with whom we refuse communion, is so dreadful that any christian heart shrinks from it with fear and horror.*

Ruf. I have already mentioned the important distinction between a true church and a pure church. A church may retain the principal doctrines and ordinances of the christian religion in her profession, in such a measure, that she may be justly called a true church; and yet she may, as an ecclesiastical body, have such errors in doctrine; such human inventions as integral parts of her worship; such unscriptural officers and usages in her government; or may be chargeable with such defection from reformation, formerly attained, that we cannot be faithful to the cause of Christ, which, in these respects, is opposed; nor to the catholic church, for whose true interest we are bound to use our best endeavours; nor to the souls of men, which are deeply injured by such evils; without withdrawing from her communion. A particular church, in this case, though she ceases to be a pure church, may still be called a true church of Christ on account of the measure, in which she retains the profession of his truths and ordinances. Though continuing in her communion be sinful; yet that sinfulness does not take away, as I formerly observed, the validity of her ordinances. Nor are we to limit the sovereignty of the grace of God, as to the use he may make of what is agreeable to his own word, in the doctrine and administrations of such a church, both for the conversion of sinners and for promoting the sanctification of his people. As continuing in the communion of such a backsliding church is sinful; so is every act of communion: because, as has been already observed, in that act, a person cannot make any other profession of the christian religion, than the public profession of the particular church with which he communicates. His sin, in this matter, is more or less aggravated, according to his own profession of religion, according to his knowledge of the evils of that church's profession; and according to his other attainments. But we have as little reason, on this account, to conclude that there are no followers of Jesus Christ in such a church; as we have to suppose, that there were no godly persons remaining in Israel, when Elijah complained, that he was left alone. If there be no lawful refusing of sacramental communion, with a particular church, then there can be no lawful separation from it, till it be unchurched. But the latter is absurd; and therefore the former. I think, it is manifestly absurd to say, that we may not separate from a particular church, however degenerate and corrupt in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government; till it is no church of Christ at all: for this would be to suppose, that, though Christ has provided the censures of the church as means of preserving her from the danger arising from the offences of one or a few members, he has provided no means of her preservation from the far greater danger of utter ruin by the prevailing influence of a corrupt majority. When such a majority is found incorrigibly obstinate in their opposition to any steps towards a thorough reformation, it is evident, that there is no remedy but secession. By such a majority, one great end of church communion, which is, that the truths and institutions of the Lord Jesus may be preserved pure and entire, is avows edly and obstinately opposed; and therefore, in this case, the Lord Jesus, is saying to his people, as in 2 Corinth. vi. 17, Come out from

*Plea, &c. pages 302, 303.

among them, and be ye separate. Many limit such calls to our departure from the communion of Pagans and Papists. But they are applicable to our secession from any prevailing party, even though they should bear the name of christians, of Protestants and Presbyterians, who, in their united capacity, or as a professing body, are going on in obstinate opposition to any of the truths and institutions of Jesus Christ; so that none can continue in their church communion, without being involved in the guilt of that opposition. From such combinations Christ is calling his people to separate.

It is not meant, however, that degenerate Protestants and Presbyterians are upon a level with Heathens and Papists; for there may be a just cause of separation from the former, though not so great as from the latter. A warrantable secession from a particular church of Christ, is a most serious and important step. It is the result of assiduity in searching the scriptures, of much prayer and fasting, of long struggling with a prevailing party, obstinate in a course of defection. When a warrantable secession has been made; and, while the ground of it continues, there is the highest moral necessity of adhering to it. The Lord Jesus is saying to those, who have taken such a step; Whatever profession or practice ye have attained of the truths and ordinances delivered in my word, hold fast till I come: and with respect to particular churches, that persist in the evils which have occasioned a necessary secession, his direction is plain, Let them return unto you, but return ye not unto them. But when we have sacramental communion with any church from which we have separated, we do return to them: for, in our act of communicating with any church, we declare our agreement with that church in its peculiar and distinguishing profession of the christian religion: we own the profession of that church to be right, and to be so in preference to every different and contrary profession. This is a direct contradiction of the profession we make in our separate communion. According to this scheme, we may, in our sacramental communion, one Sabbath profess, that all true believers shall certainly persevere in a state of grace unto the end; that the infants of church members ought to be baptised; that we have in the book of Psalms a system of psalmody sufficient for the exercise of singing in public worship; and that no hymns of human composure ought to be used in that exercise; or that the testimony, maintained by the Secession church, ought to be cordially embraced, as the testimony which Christ is calling his people to maintain at this day; and yet, on the very next Sabbath, we may, in our sacramental communion, profess directly contrary to our former profession, that true believers may fall. away from their state of grace totally and finally; that infant baptism is no baptism; that the songs in the book of Psalms are not sufficient for the exercise of singing in public and solemn worship, various hymns of human composure being thought more proper to be sung in New Testament worship; or that adherence to what is called the Secession Testimony is unwarrantable. Must we thus say, yea and nay; must we lie and prevaricate with God and man, in order to avoid the charge of unchurching and excommunicating the churches, from which we are justly separated?

