we may continue our conversation without interruption, let us retire to my house which is at hand.

Rufus agreed to the proposal; and after they had gone into a room, and taken their seats, he proceeded in the following manner:

§ 8. Ruf. In our former conversation, we found it a great objection against making the essentials of christianity the basis or rule of sacramental communion, that they cannot be ascertained with precision on account of the intimate connection of the truths of the christian religion among themselves. But, supposing, that the essentials of the christian religion were ascertained, it would still remain to be enquired, whether the avowed and obstinate denial of the other doctrines and commands contained in the word of God, and avouched in the profession of a particular church, will not sufficiently warrant a refusal of sacramental communion with such as are chargeable with that denial. I am persuaded, that the refusal of sacramental communion by a particular church, in the supposed case, would be warrantable, on account of the inestimable value of every Divine truth.

The authority of God is the primary reason for our receiving any of the truths revealed in the word of God. This authority is stamped on them all; and is despised in rejecting the least, as well as the greatest. Hence the many charges given us in scripture to prize the truths of God, and to contend for them. Prov. xxiii. 23. Buy the truth, and sell it not; buy every truth, by which God makes himself known; hold it fast at every hazard. Jude, 3, where the apostle represents it as the design of his epistle to excite christians to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; for every article of the faith, at whatever time delivered; whether in the Old, or in the New Testament; whether in the personal ministry of Christ, or afterwards by the apostles.

Whatever tends to lessen our sense of the value and importance of God's authority, in any one of his truths, is contrary to the duty of earnestly contending for them. But when a particular church makes such a difference among the articles of Christ's truth, which are specified in her public profession, as this, that she and her members, though they refuse to communicate with the opposers of some of these articles as more essential to salvation, yet agree to communicate with the opposers of other articles as not essential. Their practice manifestly tends to lessen the sense, they ought to have, of the value and importance of Christ's authority stamped upon all his truths. They resent the injury done to Divine truth, as contrary to their own salvation; but not, as contrary to the authority and glory of God.

For a particular church, or her members, to have sacramental communion with the avowed enemies of any of the truths or institutions of Christ, as professed by her agreeably to his word, is inconsistent with one of the last charges Christ gave his ministers at his ascension, that they should teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he had commanded them, Matth. xxviii. 20. For what are the things in which christians are to have sacramental communion? The answer is, in all the things which the apostles and other ministers ought to teach as the things of Christ: and these are not only some things, or the most important things, but all things, which he commands.

Sacramental communion necessarily includes a profession of friendship to Christ, and consequently of willingness to do whatsoever he hath commanded us, John, xv. 14. Fe are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. There can be no communion in the sacramental supper, but so far as there is a professed agreement among partakers, both as to what are the things which Christ hath commanded, and as to their willingness to do them.

the

§ 9. Alex. Mistakes concerning particular truths may consist with real friendship to Christ, and with the general power of truth over the heart. Nay, it is not uncommon for men's notions to be at war with their principles; their speculative principles with their practical habits. Many times a sound head is joined to a rotten heart; and a sound heart to a rotten head. Some perish, because they do not follow out their profession; and others would perish, if they did. How far erroneous conceptions may consist with a state of pardon, it would be presumptuous in us to define. This is the prerogative of him that searcheth the heart, and can weigh all its influences, interests and difficulties.*

Ruf. It is God's prerogative to judge how far mistakes concerning particular truths may consist with the general power of truth over the heart; how far men's professed principles are, as they exist in them, no practical principles at all; but merely uncertain or speculative notions; whether the rotten head be joined to a sound heart, or not; or whether the defender of a dangerous error be in a state of grace, or not: and what then?

Alex. Why, then, notwithstanding the errors and unsound principles they profess, we should hold sacramental communion with them; because their heart may be sound and under the general power of truth.

Ruf. You acknowledge this soundness of heart to be something which it does not belong to you to know. Thus, in the solemn duty of communicating, you proceed upon the supposition of something which you do not and cannot know. Is not this the height of presumption? In short, should not this consideration, that it is God's prerogative to know the heart, lead us to judge as to what churches or persons we may warrantably hold communion with in the Lord's supper, rather by considering whether their profession and practice, which we may and should know, be agreeable to the principles contained in the word of God, and publicly professed by us, than by supposing what God alone can know ?

