to the Lord Christ, who appointed that order, and injurious to the souls of the offenders themselves, for whose good it was appointed: and the Lord's people would have cause to fear that he would make a breach upon them, because they sought him not after the due order.

I may farther observe, that an article of a church's confession, which is really a portion of the christian religion, and acknowledged to be so, ought not to be called an accident; since it is necessary to the perfection of the christian religion, and was designed by infinite wisdom to be so. Nor ought it to be represented as a peculiarity of that church, since it ought to be held by the whole catholic church: nor ought the evil of denying it to be minced and palliated, by giving it the name of a trivial imperfection; since it belongs to that unbelief which makes God a liar. Such an article of a church's confession is indeed a stumbling-block, in the sense in which Christ himself is so to many. I am persuaded, that the rejection of the least of all the truths or institutions of the Lord Jesus is such a transgression, as cannot be expiated otherwise than by his infinitely precious blood.

§ 14. Alex. The word of God extends the privilege of whatever communion the church enjoys, to all them who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. Calling upon the name of the Lord Jusus, is not a loose nor equivocal phrase. It is a comprehensive, yet precise and well defined character of a real and orderly christian. Its terms must be interpreted by those fuller declarations of the scripture to which it refers, and of which it is a summary. Thus, the name of Jesus includes whatever is peculiar to him, as the Saviour of sinners: for example, the doctrine of his person; of his righteousness; of his sacrifice; of his intercession; of his authority; briefly, of his fulness, as the fountain of all that grace, which his redeemed receive now; and of all that glory, which they shall enjoy hereafter Calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus is equivalent to such a profession of faith in him as contains the embracing him, in his saving offices, bearing testimony to his cause and cross, waiting upon him in his ordinances, addressing him in acts of direct worship, submitting to his authority, and keeping his commandments. Let every one, says Paul, who names the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. This is our great practical test. They who are without the doctrine of Christ, must not indeed presume to talk of their virtues. But, on the other hand, they who do not glorify him as made of God unto them sanctification, crucifying the flesh with its affections and lusts, and studying to be holy in all manner of conversation, can derive no true comfort from their doctrinal accuracy; nor be allowed to plead it as a valid title to sacramental fellowship. Faith, without works, is dead in the judgement of God and man.*

Ruf. The view you have given of the character of those who call on the Lord Jesus, I believe to be just. Allowing, then, that this character, according to your view of it, should regulate the church's admission of persons to sacramental communion, it will follow, that any open deviation from this character, must expose a church member to censure, and, while he obstinately persists in it, to suspension from the Lord's table. They are, however, chargeable with such deviation from this character, who refuse to bear testimony to the cause of

*Plea, &c. pages 319, 320.

Christ, to his whole cause. But it cannot be denied, that every article of a church's confession, expressing adherence to any of the truths or institutions of Jesus Christ, belongs to his cause: and, therefore, the open rejection of such an article, must be an open refusal to bear testimony to some part of the cause of Christ; and, consequently, is an open deviation from the character you have described of those who call on the Lord Jesus; a deviation, which obstinately persisted in, renders the censure and suspension, now mentioned, necessary.

Alex. It is indeed the character of those who call on the name of the Lord Jusus, that they are such as cherish the faith of the cardinal truths, and bear testimony against errors affecting the substance of the gospel. Such, I think, no church should exclude from sacramental communion; though they refuse to acknowledge a non-essential article of the church's confession; however consonant that article may be to the scriptures. I suppose you cannot deny that this may be the case with persons or churches that may be justly said to call on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Ruf. If this character of calling on the name of the Lord Jesus be admitted as a rule of sacramental communion, it must be either according to the whole extent of its import, or according to a certain part of it. If this character be a rule of communion only according to a part of its import, so that there are some things belonging to it which need not be required in order to the admission of persons to sacramental communion, and which they may openly and obstinately reject, without being liable to any church censure; then it should be shewn, from the scriptures, what these things are. This has never been, and never will be shewn. On the other hand, if this character be a rule of church communion according to its whole import, then every open deviation from it, that comes under the cognizance of the office-bearers of the church, ought to render persons liable to censure, and, if they are obstinate, to exclusion from sacramental communion.