I cannot see, however, that we are under any such necessity. For it does not necessarily follow, from our declining the communion of a

particular church, that we deny its profession and practice to be so far good, as to entitle it to the name of a church of Christ. It is no less the end of our separation from several churches, that they may be recovered from their backsliding and preserved as churches of Christ, than that we ourselves may be preserved from the contagion of their errors. A religious society may be called a church of Christ, while it holds the scriptures to be the word of God, and Jesus Christ come in the flesh, to be the foundation. But the apostle in 1 Corinth. iii. 11, 15, shews us, that some who hold this foundation may build upon it, we know not how much, wood, hay and stubble, to their great loss. When we refuse, therefore, to have sacramental communion with corrupt churches, we refuse to join with them in the building of wood, hay, stubble, as dangerous to themselves, and as what would be so to but we do not, therefore, deny, that they build on the foundation; or that they are churches of Christ.

us;

Nor have the advocates for catholic communion any good reason to call our declining sacramental communion with various corrupt churches an excommunication of these churches. Excommunication always implies the exercise of authority over the persons excommunicated; but declining sacramental communion implies no exercise of authority at all. Excommunication always respects persons, and proceeds upon a trial of personal conduct: hence it is unwarrantable to pretend, as the Papists do, to excommunicate whole churches or bodies of men. But this declining of sacramental communion proceeds not upon a judgement concerning the conduct of persons; but upon a judgement concerning the profession of religion made by a particular church. Besides, a church's suspending a person from sacramental communion is a degree of censure; but it cannot be called excommunication; and far less, can her act of merely declining that communion be so called. I cannot conceive what induces any to call a conscientious refusal to communicate with corrupt churches, an excommunication of these churches, unless it be, what is common to this with every other instance of the practice of godliness, that it necessarily condemns the contrary practice: just as Noah's awful regard to God's threatening to destroy the world by water, manifested by his preparing the ark, condemned the contempt, with which that threatening was treated by the ungodly generation among whom he lived.

Alex. Every church refusing to hold communion with another, does, by that fact, declare that she is too pure for such a communion, and that it would contaminate her in the eyes of her God, and bring down upon her the tokens of his displeasure. A church, that makes such pretensions, ought to be very sure of her own sanctity; very sure, that the mantle of her excluding-zeal does not cover offences against the Lord her God, quite as provoking as those which she charges upon others; that she does not wink at abuses in her own members, while she laments and reproaches her neighbours; and that there is no place for the Jewish proverb, Physician, heal thyself. This precaution is the more necessary; as the very assumption of a censorial power over her christian sisters invites the most unsparing scrutiny and it is no honorable mark that is affixed by Truth itself, to those who, regardless

of their own faults, say, Stand by thyself; come not near me; for I am holier than thou.*

Ruf. What you have advanced imports, that a particular church, in the case, you suppose, of her tolerating great evils in her own members, is not in a capacity for a consistent exercise of discipline in excluding the members of other churches for their errors and corruptions. But this does not prove your assertion, that it is not her duty to do so. A person is not freed from the obligation he is under to the moral duty of reproving the sins of others; though his being chargeable with the same or greater sins, without reformation, unfits him for the discharge of that duty. So a church's obligation to censure, whatever is contrary to her holy profession, any who apply to her for admission to her sealing ordinances, remains entire; however much her capacity for doing so, may be lessened by the inconsistent practice of her members. What you have now offered contains no argument for your scheme of catholic communion; but is only a bitter reflexion on any church that endeavours to bear a consistent and faithful testimony against that scheme, and to retain the scriptural reformation in doctrine and order which their forefathers handed down as the cause of God and truth. Depraved human nature, being the same in them as in others, produces the same deplorable effects. But, it is hoped, that the grace of God in Christ teaches them to study personal as well as public reformation. The criminal partiality alluded to in conniving at offences and abuses is directly contrary to their profession; and therefore the careful study of consistency with that profession must be the way to attain a thorough reformation from all such abuses and offences. The amendment of their lives is not to be promoted by imbibing lax principles with regard to church communion; but rather by a firm persuasion, that they can never adhere too closely to their scriptural profession, and to the holy order that Christ has appointed in his house.

