Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

it would have been unlawful to have secluded them from that communion, if they had refused to make the same profession of faith in Christ, which the apostles made; or, if they had openly and obstinately rejected some doctrine or command of Christ, delivered by the apostles; as you suppose, according to your catholic scheme, that it is unlawful for a particular church to seclude persons from sacramental communion, who avow their opposition to this, and the other, article of her scriptural profession.

But, supposing the descent of the Holy Spirit on them had signified, that he was given them as a Spirit of faith; it does not follow, that those who were under his influence did not profess to receive the whole doctrine of the apostles; or, that if they had avowed their rejection of any article of that doctrine, the apostle, in refusing the sacramental seal to such persons, would have been guilty of withstanding God. I think, it is not difficult for any one to see the inconsistency and fallacy of such reasoning as this: "God has given his "Spirit to such people; he has borne witness to them as his children, "and heirs of the promise: he has put them on a perfect level with ourselves, by this testimony to their faith in Christ: they are parta"kers of the same privileges, entitled to receive with and from us; and therefore it is to be concluded, that though the opinions and "practices which they avow and profess to maintain, manifestly con"tradict both the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures, and also the "scriptural profession of a particular church of Christ; yet they are, "on account of their gracious state and privileges as children of God, "to be exempted from all admonition or rebuke: for, if they were "subject to such censure, they might, if obstinate, be suspended from "sealing ordinances; which suspension, in their case, is supposed to "be a withstanding of God. They are to receive with us and from "us; though, by such receiving, the order, that God has appointed to "to be observed in his house, be manifestly violated." How selfcontradictory is such a doctrine? Persons are supposed to have received the Holy Spirit; and, on that account, are under a peculiar obligation to hold nothing but what is agreeable to his word; and yet their avowed opposition to what is agreeable to the word is, on the very same account, to pass without censure. Their spiritual privileges are great, and the greatness of them aggravates their offences; and yet on account of these privileges, their offences are so much extenuated as to infer no censure. The church is bound to censure the offences of the saints more than those of any other, because they are saints; and yet, for the same reason, the great offence given by their avowed obstinacy in error and corruption is, for the sake of catholic communion, to pass without any reproof or admonition at all: for there can be no sincere use of these censures, when the open contempt of them does not subject the offender to farther censure, and, in the case of obstinacy, to suspension from sealing ordinances. Wilfully to violate the appointed order of God's house, is to withstand him; and yet, according to the doctrine of catholic communion, we withstand him, unless we violate that order. Surely we should beware of imputing such absurdity to the doctrine and example of the apostles. The truth is, their sacramental communion was on the broadest scale, in this respect, that every partaker of it professed to receive their whole doctrine,

[ocr errors]

worship and discipline. They enjoined all their communicants to stand fast, and hold the traditions; that is, the truths and duties which the apostles taught them, whether by epistles written to them, or by word of mouth, 2 Thes. ii. 15. This brings to my mind a passage of an excellent writer to this purpose: "It is, in some respects, strange," says he, "that these very persons, who are loudest in preaching up "Catholic love to all saints without exception, should seem to forget that catholic love to all scriptural truths and duties is at least equal"ly needful and equally enjoined. Those who so often and so warm"ly, though in a vague and indefinite way, inculcate charity towards "the weakest and the least of the friends of Christ, should not fail in their regard to any of the ordinances and commands of Jesus, under pretence of their being little ones. Have they forgot what he hath "said, Teach them to observe all things? And whosoever shall break "one of the least of these commandments, and teach men so, shall be ❝ called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and "teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven, Math. v. 19. and again, He that is faithful in that which is least, is. "faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least, is unjust also in much, Luke, xvi. 10." 99*

Alex. You have not duly considered what I observed, that the descent of the Holy Spirit on the family and friends of Cornelius being a visible proof of God's acceptance, was the sole principle on which the apostle pronounced them to be fit subjects for sacramental communion; and actually admitted them to all the privileges of the christian church.t

