Images de page
PDF
ePub

avowed and obstinate opposers of any article of her scriptural profession: whereas, according to your catholic scheme, she has no right to refuse it to such opposers, unless the article opposed be what you deem essential. But such refusal is certainly a right of the catholic church: for the catholic church requires all attainable conformity to the word of God, in all particular churches, and in all their members. She cannot, consistently, spare or tolerate one error or corruption in doctrine, worship, discipline or government. The errors and corruptions that prevail in particular churches, are not to be ascribed to the catholic church as delineated in the scriptures. When I say this of the catholic church, as the body of Christ, I speak of what she ought to be, not of what she is, in the present degenerate state of many particular churches. I speak of her in the same sense in which, I think, you must be understood, when you say, she has the right of restraining disorderly members by the agency of any one particular church; that is, as she is morally incapable of sanctioning or countenancing any disorder, any real error or corruption.

In the second place, I observe, that the exercise of discipline in any particular church, with regard to the members of other churches, must either have, or not have, the peculiar corruptions retained and justified by these churches for its object. If the exercise of discipline you propose, has no respect to these peculiar corruptions, but only to other vices and immoralities, then, it is nothing to the purpose of answering this objection against your scheme of catholic communion: (I mean this objection, that it renders church discipline partial and unfaithful ;) while these peculiar corruptions, which are supposed to be as really contrary to the word of God, and to the public profession of the particular church in which this communion takes place, as any other evils, are spared and tolerated. But if the discipline proposed with regard to the members of other churches, respects these peculiar corruptions; even corruptions, which, though they may not be deemed to be in essentials, are really contrary to the word of God, and to the public profession of such a particular church; then, it must be a discipline that subjects the members of these churches to censure, for their peculiar corruptions; and, if they are obstinate, to exclusion from sacramental communion. If Prelacy, for example, be the peculiar corruption in which a person is involved, by being a member of a corrupt church; then, according to this discipline, a particular church, which is faithful, can have no sacramental communion with him, while he avows an obstinate attachment to that corruption; or, till he acknowledges it to be sinful, and a cause of God's displeasure with his church, If a particular church were to exercise discipline faithfully on the members of other churches, from whose communion she has, upon scriptural principles, withdrawn, and continues separate, she would, in the first place, censure them for continuing in the communion of these corrupt churches. How can we censure our own members for opposing any article of our confession or testimony agreeable to the scriptures; and yet exempt from censure the members of other churches, chargeable with the same offence; merely, because it is an offence practised and justified by these churches? Surely a real offence, condemned by the word of God, is not obliterated nor even extenuated by the multitudes, under the name of churches, that are

involved in it. We are expressly forbidden to follow a multitude to do any evil.

Alex. Here is the mischief: every one accounts that to be order, which he has been accustomed to practise; and whosoever does not、 move in his track, walks disorderly.*

Ruf. It is a great mischief, in dealing with the erroneous, that they never adhere to the true state of the question. By this means, the clearest evidence of what is offered for their conviction, is eluded. At present, the subject of discussion is not, how far any are right or wrong in charging others with actual disorder; but the abstract question, Whether we ought to have sacramental communion with such as publicly profess their purpose of adhering to what the scripture teaches us, and our own profession justly binds us to consider as real disorder. I only add at present, that I am persuaded, that the apostle Paul would have pronounced any person a disorderly walker, who is an open and obstinate rejecter of any one of the doctrines or commands of Christ; and that he would not have reckoned the offence less, but greater, for this circumstance, that the doctrine or command rejected, is an express article of the confession of a particular church for it was Paul's manner to assert the truth in the most faithful and pointed manner against the errors that began, very early, to trouble the New Testament church. It seems to have been a less evil, than that now specified, for which he withstood Peter to the face, as not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.

Our time will not permit us to pursue the subject any farther at present.

Alex. If you please, Rufus, we may resume our conversation toafter breakfast.

morrow,

Ruf. I have no objection to your proposal.

DIALOGUE III.

