DIALOGUE IV.

The instances of sacramental communion recorded in the New Testament, no examples of the catholic communion in question.....The charge of unchurching other churches, and of spiritual pride on account of our declining sacramental communion with those from whom we are in a state of secession, shewn to be unjust.....Declining to attend on the public administrations of ministers on account of their erroneous profession, lawful..... The promotion of love to the brethren by this catholic communion, considered..... Of the evils said to arise from our limiting sacramental communion to such as make the same public profession.....The nature and tendency of this catholic communion inferred from what has been advanced in the preceding conversations.

ALEXANDER and Rurus, having met one evening, their conversation turned on the excellencies of the holy scriptures; particularly, on the wisdom and condescension manifested by their Divine Author, in adapting them to the various capacities of mankind.

Ruf. This appears eminently in the history of the scriptures. In the preceptive part, duties are declared with nervous brevity. But, in the historical part, a pertinent example often gives a clearer, and far more affecting view of a duty, than what we could obtain from the best abstract definition. Besides, some duties are proposed rather in examples for our imitation, than in formal precepts. This is particularly the case with those duties, which belong to the order and government of the church.

§ 20. Alex. This puts me in mind of an argument for catholic communion from several examples recorded in the New Testament.

One of these examples occurs in the case of the converts under Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost; when the Jews, pricked in their hearts, cried out, "Brethren, what shall we do? the apostle replied, Repent, and be baptised every one of you: be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. This is the very first prerequisite for admission to sealing ordinances; the only qualifications are repenting, or a change of all their erroneous notions concerning the person of Christ, his kingdom and his work, receiving the truth in its simplicity; and believing in the Lord Jesus as the Saviour of sinners by the blood of his cross; a faith manifested by a credible profession of his name.†

Ruf. I agree with your representation of the import of the apostle's exhortation, and of the terms on which these converts were received into communion. When they break the sacramental bread together, they were of one mind, HомOTHUMADON, they were unanimous in their adherence to the apostle's doctrine, worship, and discipline, not a dissenting voice. This is a complete pattern of the sacramental communion, which I plead for.

How greatly different is this from the motley mixture of persons sitting down at the Lord's table whose public professions, prayers, and thanksgivings necessarily and expressly contradict one another; as must be the case, when Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Independents, Arminians, and others hold sacramental communion together.

*Acts ii. 37, 38. † Plea, &c. pages 28, 29.

Alex. The apostle mentioned only the great doctrines of faith and repentance: how does it follow that he required their agreement in less matters ?

Ruf. I think, you should not attempt to evade the evidence of this example, after you have acknowledged, that the converts were admitted to communion, on this occasion, upon a change of their erroneous notions concerning the person, kingdom and work of Christ, and upon their receiving the truth in its simplicity. When you spoke of their erroneous notions and of the truth, I suppose, you meant the whole truth professed by the apostles and all erroneous notions contrary to that truth. There is nothing in the passage but what tends to confirm this view of the matter. When it is said, they continued in the doctrine of the apostles, it is plainly supposed, that they had, by a public profession embraced that doctrine: which doctrine undoubtedly included all the truths and institutions of the Lord Jesus; all that can warrantably belong to the profession of any part of the catholic church at this day.

It is true, the apostles are not said, in the account of their admission of persons to sacramental communion, to have expressly mentioned every article belonging to the public profession of the christian religion. But it, by no means, follows, that such an article did not belong to the profession made on that occasion; or that the apostle would · have admitted them, if they had openly professed the contrary error. It would be an endless task, indeed, on such an occasion, to specify *all the articles of the christian religion scattered through the Old and New Testament. This is so absurd, that I know of none who attempt it. But there are two things which faithful office-bearers of the church will be careful to attend to: one is, that they will not admit any to sacramental communion, who publicly profess a notion that is opposite to any one article of scripture-truth, which the church, they belong to, exhibits in her public profession. The other thing is, that, if there be any article of the church's profession, which is peculiarly controverted, peculiarly an occasion of reproach, no matter whether it be comparatively great or small, provided, only, that it be a truth revealed, or a duty enjoined in the word of God; a faithful office-bearer in the house of God, will scarcely fail, in that case, to require of one, whom he admits to sacramental communion, an express adherence to such a truth or duty. So Peter and the other apostles required of those, whom they admitted to that communion, a particular and express declaration of their belief of this truth, That Jesus, whom the Jews had crucified, was the Messiah, the Christ of God; not only on account of its infinite importance, but also on account of the opposition it met with, which rendered it at that time eminently the word of his patience.

