Images de page
PDF
ePub

contrary to this visible unity of the church of Christ; and therefore they ought not to be tolerated in her communion.

True believers are members of the church invisible; and, as such, are liable to God's fatherly chastisements for their iniquities: and, as members of the visible church, they may be liable to her censure, for their public offences, as well as others. Every error or corruption, in opposition to the reformation already attained by the church of Christ, is such an offence: it is a deviation from a conversation becoming the gospel. While any person openly and obstinately adheres to such a deviation, he cannot regularly sit down at the Lord's table with a church whose profession or testimony expressly condemns it. In this case, the church is far from denying his unalienable interest in the provisions of Christ's house: but so far as these provisions are to be dealt out by stewards, his people may expect to receive them no otherwise, than according to the order which he has appointed to be observed in the distribution of them: an order, which requires, that the Lord's supper should not be dispensed to any till they profess their adherence to the confession or testimony of the church of Christ; while nothing is found in that confession or testimony, but what is consonant to his word.

Nor is it denied, that 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 to act towards one another accordingly. But this recognising includes, not only a judgement of charity concerning the gracious state of a church member, but also, a distinct knowledge of the conformity of his present profession and practice to the word of God. According to this recognising, the sacred symbols are to be given to the professed friends of all the truths and institutions of Christ; nor can we give them to any other without being chargeable with unfaithfulness to the Master of the feast.

Alex. The Lord Jesus Christ gave all church privileges to his church catholic; and from this catholic grant do all particular churches derive their right to whatever privileges they enjoy. The members of all true churches have, therefore, the very same right to the Lord's table. By what authority, then, does any particular church refuse to admit christians, from other particular churches, to the sacramental table? It may be said to a church, chargeable with such refusal, it is the Lord's table, not yours.*

Ruf. The right of all, that belong to the catholic visible church, is not disputed. But when a particular church, endeavouring to adhere faithfully to a pure profession of Divine truths, refuses to admit the openly erroneous and corrupt, whether they be usual members of that church or not, to the sacramental table, what she refuses such persons, is not the regular use or enjoyment of their right, but only the abuse of it; for men are chargeable with such abuse, whenever they depart from the order, that Christ has appointed in the participation of his ordinances. We disapprove of communicating with other churches, not because they are other churches; but, because they are erroneous and corrupt: and, if we refuse to admit their members to communi, cate with us; it is because they avow their obstinate attachment to the errors and corruptions of these churches. It is the very reason

* Plea, &c. pages 18, 19.

why we dare not admit them, that the table is not ours, but the Lord's. It is his table; and therefore the order appointed in his word, ought to be strictly observed: no open and obstinate opposer of any of his truths or institutions, acknowledged in the confession of the church, in which this ordinance is dispensed, can be regularly or honestly admitted to it by the office-bearers of that church.

§ 18. Alex. Let us place the subject in another light. Is it, or is it not, the duty of christians, in all true churches, to shew forth the Lord's death in the sacrament of the supper? If it is not, then we have true churches and christians, under no obligation to observe the most characteristic and discriminating of the christian ordinances. Here is a contradiction nearly in terms. For who can acknowledge a true church without sacraments? If it is, it would be a great corruption, a grievous sin in those churches, to expel or neglect their sacraments: and, on the other hand, in celebrating the sacraments, do they not perform an acceptable service to God P*

Ruf. We are to distinguish between the validity of an ordinance, and the regular manner of performing it. It is granted, that it is the duty of true churches, however corrupt, to shew forth the Lord's death in the sacrament of the supper; and that so far as the participation of this ordinance is in faith, so far it is an acceptable service to God; and yet the manner of performing this duty may be, in a great measure, irregular and sinful. Thus, Jacob's application to his father Isaac for the blessing was successful; and from Jacob's general character as a believer, and from his esteem of the birth-right and the blessing, it appears that his application for the blessing, absolutely considered, was accepted of God; though the manner of his application, by lying and deceiving his father, was criminal. We allow, that it is the duty of Episcopal and Independent churches to ordain ministers; and that their ordination is valid; so that we do not re-ordain ministers, who join with us after having received the ordination of those churches. Yet, we justly consider the manner of their ordination so irregular and unscriptural, that we could not warrantably consent to the ordination of a minister in either of these ways. So we allow a marriage to be valid, however irregular the manner of it may have been; and however sinful it would have been for us to have concurred with, or countenanced it.