The character of a church with which we are to have sacramental communion.....The import of Calling on the name of the Lord Jesus......Sacramental communion with what may, in some sense, be termed a true church of Christ, not always our duty.....Sacramental communion with those with whom Christ has communion, in some cases, not warrantable.....Nor, in some cases, with those that belong to the catholic church.....Nor always with a particular church, on account of its duty to dispense the Lord's supper..... The christian character which entitles to sacramental communion.

§ 13. Ruf. So we have met according to our agreement; let us proceed in the consideration of the question concerning what is termed catholic communion.

Alex. The question concerning a church, in order to our communion with her, ought to be, What is her substantial character? Has she the truth, the ordinances, the Spirit of Christ ?†

[ocr errors][merged small]

Ruf. The expression, substantial character, seems to be one of those well-sounding phrases, which we are apt to use in common conversation, without knowing precisely what we mean by them. But, with regard to the truths and ordinances of Christ, I should think, a christian ought to try a church, as he tries his own heart, by the universality of her regard to them. A church, as well as a believer, may justly say, Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect to all thy commandments. A church may hold some truths and ordinances of Christ; and yet, while she refuses to maintain others in their purity, particularly such as are much opposed in the day wherein we live, she may be chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ. And how are we to know whether a church has the Spirit of Christ, but by the impartiality of her regard to all his truths and institutions! This is intimated in the universal terms that are used with regard to the things, which the Holy Spirit teaches believers. The Spirit of truth shall guide you into all the truth. We have an unction from the Holy One, whereby we know all things.

Alex. Will you say, that we ought never to communicate, but with the members of a perfect church.*

Ruf. By no means; but it should be our concern, that the church with which we communicate be faithful. There are three things necessary to entitle a church to that character; each of which is subverted by the latitudinarian scheme of church communion.

The first of these things is constancy, in adhereing to whatever degree of reformation has been attained. The Lord's kindness, in bringing a professing people to a purer profession of the truth, and to a purer observation of her ordinances, than many others which bear the christian name, ought to be acknowledged with lively gratitude, as laying them under a special obligation to persevere in their adherence to the whole of that profession, and not to lose any thing which he has wrought for them. Hence our Lord gives that solemn charge to the churches of Asia again and again, Hold fast that which thou hast, Rev. ii. 25. iii. 11. And it is always the duty of the church, to attend to what she has attained, and to walk according to that rule, Philip, iii. 16. We are enjoined to hold fast the profession of the faith without wavering, Heb. x. 23: without doubting, without departing from the least iota of it; or even from the scriptural mode of professing the faith that has been attained. But a church, as we have already seen, is receding from the scriptural' profession which she has attained, when she has sacramental communion with the avowed opposers of any article of that profession. A church, that has made a good profession of the doctrines of grace, falls away from it, when she holds sacramental communion with Socinians and Arminians: A church, that has made a public profession of her faith concerning Presbyterial church government, as the only government which Christ has appointed to be exercised in his church, falls away from that profession, when she holds sacramental communion with Episcopalians or Independents. In like manner, a church that has exhibited a judicial testimony against the prevailing errors and corruptions of the times, falls away from that testimony, when she holds communion with the known opposers of it.

* Plea, &c. page 322.

Another thing, which belongs to the character of a faithful church, is the bold and open profession of controverted truths. We read of the present truth which christians ought to know and be established in, 2 Pet. i. 12: and of the word of Christ's patience, which some are commended for keeping, Rev. iii. 10: by which we may understand any article of the christian religion, which is much despised and reproached; which christians, on that account, are tempted to relinquish; and the faithful holding of which is continually an exercise of their faith and patience. The present truth, or word of Christ's patience, is often varying: it is sometimes one truth or duty, sometimes another. In itself, or comparatively considered, it may be something less important. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, it was the duty of observing the ceremonial prohibition of the eating of swine's flesh. It has been the scriptural form of church government, or of religious worship, as well as the Divinity of Christ, or justification through his imputed righteousness. But the truth or duty, in this case, derives a temporary importance from the present opposition made to it; and from the trial which is thereby taken of the faithfulness of professors. A church and her members are unfaithful, when they decline the open and particular profession of any one such controverted article of the christian religion: nor will their profession of all the other articles of that religion excuse or exempt them from the charge of unfaithfulness, while they obstinately refuse to acknowledge that which is controverted. By such an article, God takes trial of churches, as he took trial of Saul, by the command to destroy the Amalekites; of the remnant of the Jews that came to Jeremiah to enquire the word of the Lord, by the prohibition of going to Egypt; and of the young man enquiring what he should do to inherit eternal life, by the duty of parting with his large possessions at Christ's call. All this doctrine is exploded by the latitudinarian scheme of church communion: according to which, a particular church, instead of contending for the present truth, or the truth that is controverted, must admit to her communion the most obstinate and avowed opposers of that truth; nor can she consistently inflict the slightest censure, not even an admonition, for the most open contempt of it. Nay, she must allow her members to have sacramental communion with a church whose public profession is in direct opposition to such a truth, and to declare their agreement with that very profession in the act of communicating with her.

