in any particular church, obstinately persisted in, and openly justified, after the ordinary means of reclaiming her have been used, may, in no case, render secession necessary. There is a greater necessity of withdrawing from the communion of an Arian or Socinian church, than there is of withdrawing from the church of Rome itself; yet we may not infer from thence, that we might have safely continued in the church of Rome. In like manner, notwithstanding the greater necessity of secession from the church of Rome, than from another church less corrupt, yet it will not follow, that we may safely continue in the communion of the latter. In the second place, when Mr. Claude says, That the Limbus of the ancient fathers, the local descent of Christ to hell, the distinction between presbyters and bishops by Divine right, and the observation of lent, would not have caused our separation from the church of Rome, he is to be understood as speaking of the state of things at the rise of the Reformation. These errors and superstitions were not the gravamina præcipua, the evils that were first attended to, and chiefly insisted on by the Reformers; such as the merit of good works, the Pope's indulgences, the sacrifice

of the mass, unwritten tradition, the worship of saints, purgatory, the supremacy of the Pope. This is the obvious meaning of Mr. Claude's expression, which is, that these errors and superstitions were not the things that actually had such influence as to effect a rupture of communion. But the case was different, after our ancestors had attained farther knowledge of the scripture doctrines, in opposition to the errors and superstitions mentioned in this passage of Mr. Claude's Defence, and after they had adopted those doctrines as articles of their confession and testimony. In that case, they could not consistently have had sacramental communion with such as openly professed and maintained those errors and superstitions. Mr. Claude says, in the same treatise, "That the obligation that lies upon the members of the same "particular church to hold communion with those, with whom they "are externally bound, is not without its bounds and measures: we "are joined together under certain conditions." According to this doctrine of Mr. Claude, when the declared conditions of sacramental communion in a particular visible church are no other than such doctrine and order as is justly deduced from the scripture, no avowed and obstinate opposer of any article of that doctrine or order can reasonably expect, that she will admit him to her communion; because, as Mr. Claude observes, the members are joined together under certain conditions.

§ 66. Alex. What shall we say to a public deed of the church of Scotland, placing church communion explicitly upon principles common to the reformed churches? It is an act of the general assembly, entitled, Act concerning the receiving of strangers into church communion, and baptising their children; passed May 1711. This act, directs all ministers to shew all tenderness to persons educated in other Protestant churches, who have come, or may come, to reside in Britain, when they apply for the benefit of sealing ordinances; and, particularly, when such strangers, being free from scandal, and professing their faith and obedience to him, shall desire baptism to their children, to comply with their desire, upon their engaging to educate their children in the fear of God, and in the knowledge of the principles of the reformed Protestant churches.

This act was passed for the purpose of receiving strangers into their communion; they continuing strangers, and not accounting themselves plenary members of the church of Scotland. For, about the reception of a person wishing to become such member, and giving due satisfaction as to his principles and character, there could be no scruple in her ministers, and no necessity of an act of the general assembly, to secure due tenderness. Men are not apt to be harsh in their treatment of decent applicants for admission into their church. This act contemplated and provided for the reception of such strangers into habitual communion. It distinctly specifies their residing in the country as strangers. It does not contemplate a case of extraordinary and transient fellowship.

In order to this regular habitual church communion, it does not require of these strangers an approbation of all or any of the peculiarities of the church of Scotland, but simply a christian character; and a promise to educate their children, not according to the standards of

* Qu' n' alloient pas jusque a pouvoir causer une rupture de communion.