Hence, though we lament, that there is much sin in the manner of celebrating the Lord's supper in corrupt churches; yet we hold, that their neglecting to celebrate that precious ordinance would be far more sinful. The sinful defect in the manner of performing a duty is one evil; and the utter neglect of it is another. It must be very absurd for any to think of lessening the former, by running into the latter, which is still more grossly criminal.

Alex. How should an act of communion in the body and blood of Christ be lawful and commanded to a person in one true church; and be unlawful and forbidden to the same person in another? How should persons both honor the Redeemer by communicating in their respective churches, and both dishonor him, by the very same thing, if they should happen to exchange places ?†

two

*Plea, &c. page 20. † Id. pages 20, 21.

Ruf. It is certain, that the same action, as to the matter of it, which, in some circumstances is morally evil, may, in other circumstances, be less evil, or even morally good. Thus, the assistance we give our neighbour in his worldly employment, which would be morally evil on the Lord's day, may be morally good on any other day of the week. In the present case, since the act of communicating with any particular church necessarily implies, as was formerly shewn, a public agreement with the particular profession made by that church, of the christian religion; it is evident, that the act of communicating in a church, whose profession is unfaithful or corrupt, must involve a person in the sinfulness of that profession, which he would not be involved in by the same act in a church that makes a purer profession.

§ 19. Alex. Why do you demand more, than the evidence of christian character as a qualification for communion with you P*

Ruf. We should not attempt to impose on one another by ambiguous expressions. If, by christian character, you mean a person's profession of so much of christianity as he or others judge to be necessary to salvation, or what you call the essentials of religion, the reason has been already given why such a defective profession cannot warrant sacramental communion. But, if by christian character you mean a person's credible profession of adhering to the whole of the christian religion in principle and practice, I never said or thought, that more than the character of a christian, in that sense, should be required of any in order to sacramental communion. But this can never be reconciled to the scheme of sacramental communion with churches and their members; whose peculiar communion, (considered not absolutely, but as distinct from, and opposite to that of other churches ;) has no other basis than a pertinacious denial of one or other of the truths or duties of God's word, acknowledged in the profession of some other church or churches.

Alex. All believers having the thing signified, being partakers of Christ and his benefits, have a perfect right to the sacramental sign; they have an interest in Christ, and therefore are the proper recipients of those ordinances, the use of which is to confirm that interest to their faith. All believers are engaged in the service of Christ, and should partake of the Lord's supper, as a sign of their engagement.t

[ocr errors]

Ruf. This has been repeatedly answered already. It is the duty of all christians to come to the Lord's table: but they should come according to the due order. They are first to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ: they are then to examine themselves; they are to make a profession of their faith in Christ, and of their purpose of obedience to all his commands; and, if they have offended the church of Christ by public errors in principle or practice, they ought publicly to renounce them; the office-bearers in the church, who would be faithful to their trust, will by no means admit to sacramental communion those who openly refuse to comply with any part of this order. The truth is, believers, so far as grace is in exercise, will not desire to come forward in any other way. It is in the Lord's own way, that they look for comfortable communion with himself.

In the sacraments, as the Lord Christ gives himself to them, so they give themselves to him, and to his service, according to his word.

*Plea, &c. page 21. † Id. pages 22, 23.

But how inconsistent is this with the scheme of joining in sacramental communion with those churches which, we own, have, by their public profession, rejected, and continue to reject, some of the truths or institutions of Jesus Christ, which all his servants ought to receive and maintain.