With regard to the scriptural pride implied in the expression, I am holier than thou, I would ask, Whether does more of it appear in those who lament the coldness of their affections towards God, and towards his people, as bearing his image; and who ascribe their failure, not to any deficiency in the means appointed in the word of God; but to their own neglect, or misimprovement of these means ? Or, does not as much, or more of it, appear in men's boasting of such enlarged affection to the saints of all denominations, as are miserably cramped by any other than latitudinarian sacramental communion?

I might also ask, Whether the appearance of seeking the praise of men, on account of personal piety, be greater in those, who ingratiate themselves with various societies, making contradictory professions of religion, by holding sacramental communion with them; or in those, who satisfy themselves with that church communion and dispensation of gospel ordinances, which they judge to be most agreeable to the word of God?

The distinguishing profession of the Novatians and Donatists of old, led them to value themselves upon their spiritual attainments; and to reckon themselves polluted by the personal sins, and particularly by the unregenerate state of their fellow communicants. The principle of the latitudinarian, which is now the fashionable scheme of church com

* Plea, &c. page 301.

munion, is much the same. The principle, I mean, is, that we are to have sacramental communion with all that we judge to have real communion with Christ: and this rule plainly implies, that we are to have communion with no other. Is no rule, if it means, that we may have communion with such as we do not judge to have real communion with him. When any church admits persons to sacramental communion according to this scheme, she must consider them, and they are led, by her admission of them, to consider themselves as real saints. It is true, none ought to partake of the Lord's supper without faith, by which they are to feed on Christ: yet it does not follow, that none are to apply for sacramental communion with any church, till they have attained sensible assurance of their having actually believed, or of their being already in Christ: for, as this sacrament is appointed for the relief of weak and doubting christians; so persons, in this case, who bewail their unbelief, and labor to have their doubts resolved, who desire to be found in Christ, and to depart from all iniquity, may, and ought to come to the Lord's supper, that they may be farther strengthened.. But when a church admits persons on the latitudinarian scheme, to partake of sealing ordinances, she must consider them as professing, that they have attained the sensible assurance before mentioned. Now, whether does such a profession as this, or that of only adhering to the confession of a particular church, and engaging to study a practice conformable to it, savour most of the proud boasting of one who says, Come not near me; for I am holier than thou? The truth is, men's spiritual pride and conceit of their own righteousness, are much fostered by an obstinate attachment to human devices in the worship of God. This was the case with the Pharisees, in our Saviour's time. Hence, he said unto them, In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrine, the commandments of men. But he no where ascribes any such tendency to our holding fast the scriptural profession which we have made, or to our refusing church communion with the avowed and obstinate opposers of any part of it. True humility and self-distrust, will make a person afraid to venture out of the straight path of duty in the smallest matter. The fear of the Lord, leads us to walk in the midst of the paths of judgement. The humble are always aware of the danger of temptation, and of their inability to resist it: they are, therefore, apprehensive of danger from the communion, and the artifices of the erroneous; while self-conceited and high-minded professors, consider any delicacy or caution, in this respect, as quite needless, or even ridiculous. You say, that by the fact of refusing to hold communion with a particular church, on account of her corruption, we pretend to be too pure for such communion. But it may be said more justly, to the practisers of latitudinarian communion, You reckon yourselves too pure to be in any danger from the infection of the public corruptions, which are acknowledged to prevail in various churches with which you propose to communicate.

§ 22. Alex. Such is the fastidiousness of certain churches, that the simple hearing of the gospel from the mouth of the most faithful minister, who happens not to be within their own circle, is an ecclesiastical crime, and a sufficient ground of church censure. And should such a minister be, on any occasion, admitted in ministerial communion to one of their pulpits, however honored he may be of God: I tremble to say