Alex. Another example occurs in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Philip, the evangelist, instructed him from a passage of Isaiah in the doctrine of Jesus the Messiah, and in the nature and use of the Christian sacraments. This is supposed in the question of the Eunuch, What hinders me to be baptised? Philip replied, that, if he sincerely believed in Jesus, he might. The Eunuch answered, I believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Upon this profession he was baptised. Thus, a sealing ordinance was administered to the Eunuch upon no

other terms, than a credible profession of the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.*

Ruf. Some advocates for what they call catholic communion, have argued from this text, that all the profession of christianity, requisite in order to sacramental communion, is a declared assent to such propositions as these peculiarly recommended in the scripture: That Jesus Christ is the Son of God; that he came in the flesh; and that he rose from the dead;-without any regard to the truths implied in, or connected with them. Thus, their sacramental communion will be extensive indeed: it will comprehend all that bear the christian name. For, however widely different their views may be of the import of these propositions; they all, even the grossest heretics, declare their adherence to the letter of them. And, indeed, unless these propositions be taken in this way, it is vain to allege them as favouring the scheme of catholic communion. For if it once be admitted, that in assenting to such a profession, the Eunuch assented to whatever is necessarily implied in it, and connected with it; then, it will follow, that the Eunuch assented to all the doctrines and duties exhibited in the Westminster confession and catechisms: for it would be easy to shew, that all these doctrines, supposing them to be contained in the scriptures, are implied in, or connected with this proposition; that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Nor have we any reason to think, that if the Eunuch had openly professed, that he rejected any one of these. doctrines or duties, Philip would have admitted him to baptism. cording to your own confession, Philip instructed him in the doctrine of Jesus, the Messiah, and in the nature and use of the sacraments. The sacraments themselves, are an epitome of the christian religion: there is nothing belonging to the doctrine, worship, discipline or government of the church, which is not implied in, or connected with, the correct and regular use of them.

Ac

Alex. A third example occurs in the history of Saul. Upon what grounds was he admitted to the sacrament of baptism? Simply on the ground of his belonging to Christ. For on this ground, Christ himself placed it. He is a chosen vessel unto me, saith the Redeemer. That the knowledge of this fact was communicated to Ananias, is of no weight in the present argument. For the question is not, how we are to ascertain a man's christianity. But whether, on supposition of its being ascertained, (which is always supposed, when we admit its existence,) it is, in and of itself, a sufficient title to gospel ordinances, in whatever part of the catholic church they may happen to be dispensed. If it is not, if any thing more than the evidence of christian character be requisite, to create, both the right and the obligation to reciprocal communion, it is clear, that an immediate revelation from God, certifying such a character, could not form a valid claim to communion; the apostle elect of the Gentiles would have gone unbaptised.

Ruf. There is no doubt, that a true believer, or one belonging to Christ, has a right, in foro Dei, or before God, to all the ordinances of the church. The apostle says to believers: All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours. But here we speak

* Plea, &c. pages 29, 30.

