habits; but not one jot or tittle of that scriptural profession, which we have embraced; that sacred depositum, or trust, which the Lord Christ hath committed to us: particularly, let us not go to the Lord's table in order to tell the church and the world, that we make so little account of that holy profession which we have solemnly espoused, and which, as yet, we see no cause to retract, that we reckon the most open and obstinate opposition to various articles of it, no such offence as renders reconciliation with the offender any way necessary in order to sacramental communion. You say, that declining from the communion of a church, on account of errors and corruptions not essential, never did any good do you mean, that people do as well, when they go along with persons or churches in their errors and corruptions, as when they refuse to do so; though it is evident, that, in such refusal, they obey the Divine admonition; If sinners entice thee, consent thou not? Do you suppose, that the people of Judah's declining communion with the church of the ten separated tribes, did no good, while the errors and corruptions of these tribes, were not so essential, as to unchurch them, or to render it impossible for any of God's people to remain in the pale of their church? Did the retiring of the Leonists to the valleys of Piedmont, long before the height of Antichrist's reign, do no good? Did the conduct of our forefathers, in de clining the communion of the Episcopal church, do no good?

Alex. It has been said, that, while you invite the friends of Christ to his table, not one in ten thousand of them that love the Lord Jesus Christ, and endeavour to walk, as he walked, comes within your scope; for all your descriptions of Christians are only for christians of your own sect.*

Ruf. This accusation proceeds upon a supposition which has been already considered, namely, that it is unwarrantable for a particular church in any case to refuse real christians a seat at the Lord's table. We have seen, that this supposition is not universally true. You represent such refusal as inconsistent with the invitation that is given to the friends of Christ to come to his table. But, as has been observed already, that invitation directs them to come according to the due order. One thing belonging to that order is the removal of offences. Our Lord's direction is plain. If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember, that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar; and then come and offer thy gift. If the observation of this rule be necessary in the case of private or personal offences; it cannot be less but more so in the case of such as are public, the evil of which is greater. Nor may a particular church dispense with the observation of this order on account of the apparent piety or great multitude of the offenders. She is to be faithful; she is to do nothing in partiality. The ministers of a particular church, however, are under no temptation, from their steadfast adherence to a scriptural profession, to give such descriptions of christians, as are applicable to none but those with whom they have sacramental communion: first, because the description of a true christian is not limited to what comes under the cognisance of the visible church; but includes the heart: and, secondly, because the real christian, while in the present militant state, is to be described as imperfect; and therefore lia

* Plea, &c. page 374. + Math. v. 23, 24.

ble to such failures and offences as are ground of church censure. With regard to the reproachful name of sect, it ought not to be given to a particular church on account of a public profession, which has nothing but what is agreeable to the word of God, and what ought to be held by the whole catholic church.

§ 24. Alex. The author, whose opinion I have represented as my own in this and former conversations, observes, that the opposers of catholic communion seem to be accurate disputants on the heads of sectarian collision. Their party-soul is narrowed down: all its perceptions are directed to those things that put christians asunder, instead of those things which should bring them together; and which, for their importance, may not, without degradation, be named in company with the causes of their disunion. With one party, the watchword is our excellent, our apostolical church; with another, the mode of baptism; with a third, the solemn league and covenant; with a fourth, the burgess oath; with a fifth, psalmody.*

Ruf. With regard to the remark about the particular attention some persons pay to the causes of the differences among christians, I observe, that, like many other things in human conduct, it will bear either a favourable or an unfavourable construction. That which this author puts upon the endeavours, that some have used to point out the causes of religious differences, is most uncharitable: for he supposes their design is no other than the infernal one of continuing and increasing those differences, and of rendering all other churches, besides their own, as odious as possible. Might he not have allowed, that some have been influenced in speaking and writing concerning the causes of these differences by a sincere desire of contributing to the removal of them? This is the more probable, if they were in any degree, as he says, they seem to be, accurate disputants. Does not common sense lead men to make some enquiry into the causes of a difference between private persons, as often a necessary means of removing it? and may not the love of Divine truth prompt one to refute small errors, (if any errors in matters of religion may be so called) as well as great? We may not always conclude, that it is unnecessary, or blameable, to refute the error of a person or people, because the truths they hold, are more numerous and important, than those which they deny. The scripture, sometimes represents the danger of one evil as very great. He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all. Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Hence, if there were but one thing in the profession of a particular church, contrary to the word of God, those who discern the evil ought faithfully to warn her of it and such as endeavour to discharge this duty, are more friendly to such a church, than those, who, by flattery, encourage her to hold fast her idol. Some critics are justly recommended for their method of teaching us to understand the rules of good writing, by pointing out the faults of the most celebrated authors. So, instead of being reproached as doing hurt, they ought to be considered as rendering a service to any particular church, who candidly warn her of any deviation from God's word in her profession, or avowed practice. With regard to the watch-words you mentioned, it might have been

