corruptions of a particular church, will not warrant us to withdraw from her communion, while we have any ground for a judgement of charity, that there are any real christians in her communion. To this objection, the author sufficiently answers, that there are cases, in which we ought to decline having church communion with such as we charitably judge have communion with Christ: because our communion with them, would be a conniving at, and partaking of the sins of their public profession. But his secret communion with them, is of a different kind, and infinitely far from being liable to such an imputation. As this is not denied, so the propriety of the author's observation, considered as an answer to the objection now mentioned, seems evident. But you say, the question is about visible and public communion. What do you mean by the public communion which God holds with the members of a church?

Alex. It is visible christianity; that is, such a profession and walk, as we have a right to expect from the disciples of Christ: which profession and walk, considered as the external effect and indication of their communion with God, are a sufficient reason for our communion with them, in those ordinances which are appointed expressly for their benefit.

Ruf. We should guard against wandering from the question in debate, by altering the terms of it. It is one thing to say, that we may warrantably have sacramental communion with all those with whom God has communion. It is another thing to say, that we may warrantably have communion with all those, whose profession and walk are such as we have a right to expect in the disciples of Christ. I allow the latter proposition to be most true; and a rule of church communion, according to the scripture. But the former, which means, as I have already observed, that we are, in all cases, to hold sacramental communion with all those that have, or that can be charitably judged to have, real or secret communion with God, is manifestly false.

Alex. Why do you deny communion with God to be the rule of sacramental communion; and yet, allow a profession and walk becoming the gospel, which are the effect and indication of that communion, to be so.

Ruf. Because people's profession and external walk becoming the gospel, may well be admitted as a warrant for sacramental communion; as they may be certainly known, like any other matters of fact. But it cannot be certainly known, who they are, with whom God, in the sovereignty of his grace, holds real and spiritual communion. Many, whose profession and external conduct, are such as warrant us to have sacramental communion with them, neither have, nor ever had, any real communion with God. They have eaten and drunk in Christ's presence, and agreeably to the external order of his house; and yet, have had no real communion with him. On the other hand, God, in his sovereign way of dealing with his own people, with whom he never fails to hold communion, may leave them to fall into such open offences and backsliding, as may render a due acknowledgment of them necessary, before we can regularly have sacramental communion with

them.

We have no reason to doubt, that Miriam was a saint; nor can we say that her sin, in speaking against Moses, excluded her altogether

from real communion with her God; and yet that sin caused her, by his command, to be for a time, shut out of the camp of Israel. It is evident, therefore, that the having or wanting real communion with God, cannot be a rule to direct us, with whom we ought, or ought not, to have sacramental communion.

Men's scriptural profession and practice, as they come under our notice, (and they can be a rule to us no otherwise,) are a warrant for our sacramental communion with them; but are not infallible evidences of their real communion with God. We allow, that such a profession and walk, belong to real communion with God, as common honesty in our civil dealings also does: but if ministers teach people, that these things are that communion itself, or even that they are, without any thing more, certain evidences of it, they teach people to deceive themselves.

Alex. That which we have seen and heard, says John the beloved, declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly, our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. This text, proposes our communion with God, as a sufficient reason for inviting others to have communion with us; and therefore, we may infer, that his communion with others, is a sufficient reason for our communion with them. If this invitation is to believers, the apostle is to be considered as saying, we invite you to communion with us on this principle; that we, as well as you, have communion with God. If the invitation is to unbelievers, he is to be considered as saying, come and be sharers by faith in that communion with us, which flows from communion with God.