Alex. It is granted, that no christian can surrender the least tittle of that truth, which he believes to be the testimony of his God; nor do any act which implies such a surrender. Every one, in judging for himself, must make sure work by keeping on the safe side, not wilfully rejecting any truth, or adopting any error. But, in judging of others, he must go every length which the charity of the gospel dictates; i. e. every length consistent with his own attachment to and support of the truth, and which does not rank among matters of forbearance a clearly vital doctrine of christianity.t

Ruf. By a judgement of charity, you perhaps may mean, that favorable side which we ought to take, in cases wherein we have not a ground for a certain determination; because we do not and cannot

*Plea, &c. page 103, 104. + Id. page 104.

'know the whole of such cases. Thus, we may charitably allow a person's gracious state, even when we see much wrong both in his profession and practice. And, with regard to particular actions, we may disapprove them, and yet charitably think the motives, by which a person was influenced in doing them, were good. But the ground to be proceeded on in sacramental communion, is of a different nature; it is always something that can be certainly known.

They, with whom the people of God were to have sacramental communion under the Old Testament, were natural descendants of Jacob, and such as professed subjection to all the ordinances which the church was bound to observe in that period; and whose known external practice was not contrary to that profession. And, under the New Testament, they, with whom christians are to hold sacramental communion, are such as openly confess Jesus of Nazareth to be the true Messiah, and to be their Prophet, Priest and King; and such as profess subjection to all his ordinances; while there is nothing known in their external practice contrary to such a profession. Such facts, being capable of being ascertained, are proper grounds on which a church may proceed in judging with whom she ought to hold sacramental

communion.

§ 10. With regard to matters of forbearance, it may be observed, that they are either matters of indifference; such as, between the resurrection of Christ and the destruction of the temple, the meats and days of which the apostle speaks in the xivth chapter of the epistle to the Romans; or circumstances of time or place, such as, beginning public worship at ten or at eleven o'clock; or points which have never been stated as articles of the church's public profession or testimony: of which points the apostle speaks in Philip, iii. 15, If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: These words imply, that forbearance is to be used in points, wherein some may be otherwise minded than they ought to be; while they are things, which the Lord has not yet brought a particular church to know and acknowledge; but which, she is to believe, that he will reveal to her. But no such forbearance is to be used with regard to articles of the public profession which she, as a church, has attained, according to what the apostle adds in verse 16th: But whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Hence, even those articles of a church's public profession, which are deemed nonessential or less important, being truths or duties of God's word which the church has been brought to know and profess, belong to the rule of her sacramental communion, and she is bound to exclude from it the open and obstinate opposers of such articles.

Here I cannot help taking notice of your comparison of the nonessential articles of our holy religion to the legs and arms of the human body. You observed, that a person may lose a limb, and yet be useful, honored, happy. So you suppose, a person may obstinately deny various truths of Christ as professed by us, and yet have sacramental communion with us. The cases, however, are not quite parallel: there is no such inconsistency in the former case, as in the latter. A man's want of a limb may be scarcely any hindrance to some ways in which he may be useful, honored, and happy. But there is no open and obstinate denial by communicants of any of the truths of Christ as pro

fessed by us, which is not contrary to the nature of that communion, which we ought to have in partaking of the Lord's supper; as it requires an entire agreement in the public profession of the truths of Christ; as it requires our giving glory to God with one mind and one mouth. But, supposing the case of such as deny certain truths or institutions of Christ to be similar to that of persons deprived of legs or arms, still our having sacramental communion with them would be unwarrantable; as it would expose us to the danger of being reduced to the same condition; that is, we would be thereby in danger of being seduced by such communion from the profession of these truths or institutions of Christ; for, says the apostle, evil communications corrupt good manners: a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