*Plea, &c. page 376. † James ii. 10. + Math. v. 19.

added, with a sixth party, the watch-word is occasional catholic com. munion, or local peculiarities. But one should think, there would be more philanthropy in any serious endeavour to shew men the good or evil of one or two such objects of public attention, than in such a derisive enumeration of them, insinuating, that they are all much alike, I can scarcely forbear adding one remark, which is, that a minister of the Presbyterian denomination might have spared the Solemn League and Covenant; the declared object of which was the reformation of religion in Britain and Ireland, according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches; the same reformation which is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the larger and shorter catechisms. It is a pity to see a Presbyterian minister publicly countenancing that malignant generation, who, from the celebrated Hudibras down to Dobbin in the tavern, have made the Solemn League and Covenant the subject of their profane banter and ridicule. But, indeed, the nature and design of that engagement was quite contrary to the scheme of catholic communion, defended by the author of the passage you have recited. The object of that oath was the nearest conjunction and uniformity of the church of Christ in doctrine, worship, and government; whereas the catholic communion, for which this author strenuously contends, implies the church's toleration of multiformity in all these respects.

Alex. This author represents a zealous member of a nameless judicatory, contending for a testimony, over and above the recognised confession of faith, as saying, What difference will there be between you and the General Assembly, if you have not a testimony.*

Ruf. The propriety or impropriety of such a saying would be better understood, if we knew the occasion, on which it was uttered. It is probable, that the person was speaking of some body of people professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and yet considering themselves as having a separate communion from the general assembly professing adherence to the same confession. Supposing a person to be either a stranger to the history of the two bodies, or to be desiring their union; one should think, he might be naturally led to ask, what declaration, had been given, of the reason of the difference between them? Perhaps he meant no more than to say, that there ought to be no division, or at least that it should not be continued, if there was no declared reason for it. If this was all, it was no more than a dictate of common sense; which should have offended no body; and least of all, those who affect to distinguish themselves by their zeal for the union of the churches.

Alex. This author insists, that sectarian communion is a practical rejection of the unity of the church at large; and breaks up the charity which ought to subsist between all the members of the body of Christ. Sectarian zeal, he says, chills the warmth of the catholic charity; tends to expel from the churches a sense of their common interest; makes them withhold that support which they ought to afford one another; hinders them from co-operating together in promoting the kingdom of God; and puts into the mouth of the infidel that bitter taunt; These christians have just religion enough to hate one another heartily.t