fail

When we say, that those to whom church communion is to be extended, are such as call on the name of the Lord Jesus, or christians; we do not mean that all, who bear such a designation are to be admitted to sacramental communion indiscriminately, and without any enquiry, whether they are submitting to the due order which Christ hath appointed his people to observe, in approaching to his table. A person, who is, in general and according to a judgement of charity, entitled to the character of one that calls on the name of the Lord Jesus, may in some particular, belonging to the whole extent of that character, as you have explained it, as for example, in that of assenting to a particular article of a church's confession; which, though it may not be one of the more important articles, is certainly consonant to the word of God. When this is the case, the due order, according to which a person should approach to the Lord's table, requires that he should be one who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus, not only in general, but also in that particular: for he ought not to be admitted to sacramental communion, under the character of one, who obstinately persists in any one thing, which, according to the church's confession, is a deviation from what you have shewn to be included in the import of calling

on the Lord Jesus.

The truth is, your account of calling on the name of the Lord Jesus, as the character of those with whom a church ought to have sacramental communion, is plainly inconsistent with the opinion, that a church Qught to require no other profession of the christian religion in order to that communion, than a profession of the cardinal truths, or of such as affect the substance of the gospel, For this opinion supposes, that there are some other truths of the gospel, which, though acknowledged to be such in the public profession of a particular church, yet not being cardinal truths, nor belonging to the substance of the gospel, are smaller truths, the open denial of which ought not to be a ground of church censure, or of exclusion from the Lord's table. These truths are said to be smaller matters; and they may be so in a comparative sense. But, absolutely considered, we may well say with Mr. Livingston, "Christ's small things are great things." You have granted, that a christian is bound to hold the least tittle of what he acknowledges to be Divine truth: and how can you refuse to allow the church, in her collective and judicial capacity, to be under the same obligation?

15. Alex. What a spectacle in the eyes of God, of angels, and of men, is a number of churches, all wearing the same name, pleading the authority and professing substantially the faith of their Redeemer, pretending to cherish his Spirit, to imitate his example, and to promote his kingdom; and yet, refusing to hold communion with each other, on account of their respective corruptions.*

Ruf. If any of these churches are persisting in real corruptions, or in the profession or practice of any thing really contrary to the word of God, it is plain, that, in that particular, they cannot lawfully plead the authority of Christ; nor justly contend that, in that respect, they are cherishing his Spirit, imitating his example, or promoting his kingdom. So far as they are obstinately attached to their idol, they are holding fast deceit, and refusing to let it go. On the other hand, if the supposition of corruptions in these churches has no foundation but in misunderstanding or calumny; then, three things must follow. First, That it ought to be shewn, that this is the true state of the case; and that what was called a corruption of any of these churches, was either falsely imputed to her, or was in truth no corruption, but a truth revealed or a duty enjoined by the word of God. Secondly, That, in order to sacramental communion, these churches ought to acknowledge the unjust charges they have brought against one another. These churches have offended one another: in which case, reconciliation ought to go before sacramental communion; and there is no cordial reconciliation without a candid acknowledgment of the offence that has taken place which acknowledgment ought to be as public and explicit as the offence. Thirdly, These churches ought to exist no longer, as societies separate from one another, in respect of religious persua

sion or communion.

Alex. There are opinions, feelings, habits, which must be reduced much nearer than they are to some common standard, before it could be attempted to bring them into one organized body, without the danger of doing more harm than good. †

Ruf. There is not a more solemn exhortation in the book of God, than that which we have in 1 Cor. i. 10, Now I beseech you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing; and that there be no divisions among you: no divisions for the maintaining of what is contrary to truth or duty: no divisions on account of indifferent things; on account of opinions, feelings, or habits, which are not sufficient grounds of church censure.

According to the Presbyterian, the only scriptural system of churcli government, the catholic church ought to be all comprehended in one organized body, having many organized bodies subordinate to it; but all of them professing the same faith, and subject to the same discipline. While the catholic church is not thus one, it is so far in a state of defection from the Divine rule of its constitution. All the parts of the catholic church ought to have sacramental communion with one another. But then this supposes, not only their agreement in the doctrine and in the means and manner of Divine worship, but also their subjection to the same discipline and government.