Ruf. I have considered it as an extraordinary appearance of God, declaring his will that the privileges of the church were not to be refused to the Gentiles, as or because they were Gentiles. In this view, it served to correct an error; but has no bearing on the present question about the terms, on which persons are to be received into sacramental communion. I have also considered it as respecting their gracious state and God's acceptance of them; and in this respect, it is denied to be the sole principle or the rule, according to which the apostle proceeded, and set an example to be followed by the church afterwards, in admitting persons to baptism: in the first place, because their partaking of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as speaking with tongues, did not necessarily belong to their duty or character as christians, Math. vii. 22. 1 Corinth. xiii. 1, 2. In the second place, because their profession of receiving the whole doctrine taught them by the apostle preceded their baptism; as is necessarily understood, both from the practice of the apostles in other instances; and, in this case, from their speaking with tongues; in which exercise they, no doubt, declared their cordial reception of the word of God, which they had heard. And in the third place, because the partaking of the Holy Spirit, in respect of the extraordinary gifts, without a credible profession of the faith, could be no example to be followed by the church as a rule; since the communication of such gifts hath ceased. In fine, the scheme of catholic communion cannot

Mr. Bruce's True Patriotism, a discourse which breathes the true spirit of our ol Reformers, such as Calvin, Beza, Welch, Rutherford.

† Plea, &c. page 32.

pretend to derive any support or countenance from this example; unless these persons had openly declared that they differed in some things not deemed essential, from the doctrine and profession of the apostles; and unless Peter had, notwithstanding this declaration, admitted them on the sole principle of their being saints and partakers of the Holy Spirit; a supposition which cannot consist either with the sacred history or with the character of the apostles.

Alex. I shall state another example only; which occurs in the history of the reference from Antioch, and of the proceeding thereon by the synod of Jerusalem in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles. Certain men, ministers of the word, who had come down from Judea, taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. This false doctrine, tending to subvert the entire fabric of evangelical truth, Paul and Barnabas. firmly resisted. After much dissention and disputation, it was determined to refer the question to the apostles and presbyters at Jerusalem. The synod at Jerusalem, having accepted the reference, and having taken the subject into consideration, condemned the doctrine which had raised the ferment in Antioch; prohibited the preaching of it in future, and, with regard to remaining differences, advised both parties to forbearance and love.

Hence I observe, that this venerable synod distinguished between a prime essential of christianity, the justification of a sinner by faith alone, on the one hand, and important differences, on the other, which left both sides in possession of the substantial truth. The synod would not endure, no, not for one hour, the least infringement upon the former. But they would not countenance the spirit of schism and separation for the sake of the latter: with respect to which they enjoined bearing and forbearing.*

Ruf. Before you proceed any farther, I beg leave to offer a remark. The distinction between essentials and non-essentials has been already considered; and the portion of sacred history, to which you refer, afFords no occasion, that I can see, to resume that subject. It is evident, that this synod gave no example of forbearing, even in any matter not essential. They condemned, as you have observed, the pernicious error of the Judaizing teachers about the necessity of men's being circumcised, as the condition of their justification and salvation. We read also of an opinion of some, that it was necessary to circumcise the Gentile converts, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. But this tenet also the synod of Jerusalem rejected; and allowed no forbearance of it.

Alex. Prejudice herself must confess, that the variance between the Gentile and Jewish believers on the subject of circumcision and of the Mosaic law generally, even without the notion of its necessity to salvation, was much wider, than the variance between many christians, who will not commune together in the body and blood of their common Lord.†

Ruf. The observation of circumcision and other parts of the Mosaic law, without the notion of its necessity in order to salvation, was, as yet, no way sinful. "Mosaical worship," as Dr. Owen observes,t

* Plea, &c. pages 35, 36. † Id. page 37.

In the preface to his Commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews.

"was not utterly to cease, so as to have no acceptance with God, until "the final ruin of the Jewish church foretold by our Saviour. The "things prescribed by the ceremonial law were in themselves indiffer"ent; yet the observation of them, from a pure reverence of their ori"ginal institution, was not displeasing to God; while he had not yet "brought out all the evidence, which he designed to afford, of their "abolition, particularly by the demolishing of the temple; after which "no mutual forbearance was to be exercised about that observance.” If such indifferent things give offence to weak brethren, they ought to be abstained from; as the Gentile converts, according to the decree of this synod, were to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled. The purport of this decree, as Calvin in his institutions* observes, was to enjoin, not an observation of the ceremonial law, but an observation of the moral law; in abstaining from giving offence to weak brethren by things in themselves indifferent. It is evident, that such indifferent things, or things which a church's profession has not determined, according to the word of God, to be either sin or duty, ought to be no bars to sacramental communion. Such were the ceremonial rites, that were still practised by the believing Jews; they were, as yet, indifferent things; and therefore, while there is any thing really sinful in the differences between the parties, that you suppose should have sacramental communion together; that difference is incomparably greater, than any which was allowed by this synod to continue between the Jewish converts and the Gentile believers.