You grant, that a christian cannot surrender the least tittle of that truth, which he believes to be the testimony of his God; nor do any act which implies such a surrender. This concession cannot be reconciled to your communicating with a church whose profession openly denies the truth, which you believe to be the testimony of your God. For the public profession, which you make in that act of communicating, can be no other, as we have seen, than the profession of the church with which you communicate: and, therefore, whatever less or greater measure of God's truth, that profession surrenders, you, in that act, surrender too. You may say, that you will retain it in your heart, and mean to resume the open profession of it, as soon as the sacramental occasion is over: so might those unfaithful professors in the first ages of the christian church, whom their heathen persecutors prevailed on to throw a handful of incense on the heathen altar, have said. You say, that a christian cannot surrender the least tittle of truth which he believes to be the testimony of his God; or do any act which implies such a surrender. And, is it not as unlawful for a particular church, in her ecclesiastical capacity, to surrender any part of that which she hath received, and which she professes as a truth of God's word? Surely, it is no less unlawful. But a church may be justly said to surrender any such part of her profession, when she does not hold it fast. And, it is evident, that she does not hold it fast, when she admits the avowed opposers of it to her sacramental communion: for, in doing so, she in effect tells them and the world, that she does not account their opposition to that article any moral evil, nor the holding of it any duty. She does not require her members to hold it; and, therefore, she must be considered as dropping or surrendering it. For an article, which a church does not require her members to hold, may, indeed, be the private persuasion of individuals, but is no longer any part of her public profession.

§ 11. Alex. It is necessary to take notice of a mistake, which is growing more and more prevalent, concerning the intention and use of confessions of faith: I mean, in their present use and amplitude. When you speak of a church not surrendering any article of her profession, you mean that every article of the confession of faith which a particular church has adopted should be a term of communion; and that none should be admitted into her fellowship who disapproves of any article of it.* Is not this your opinion?

* Plea, &c. page 351.

Ruf. Yes; otherwise, I should think, it could not with propriety be called the profession of that church: because, if such as openly disapprove the various articles of it, be admitted into her communion, she may soon have few or no members that approve it: and, surely, it cannot be justly considered as the confession of any church, which is not approved by the members of it.

Alex. A confession of faith, indeed, as the fixed testimony of the church, by which her principles are to be tried, or as the judicial expression of the sense in which she understands the holy scriptures in relation to the doctrine, government, and worship of the christian church, when these things are matters of controversy, is so necessary, that it is difficult to conceive how it can be dispensed with. She must proclaim what she believes, and means to teach. But when such a confession is expanded into a comprehensive system of Theology, as in the Westminster Confession, ought it to be proposed for approbation in all its latitude to every one who desires baptism for his children, or *a seat at the Lord's table? No, it is sufficient to require of such an applicant his approbation of the cardinal points. It is not necessary, that he should be required to approve the other points contained in the public confession, which may be allowed to be important and worthy to be maintained with zeal and constancy; though not essential to christian faith and fellowship.*

Ruf. I have already said, that a church, having adopted a confession of faith, has, in doing so, stated a number of truths revealed, and duties enjoined in the word of God, acknowledging her obligation to maintain them. This acknowledgement respects all the points or articles of her confession alike: so that the admission of an avowed opposer of any one of these articles, to her sacramental communion, is not only contrary to the primary obligation she is under to hold such truths and duties as contained in the word of God; but also, contrary to the secondary obligation she is under to hold them from her own acknowledgement and confession of them.

It cannot be denied, that a church's adoption of a confession of faith, necessarily implies such an obligation; for she cannot adopt any point as a truth revealed in the word of God, or as a duty enjoined therein, without acknowledging herself and all her members to be bound to continue in the faith and profession of the one, and in the practice of the other. Nor is it less evident, that her admitting to sacramental communion an avowed opposer of any of these revealed truths, or commanded duties, specified in her confession, is quite contrary to that obligation: for a church cannot be said to hold what she allows her members openly to oppose. If she grant her sacramental communion to one opposer of a truth or duty of God's word; she cannot refuse it to ten, twenty, or a hundred of the same description. We may reason in the same way concerning all those non-essential points, which you own to be important and worthy to be maintained with zeal and constancy: for if the church admits to her sacramental communion, the avowed opposer of one of these points, she cannot consistently refuse the same privilege to the pious opposer of another of them, nor to the like opposer of a third, or of a fourth, and so on, till