of a title to ordinances in foro humano vel ecclesia, that is, before men or the church. Who are true believers, or who belong to Christ, cannot be certainly known by man. That any should judge the spiritual and secret state of other men, is contrary to the express command of the apostle, Rom. xiv. 10, 13. Why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? We shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. Let us not judge one another any more. Hence, it is evident, that the ground, on which the office-bearers of the church are to proceed in admitting persons to sacramental communion, and on which other members are to join with them, cannot be simply, that such persons belong to Christ; this being a matter which, in ordinary cases, cannot be certainly known, and which we are forbidden to judge. You say, that the existence of a man's christianity is to be admitted, as a sufficient title to gospel ordinances. If by christianity, you mean a man's being in a state of grace, or his being united to Christ, (and the expression, belonging to Christ, leads to this sense,) such an opinion is to be disapproved for the reason just now given. It seems to be much the same with the notion of some Independents; which is, that the ground upon which persons are to be admitted to sealing ordinances, is positive evidence of their regeneration and union to Christ; and their public declaration of their experience of the saving operation of the Holy Spirit on their hearts. But this opinion, does not consist with the representation of the visible church, either in the Old Testament, or in the New. Moses said to the people of Israel, with regard to the greater part of them, The Lord hath not given you hearts to know, eyes to see, and ears to hear, until this day. I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck Nor is the visible church otherwise represented in the New Testament, particularly, in the parables of the tares, of the draught of fishes, and of the ten virgins. This opinion is contrary to the end of a gospel ministry; which is for the conversion and begetting of faith in the members of the visible church, as well as for the increase of their faith, and progressive sanctification. It tends to overthrow the necessary distinction between the visible and invisible church. Or, by a man's christianity, you mean, his credible profession of the essentials of our holy religion. This notion, we formerly considered; and it appeared, that no person has a title to sealing ordinances, in any particular church of Christ, upon a profession of his adherence to the more important articles of her confession, while he openly and obstinately rejects the rest; these being equally agreeable to the word of God with the other. Or, by a man's christianity, you mean, his public profession of adherence to all the truths and institutions of Jesus Christ, and a becoming practice; without which, his profession would not be credible. This indeed is a sufficient ground for the office-bearers of the church to proceed upon in admitting any person to sealing ordinances: I may say, it is the only scriptural ground. Nor is there any thing contrary to this assertion in the account of Paul's admission to baptism upon his conversion. There was nothing that could be justly considered as a hindrance to his admission. The circumstances of his conversion were miraculous; but then they were attended with irresistable evidence. Ananias, indeed, complained of Paul's having been a violent persecutor of the

*

* Deut. xxix. 4 Matth. xiii. 28, 29, 30, 47, 48. xxv. 1, 2.

church of Christ. But Paul had now obtained mercy; and had made a profession of unlimited subjection to the Divine will, saying, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? It could not be said, that after his conversion, he had opposed any truth or institution of the Lord Christ, essential, or non-essential. There was nothing in this case, like the catholic communion which is now pleaded for: here was no admission of a person refusing, in any one point, an adherence to the public profession of the particular church, to which Ananias belonged.

Alex. The fourth example, occurs in the case of Cornelius, the first Gentile admitted into the christian church. While Peter was opening up the plan of salvation, the Holy Ghost, fell on all them who heard the word. This descent of the Holy Ghost, was the sole principle on which the apostle pronounced them to be fit subjects for sacramental recognition; and, actually admitted them to all the privileges of the christian church.

When Peter returned to Jerusalem, they of the circumcision contended with him. His defence, after a succinct history of the steps by which he was led to the house of Cornelius, of his preaching there, and of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon his Gentile hearers, is concluded in these words: Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John, indeed, baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as God gave them like gifts, as he did unto us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God? The brethren were satisfied, and glorified God, saying, Then has God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life.t Why should it not be so still? Why should not such proof of christian character in others, no matter where, be at this hour, as it was then, the rule of christian fellowship on the broadest scale? The proofs on which it should proceed, according to this example, consist in these four particulars; 1st, That God has given them the Holy Spirit; 2nd, that God has borne witness to them as his children, and heirs of the promise; 3d, that God has put them upon a perfect level with ourselves, by this testimony to their faith in Christ: so that whatever privileges we have, they have also; and are entitled to receive with us, and from us: 4th, that, under this evidence of their gracious relation to the Lord Jesus Christ, to refuse them the seal of that relation, were to resist God. Why should not a refusal of that communion to any whom we own, that God has owned, by the the same tokens which he has given to us, be now, as it would have been then, a withstanding of God?

Ruf. It may be observed, that the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Centurion's family, may be considered, as a communication of his miraculous gifts; and, in this respect, was designed to signify the admission of the Gentiles into the New Testament church: as is evident from the representation of the matter in Peter's vision; and also from the conclusion which the brethren drew from Peter's relation of the affair. Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. From this it followed, that persons were no more to be excluded from the privileges of the christian church, because they were Gentiles. To have refused sacramental communion with them on that ground, would have been to resist God. But it does not follow, that

* Acts x. 44. † Acts xi. 16, 17, 18. Plea, &c. pages 31, 32, 33, 34, 35.