I have often wondered how any who hold the jus Divinum, the Divine right of Presbyterial church government, could ever fall in with the catholic scheme of sacramental communion. According to that scriptural form of government, a presbytery or synod has authority, from the Lord Christ, to pass acts concerning the discipline of the church and the order of public worship; which acts, if consonant to the word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the word of God, but for the ministerial authority, by which they are enacted. Such acts are to be regarded, not merely as advices or recommendations; but as authoritative decisions: nor can the avowed and obstinate opposers of them be admitted consistently with the principles of Presbyterial church-government, to communion with the church in sealing ordinances; for such opposition, besides the evil of not receiving a rule which is agreeable to the word of God, is a manifest trampling upon the authority which God has given to the office-bearers of his house, for edification, and not for destruction. So this meeting of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem is said to have ordained decrees. There were two cases before them: one was, that of the Judaizing teachers; the other was that of the offence, which the Jewish converts had taken at the Gentiles, for refusing to observe the law of Moses. With regard to the former case, they condemned the Judaizing teachers and their doctrine with regard to the latter, they decreed, that the Gentiles, in order to avoid offending their Jewish brethren, should abstain, not only from fornication, which was in itself a moral evil; but also, while the present occasion of offence continued, from some things in themselves

* Lib. iv. cap. 10. sect. 21.

indifferent; namely, from meats offered to idols, from things strángled, and from blood: and they laid a burden upon the Gentiles as to those necessary things.

Now there is no reason to doubt, that, while the occasion of these decrees continued, wilful and obstinate opposition to them, even in those things that were in themselves indifferent, would be sufficient to preclude persons from sacramental communion. No church member could refuse the burden of these necessary things, and despise the authority of this synod, without censure. Paul and Silas, as they went through the cities, delivered to the churches these decrees for to keep; that is, they delivered them, as belonging, to the rule of church communion.

Warranted by this example, a church, as represented by her ministers and elders, may pass many acts agreeable to the word of God, conducive to the maintaining of truth and peace in the church, though not immediately relating to what are usually termed the essentials of the christian religion; and may lawfully refuse to admit the open contemners and opposers of these acts, to sacramental communion.

On the whole, the example of this synod is so far from favouring the scheme of catholic communion, that it is directly opposite to it; and manifestly affords an effectual refutation of it.

Alex. Was Paul's circumcision of Timothy, of which we have an account in the third verse of the next chapter, agreeable to the decision of this synod?

Ruf. Yes; the synod's decision specified some things in themselves indifferent, which were to be abstained from for avoiding the offence of weaker brethren. Some other legal ceremonies, in the same case, might be considered in the same light: among these was circumcision; which, therefore, might still be lawfully used for preventing the offence of the Jewish converts. Had Paul taught, that circumcision was in itself necessary as a commanded duty, like baptism or the Lord's supper, he would have contradicted the synod's decision; but, in the simple use of it, as an indifferent thing, merely for avoiding offence, he proceeded upon the principle, and adhered to the spirit, of that de

cision.

§ 21. Alex. To refuse church communion with a church or with her members is, in effect, to unchurch her, and to declare, that she is no church, and that her members are no followers of Jesus Christ. At least, it is a declaration, that they are so very corrupt, as to render their communion unlawful. Now such a declaration, whether expressed or implied, can be received as nothing less, on the part of those who make it, than excommunication in disguise; but a disguise so thin, that it might as well be dropt: excommunication being a judicial exclusion from the communion of the church on account of the unworthiness of the excommunicated; or on account of the unlawfulness of holding communion with them. Your conduct in refusing communion with a church or individuals, and justifying the refusal by the plea of their corruptions, is a virtual denial of their visible christianity; and having already the substance, wants nothing but the form, of an excommunicating act. This consequence, viz. the virtual unchurching and excommunicating all the churches and people of God upon earth,

« AnteriorContinua »