Supposing, then, that the persons invited, became believers, and had communion with God; would it not have been singularly inconsistent, for the apostle to have said to them: Communion with God, is not a sufficient warrant for communion with us!*

Ruf. The esteem and cultivation of communion with God, ought not to be represented, as superseding the necessity of observing the order, that Christ has appointed to be observed in his church. The apostle never meant to tell any person, that it mattered not how much he disregarded this or the other Divine command; it would be no bar to their communion with him, provided he had communion with God: this communion being the sole requisite. As this supposition is absurd in itself, so it is peculiarly opposite to the scope of this epistle; which is to shew the vanity of men's pretensions to communion with God, without a habitual and prevailing respect to all his commandments. With regard to the text now quoted, the apostle speaks of that spiritual communion with the saints, which is the privilege of all believers. Now, though persons have access to this communion in general by faith only: yet, this is nothing against holding, that there are external signs of this spiritual communion, of which, even those who have already believed through grace, are not to partake, without observing a certain order which God has appointed. Thus a believer, who has habitual communion with God, ought not to approach the Lord's table, without an exercise of self-examination; nor, if he has given public offence, without acknowledging that offence, to the satisfaction of the church of God. Besides, so far as the words of the apostle here are applicable

* Plea, &c. pages 312, 313.

to sacramental communion, they are to be considered as a commendation of that communion, and a grand motive to it: namely, That the believing partakers of it, had true fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ; the apostle and others attesting their experience of this fellowship, and inviting others to a participation of the same privilege. But this is very different from a particular description of the due order, according to which persons ought to approach, or be admitted to the Lord's table. To give an account of this order, is not the apostle's design here: and it is evidently one thing to say, that the excellence of the communion to be enjoyed at the Lord's table, should induce persons to come to it; and it is another thing to say, how or when they should do so.

Alex. The apostle Paul lays upon christians the injunction, in Rom. xv. 7, Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God. This injunction has, for its immediate object, the repression of those jealousies, alienations, and divisions, which had originated from the dispute about meats and days, in the church of Rome. But the rule is general, and determines, that matters which destroy not communion with Christ, are not to destroy the communion of christians: and that, when one christian, or party of christians, sees the tokens of Christ's approbation and presence with another, it is their duty to reciprocate all the offices of christian love, after the example of Christ's kindness to them both. This, imports a command to hold communion, church communion, with all who give evidence of being in communion with Christ.*

Ruf. There is nothing in the scope or connection of the passage, in which the apostle Paul uses the words you have quoted, that serves to support the scheme of sacramental communion, among those who hold different and opposite professions of religion. The profession of the church at Rome, was then no other, than that of adherence to all the doctrine taught, and all the duty enjoined by the apostles. None of those, who are here directed to receive one another, had rejected any part of that profession: their differences related to private opinions about meats and days; the observation of which, though not necessary, was not sinful. Their disputes did not, like those of the different denominations among us, respect any part of the public profession, the public worship or government of the church of Christ at Rome. None of the parties, which the apostle here deals with, were chargeable with corrupting the word of God; with preaching another gospel, than that which the apostles preached; with changing Divine ordinances; or with introducing any human invention into their public worship; or with drawing back from the scriptural matter or manner of the profession, which that church, in her public capacity, had attained. Thus, there can be no just reasoning from the sacramental communion of these parties in Rome, to that of the different denominations among us. Farther, the receiving of another, to which the apostle exhorted the Romans, was in order to their joining in the same confession of faith, in the same ordinances of worship, in the observation of the same rules of church order, delivered by the apostles: for nothing less can be meant by their glorifying God with one mind and one mouth; and by their walking together in such a fellowship of the gospel, as excluded

*Plea, &c. page 314.

division and doubtful disputation. But the celebrated scheme of catholic communion, or rather catholic confusion, allows diversity of minds and mouths among partakers of the same sacramental table; even in respect of the public profession of their faith; a diversity which manifestly tends to the murmuring and disputings, which the apostle prohibits among the partakers of the same communion, Philip. ii. 14; and which it is the design of the passage under consideration to repress among the believing Romans. It is evident, then, that the persons, to whom this exhortation was first given, were members of the same particular church, and chargeable with nothing that exposed them to church censure; and therefore their receiving one another cannot be considered as parallel to the sacramental communion which persons hold with one another, who are members of different particular churches; and who, on account of the erroneous profession of one or other of these churches, ought to be censured for their avowed opinions or practices. Your observation, that matters which destroy not communion with Christ, are not to destroy the communion of christians, is true in respect of their state of communion with one another as they are members of one mystical body in Christ; and, in respect of the mutual benefit of their faith and of the exercise of love to one another expressed in prayer and charitable communications. But, as applied to sacramental communion, it is very extravagant. When persons are really united to Christ, we are sure, that no temptations of Satan or the world; no prevalence of in-dwelling sin, can destroy their communion with him. But with regard to scandalous offences, into which real saints may fall, though they cannot cut them off from communion with Christ, and ought not to hinder the exercises of love now mentioned; yet they render them liable to the censures of the church, and to suspension from sacramental communion. For, in the case of any scandal, the church has no power of censuring at all, if she has not a power of suspending from sealing ordinances, while the scandal is persisted in. The ground, as we have already seen, on which church-censure proceeds, is not the want of a saving interest in Christ, or the want of communion with him, but a specific charge of some offence.