Alex. The participation of the Lord's supper serves, as a badge, to distinguish the church from the world, the follower from the foe of Christ Jesus: but you make it a badge to distinguish the church from the church, the follower from the follower, the friend from the friend of Christ Jesus.*

Ruf. The sacraments, as we have already seen, are to be administered to none, otherwise than according to the discipline of the church. But, by that holy discipline, a pure church is to be distinguished not only from the world, but from corrupt and degenerate churches; and the more faithful friends and followers of Christ from those, that, in any part of their profession, are openly unfaithful. We must either allow this, or deny that there is any warrantable secession from what may be called a church, however corrupt or degenerate; or any warrantable exercise of discipline, but upon infidels or the openly profane; that is, upon such as are without the church, and not under her jurisdiction at all. This is very absurd; for, says the apostle, what have I to judge, them that are without? Do ye not judge them that are with

in?

The question which we are now considering is, whether churches and their members, that are in a state of warrantable secession from a corrupt church, may still have sacramental communion with that church on account of the essentials of the christian religion, which she is supposed to retain ? This question is quite different from that about the lawfulness of secession; it is a question which supposes that, in some cases, secession from a corrupt church is warrantable.

Alex. They, who have a right to sacramental communion any where, have a right to it every where; and conversely, they who have not a right to it every where, have a right to it no where.t

Ruf. If you mean that this right is the same in other churches that differ in their local situation only, your assertion is true: but if you mean that this right is the same in churches that in some articles of religion, make different and opposite public professions, your assertion must appear quite wrong and extravagant to any who seriously consider what, I think, has been sufficiently shewn, viz. that the public profession of christianity, which we make in the act of communicating with any particular church, neither is nor can be any other than the profession made by that particular church. Hence it cannot be equally warrantable to communicate with a church, which makes an unfaithful profession of religion; as it is to communicate with one whose profession is faithful: unless we suppose it to be as warrantable to make an unfaithful as it is to make a faithful, profession. A professor must be very like the Roman proconsul Gallio, before he can be satisfied, that he has as good a right to join in sacramental communion with a backsliding degenerate church, as with a faithful reforming one. How little account must such a professor make of all the Lord's work in

* Plea, &c. page 23. † Id. page 24.

Acts xviii. 17.

bringing a particular church to any measure of purity that she has attained!

Alex. No qualification for sacramental communion may, by the law of Christ, be exacted from any individual, other than visible christianity; that is, a profession and practice becoming the gospel, without regard to those sectarian differences, which consist with the substance of evangelical truth.* Ruf. When you say, that the qualifications for sacramental communion are a profession and practice becoming the gospel, I agree with you, that nothing more is requisite; supposing, however, that the profession of the truth is full, no part of the testimony of Jesus being designedly omitted; particular, in direct opposition to the particular errors that prevail; open, or avowed before the world, whatever reproaches or hardships it may occasion; and that the practice of him who makes this profession is conformable to it. A profession and practice, in this sense, becoming the gospel, embrace the whole christian religion. But how does this comport with the scheme of holding sacramental communion with churches, in whose profession and avowod practice, we acknowledge, there are so many things contrary to the word of God, and not becoming the gospel, that on account of these things, we justly refuse to become habitual members of them? But what is meant by sectarian differences, which consist with the substance of evangelical truth? The grounds of these differences either are, or are not, truths revealed, and duties enjoined in the word of God. If they be such truths and duties, then they are not sectarian tenets; they ought to be held by the whole catholic church. But if they are not, then they are opinions or inventions of men, that ought to have no place in our religious profession at all. Any part of the catholic church, obstinately retaining such tenets becomes thereby a sect. Such tenets, though they may be held by some who profess much evangelical truth, yet will never agree with that truth; and the obstinate maintainers and propagators of them ought to be censured by the catholic church.

Besides the immense difference between what is of Heaven, and what is of men, we are expressly forbidden to add any thing to that religion which God has given us in his word. Though a particular church and her members hold evangelical truth; yet if they add any thing to it, or take away any thing from it, they are still liable to the censure of the church of Christ.

Plea, &c. page 24.

« PrécédentContinuer »