Ruf. The term sectarian, the favourite watch-word of this author, tends to divert the attention from the matter in dispute. The question is, whether a church's refusing to have sacramental communion with such as openly avow their opposition to one or more articles of her scriptural profession has such effects as are now mentioned? Does this refusal break up the unity of the church at large? By no means. The truths of God's word constitute the bond of unity in the catholic church; so far as they are publicly professed and preserved in the doctrine, worship, and government of the several particular churches. Hence it is evident, that what breaks up the peace of the catholic church, is not the faithfulness of particular churches in refusing, but their laxness in granting sacramental communion to the avowed opposers of undoubted truths of God's word, as exhibited in the public profession of any of the churches, every instance of this laxness tends to weaken the bond of their union. Does refusing sacramental communion with the avowed opposers of the truths of God, publicly professed by a particular church, chill the warmth of love to the catholic church? surely no: for it is manifestly the interest of the catholic church that every particular church should hold these truths in her public profession, and not tolerate opposition to them in her communion. Hence it must give sincere pleasure to a lover of the catholic church to see a particular church uniformly faithful in refusing church communion to open opposers of any one of the truths of God contained in her public profession; as it would give pleasure to the patriotic citizen of the United States, to see a particular state refusing to harbour any avowed enemy to the true interest of all the states. Does the faithfulness of a particular church, in refusing to have sacramental communion with the open opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, hinder her from using any means appointed in the word of God for promoting his spiritual kingdom? This is so far from being the case, that this refusal is supposed and implied in the use of several proper means for that end; such as, a church's contending for the whole truth exhibited in her public profession; the judicial assertion of the truths of God's word, and the judicial condemnation of the contrary errors; committing the word to faithful men, who will teach others the whole truth and nothing but the truth, according to the public profession or testimony of the church, in due subordination to the holy scriptures; recognising the solemn engagements, which the church has come under to preserve whatever measure of reformation has been attained. These means, which are certainly appointed in the word of God, cannot be sincerely used by any particular church, unless she be careful, that such as are avowed and obstinate opposers of any article of her scriptural profession, may not be received into, or continued in her communion. Whilst these means, of our Lord's appointment, are wilfully neglected, we have little ground to expect the Divine blessing on such other means as men may pretend, to use for the advancement of his spiritual kingdom.

With regard to the sarcasm of the infidels, it cannot be of much authority in determining what is right or wrong in the matter of church communion; since they are, no competent judges, either of the different persuasions of professing christians; or of the scriptural ways in which they ought to express their love to one another. It is only in

consistencies in the conduct of christians with their public profession, that gives the infidels an advantage against them. Among which inconsistencies I cannot help ranking the sacramental communion which your author defends. A late historian of modern Europe, having observed, that, in consequence of the union between the two kingdoms of England and Scotland in the reign of Queen Anne, the Scots agreed, that the members whom they were to send to the British parliament, should receive the sacrament according to the rules of the church of England, censures the meanness and inconsistency of such a compli

ance.*

Alex. It is necessary to conclude our conversation at present, our attention being called to other engagements.

.

§ 25. Ruf. Before we part, permit me to express in few words the result of our conversation on this scheme of catholic, or rather latitudinarian communion.

In the first place, it is a sectarian communion. Its existence supposes that there are sects and parties in the catholic church; and that the variety of men's opinions, habits and feelings, is sufficient to justify the continuance of them. Scriptural sacramental communion admits of no sects; requiring all the partakers of it to be one bread, one body; perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement.

It is

In the second place, it is an unfaithful and dishonest scheme. unfaithful to the Lord Jesus; for under the pretext of expressing love to him at his table, it regards the denial of some of his truths or institutions, however openly and obstinately persisted in, as a trivial matter, deserving no church-censure. When the advocates for this scheme represent the truths and institutions of Christ, that are publicly opposed by corrupt churches as sectarian and local peculiarities, they are chargeable with great unfaithfulness to the Lord Christ, to these churches and to the whole catholic church. They are chargeable with attempting to heal the wound of God's people slightly, saying, peace, peace, while there is no peace.

Thirdly, it is a backsliding scheme. There is nothing more incumbent on a particular church than steadfastness in maintaining all the articles of Divine truth stated in her confession and testimony. But as soon as the practice obtains in any particular church of having sacramental communion with the open and obstinate opposers of any of these articles, that church thereby, falls from her steadfastness, and is chargeable in some measure with apostacy.

Alex. The declension of a particular church may be only such as consists with holding the head. What she declines to contend for, may be a non-essential, which ought not to hinder sacramental communion.

Ruf. But is it sufficient, that a church and her members hold the head? An inspired apostle tells us, that it is not; it is also necessary, that the whole body, by joints and bands, having nourishment ministered and knit together, should increase with the increase of God. Christ is saying to each particular church, Hold fast that which thou hast let no man take thy crown: be on thy guard against such as would seduce thee from thy steadfastness, which is thy crown, thy

* See Russel's History of Modern Europe.