The third thing, belonging to the character of a faithful church, is, that she is sincerely endeavouring to come nearer to perfection in respect of her communion. Let us go on, says the apostle, to perfection.* It is true, there is no perfect church upon earth, as there is no perfect saint. Yet, as every true believer is aiming at perfection in holiness; so a church, as far as she is faithful, aims at perfection in her communion. There are two things necessary to this perfection. One is, the integrity of her profession, as including an adherence to all the doctrines and commandments of Christ. The other is, the harmony of her members being such, that they all think and speak the same thing. It is evident, that a church is not aiming at this perfection, whose allowed practice it is, to admit to her sacramental communion, the avowed opposers of any doctrine, which she acknowledges as taught.

* Heb.. vi. 1.

in the word of God; or of any form of worship or church government, which she holds to have been instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. A church, that is going on towards perfection, instead of seeking communion with the open opposers of her confession, will study to be more exact in receiving none to her communion, but such as adhere to every article of it; and, instead of rendering the articles of her confession fewer or more ambiguous, she will endeavour to have the truths of God and the duties enjoined in his word, exhibited in her confession or testimony more largely and particularly, according to the prevalence of contrary errors and corruptions. It is this endeavour, that distinguishes a faithful reforming, from a declining and backsliding, church. Alex. I will not quarrel with a church about forms, about ceremonies, about any of these points, in which our disagreement does not prevent us from being one in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the sake of that transcendant common interest, I will walk with her in love and fellowship. The question is not about substance, but about accident; not about those vital principles and virtues which constitute the solid glory of a church, and are the seal of God's own Spirit, but about imperfections, which neither destroy their being, nor hinder their predominance; and especially about those things in which she differs from our own peculiarities. Here is the huge stumbling-block-the inexpiable transgression.*

Ruf. You rightly call us, Alexander, to attend to the state of the question. If it were enquired, whether any church might warrantably censure, or exclude persons from sacramental communion on account of their refusing an approbation of the doctrines and commandments of men, or of the forms and ceremonies which men have introduced into the worship of God, I would readily answer in the negative. But it is plain, that the question about catholic or latitudinarian communion is, Whether a church ought to admit to her sacramental communion such as obstinately reject any article of her confession containing nothing but some truth revealed or duty enjoined in the word of God. I see not how such rejection of the truth can be denied to be sin; or how the office-bearers of the church, when it comes regularly before them, (as it must do when they are judging who are to be admitted to sacramental fellowship,) can let it pass without censure. Them that sin, these office-bearers are bound to rebuke before all. And if the offenders are obstinate, and cannot be brought to an acknowledgment of the truth, higher censure becomes necessary. Such is the order, according to which the word of God directs his church to deal with persons chargeable with error either in judgement or practice. The officebearers of the church may have a judgement of charity concerning some that have fallen into grievous error; that as to their state they are still one with them in the Lord Jesus Christ. But what then? May the office-bearers, on that account, dispense with the order that Christ hath appointed? May they admit such offenders to sacramental communion, without requiring them to submit to any censure on account of their error? Or, if these offenders obstinately refuse to submit, and persist in their error, must the office-bearers, disregarding the order of Christ's house, admit them to his table, notwithstanding their obstinacy? By no means: Their doing so would be both dishonoring

* Plea, &c. pages 342, 343.

« PrécédentContinuer »