Alex. Still you overlook the words of the text, which import, that we should receive to our communion all those whom Christ receives. Ruf. It sufficiently appears by the view, that has now been taken of this passage, that we must limit the receiving of one another, which the apostle speaks of, to the communion of persons in the same church, making the same profession of the faith; and therefore it cannot be brought to warrant the sacramental communion of the members of different particular churches, making different and contradictory professions of religion. But, with regard to the words, as Christ hath received us, it may be observed, that the apostle does not here direct christians to judge concerning Christ's receiving others; but to consider how he had received themselves. He does not say, you ought to receive others, as Christ has received them; but receive one another, as Christ has received us. It is to the same purpose as if the apostle had said: Let each of you remember the tenderness and condescension which Christ manifested in receiving you; and let his manner be your pattern in receiving one another. Thus, the apostle does not say, that the fact of Christ's having received persons, in all cases, war

rants our receiving them to sacramental communion; but he exhorts us to show our gratitude and thankfulness to him, who received us so graciously, by kindly receiving one another.

Though the negative proposition were granted, that we ought not to maintain church communion with any, whom, in the judgement of charity, we cannot think our Lord has received; yet the positive assertion would not necessarily follow, that, in all cases, we are to join in sacramental communion with those whom we charitably think Christ has received: just as, from the truth of the negative proposition, that persons ought not to be admitted to the Lord's supper without a competent measure of knowledge, we cannot conclude that all who have such knowledge ought to be admitted to that privilege; because, other qualifications also are necessary. After all, did Christ ever tell any, that there are some things, which he has taught or commanded in his word, of so little consequence, that the public denial, or contempt of them, is not to be considered either as a hindrance to his people's enjoyment of communion with himself, or as any bar to their sacramental communion with one another? Or did he ever say to the office-bearers of the church: As in the communion which I vouchsafed to you, I allowed you to disregard some of my doctrines and commands of less importance; so you must give the same allowance to those, whom you admit to sacramental communion? Let sufficient evidence be produced, that Christ has ever said so to any; and I shall offer no more objections to your scheme of catholic communion. I think, he speaks the reverse to those whom he admits to communion with himself. A man, says he, who is my friend, or a lover of me, is a keeper of my words, without any exception, a doer of whatsover I command him.*

§ 17. Alex. The church of Christ is one. Every member of this body has, by a Divine constitution, both union and communion with every other member: they are united together as parts of a whole, and sympathize with each other accordingly. The members of the body of Christ have a common and unalterable interest in all the provision, which God has made for its nourishment; and that simply and absolutely, because they are members of that body. The members of the church of Christ, as such, are under the obligation of God's authority to recognise each other's character and privileges, and consequently not to deny the tokens of such recognition. Sacramental communion is one of those tokens; and therefore the members of the church of Christ, as such, are under the obligation of God's authority to recognise their relation to Christ and to each other, by joining together in sacramental communion. Nor has any church upon earth the power to refuse a seat at the Lord's table to one, whose conversation is such as becomes the gospel.t

Ruf. I admit all this; but cannot see how it serves in the least, to justify your scheme. The church of Christ is one: considered as invisible, her unity lies in her having one Head; and in the in-dwelling of one Spirit in him and in all her members: considered as visible, her unity lies in her acknowledgment of the same Head; and in the conformity of her profession and practice to the truths and institutions, which he has delivered in his word. Errors and corruptions, openly persisted in, against the public profession of any particular church, are

* John xiv. 23. xv. 14. † Plea, &c. pages 15, 16.