Alex. Though the churches, which I just now described, have each a distinct ordinary and stated communion of its own, this is no reason against the cultivation of friendly intercourse-against what may be called church hospitality-against the most ungrudging fellowship in holy ordinances, as opportunity serves. They, who should live very uncomfortably under the same roof, may yet be excellent neighbours.*

Ruf. Were a person to come into his neighbour's house, and by collusion with some unfaithful servants, partake of the provisions and other privileges of the family, when and how he pleased, in contempt of the family order; can we suppose that it would satisfy the head of the family, to be told that nothing was meant but friendly intercourse and hospitality; that the person did not seek to dwell under the same roof, but would be an excellent neighbour. Would not the master of the house resent such injurious conduct; and forbid such a person to enter his house, unless he would comply with the order and regulations of the family? It is much in the same manner that a person treats a particular church, when he avows his contempt of some part of her scriptural profession, or of her scriptural discipline; and yet, through the unfaithfulness of her office-bearers, is admitted to her sacramental communion.

Alex. Are not all the churches, I alluded to, true churches of Jesus Christ

Ruf. It is necessary to distinguish between a true church and a pure church. A church, that has all these things necessary to the being of a church, and that makes an external visible profession of such doctrines as are absolutely necessary to be known and believed in order to salvation, is a true church. By a pure church is meant, not a perfect church, but one that through the goodness and mercy of God, has attained a great measure of conformity to the Divine pattern, in her doctrine, worship, government and discipline; and, in these respects, is free from those errors and corruptions which render other churches impure. A true church, is one that adheres to Jesus Christ as her foundation but even such a church may build so much hay and stubble upon the foundation; and may become so impure and corrupt in

* Plea, &c. page 362.

doctrine, worship, and government, that it may be warrantable and necessary to withdraw from her communion.

The church of England holds the truth in her doctrinal articles; yet, her corruptions in worship, discipline, and government, and her refusing to give any faithful testimony against the many gross errors which have been taught by her members, and which are directly contrary to her own articles, sufficiently warrant the secession of the dissenters in England and Ireland from her communion. So the churches, you allude to, may be true churches of Christ; and yet, in some of them, obstinate attachment to error, and continued defection from the reformation formerly attained, may render a separate communion necessary for the due maintainance of a testimony for truth.

These churches are, in fact, separated from one another: and any one of them, on whose part the separation is just and necessary, cannot, consistently with faithfulness, return to sacramental communion with them, whose defections caused the separation, till they return to an acknowledgment of the truth.

§ 16. Alex. It cannot be denied, that God holds communion with these churches; and therefore, we may hold sacramental communion with them.

Ruf. The consequence may be justly denied, for the reason given by a judicious writer. Our Presbyterian or reformed divines, says he, are all very cautious in determining what length a church may go in defection or corruption, before communion is wholly cut off between the Head and all the members thereof. Though corruption and superstition can never have the approbation and countenance of Heaven; will it therefore follow, that when we depart from communion with a particular visible church, on account of her corruptions. Christ, the Head of the church, is to be blamed, if he, in his adorable sovereignty, communicate his grace even to those who remain in communion with that church, however corrupt and degenerate? The sovereignty of grace may be glorified amongst those, with whom it is not safe nor warrantable for us to hold communion, as members of the same ecclesiastical body. The hidden and secret communications of the gre of the Redeemer, are not the standard or rule of our duty.*

Alex. Your author is chargeable with confusion; for he does not distinguish between secret and public communion. No intelligent christian will admit, that things, which are absolutely secret between God and the soul, can be a rule of proceeding to his church. But the visible and public communion, which God holds with a church, or with her members, is such a rule.†

Ruf. You agree with the author, then, that the secret communications of the Redeemer's grace, are not the rule of our duty in the matter of church communion. The communion of God with his own people, is in the nature of it secret; as it consists in the communications of his saving grace to them, and the returns of their faith and love to him. Every person in a state of grace, in some measure, enjoys this communion.

Hence, it is evident, that the objection which the author answers in the passage now recited, relates to the secret communion of Christ with his people; and is much the same with saying, that the public

* Wilson's Defence of Reformation Principles, page 70. + Plea, &c. page 312.