Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

"ordinance as a TOKEN and SEAL of his cove "nant, for the perpetual memory of the riches of "his goodness, that we might have ftrong confola"lation, and drink abundantly of the rivers of his " pleasures *."

'

Taylor's Scripture-account of the Lord's Supper, zd edit.

P. 55-57-61.

LET

LETT ER III.

Rev. SIR,

N the preceding Letter we have seen, what is re

and wine in the Lord's Supper. Let us now enquire what is profeffed on OUR part in receiving them.

[ocr errors]

The answer to this question will be determined, in a great measure, by that which was given to the former; for our profeffions must certainly correfpond with God's declarations, and our views in receiving the ordinance, with God's defign in appointing it. The queftion now to be confidered divides itself into two parts, viz. What a perfon profeffes concerning his faith, and what he declares with refpect to his difpofitions and general conduct. I will confider each of them separately. With regard to the for

mer,

You tell us, Sir, (p. 32.) that "the only Opinion "which is declared by receiving the Lord's Supper "is, That Chrift is a Teacher fent from God." I can hardly fuppofe that you meant what your words literally import, or that you will follow the affertion into all its confequences; for upon this principle a Mahometan might with propriety attend this ordinance, fince the Koran itself teaches that Chrift was a great Prophet or a Teacher fent from God, tho' Mahomet is declared to be greater than he. Whereas this is an ordinance peculiar to Chriftianity, and of fuch a nature as that none could attend it with

[blocks in formation]

propriety but Chriftians, who acknowledge no other Mafter than Chrift. This I am perfuaded you will readily acknowledge; and you add in the next words," it is a profeffion of a man's being fimply a "Chriftian," but the contrary will follow from your first affertion; your definition of a Chriftian therefore, as a person who believes Chrift to be a Teacher fent from God, is a very imperfect one, fince according to this a Mahometan has a right to the Chriftian name. That man alone, Sir, can properly be called a Christian, whofe Faith is peculiar to christianity; who believes fomething different from what perfons of other religions believe; or elfe wherein does the difference between a Chriftian and any other man confift? What, for inftance, diftinguifhes a Chriftian from a Mahometan? What, but the belief of fome things which the other rejects, viz. the leading doctrines of the Old and New Teftament, as of divine revelation; particularly those which refpect JESUS CHRIST in his relation to mankind as finful creatures, which no other religion teaches. Could that man properly be called a difciple of Mahomet, or of Socrates, or any other teacher of religion or philofophy, who merely affented to this propofition, that he taught the truth, without knowing or believing what he taught, or without believing thofe doctrines of his which were peculiar to himself? How then can any one with propriety be called a Christian, without knowing and affenting to thofe doctrines which Chrift taught, which are peculiar to his religion. But if fuch a perfon could not be called a Chriftian, he certainly could have no right to the Lord's Supper, because by your own acknowledgement that ordinance is peculiar to Chriftians. It neceffarily follows, therefore, that those who attend that ordinance (I mean with propriety) profefs fome other opinion befides that which you mention," that "Chrift is a teacher sent from God," viz. the leading doctrines which he taught. If you should fay,

that

that by this expreffion, you meant to include the belief of those general truths which Chrift, as a teacher from God, has revealed; and that the fcripture often fpeaks of believing Jefus to be the Chrift, as of the fame import with being a Chriftian; I answer, that your expreffion is by no means equivalent to this: believing Jefus to be a teacher fent from God, is far fhort of believing him to be the Chrift, fince the former character of him may be applied to all the Prophets and Apostles, yea even to Minifters of the prefent day. But not to infift upon the inaccuracy of your expreffion, and admitting that you meant by it as much as "believing that Jefus is the true Meffiah, "the Son of God," if you really intended to include all that the fcripture includes in the like expreffion, or the diftinguishing doctrines of chriftianity, the paffage referred to is impertinent, fince nobody will affert the contrary. Chriftians of all perfuafions maintain that receiving the Lord's Supper is a profeffion of chriftianity, or of their belief of thofe doctrines which are peculiar to it, and none, that ever I heard of, suppose it a profeffion of fuch opinions as are no effential parts of it, how much foever they may be mistaken in judging what are fo. It is unneceffary for me here to fay what I efteem fuch, tho' it were easy to mention fome which all that call themfelves Chriftians acknowledge neceffary to be believed in order to entitle any one to the Christian name, and which you will not hesitate to pronounce of this kind. But this I must maintain, that whatfoever are the effential doctrines of the Chriftian religion, they are virtually profeffed in that ordinance in which a perfon profeffes himself a Chriftian: for a Chriftian without believing any of the doctrines of Chriftianity is a kind of being of which I can form no idea.

I have only one thing to add here, which is an inference that seems naturally to follow from what has been faid: viz. that whatsoever doctrine any Christian

2

fociety

1

fociety look upon to be effential to christianity, they have a right to refufe communion to those who deny it; for otherwise, they must receive those whom they do not esteem as Chriftians, with whom they could have no more commnnion than Chrift hath with Belial. But of this more hereafter.

Let us now enquire what a person is fuppofed to declare, by his attending the Lord's Supper, with refpect to his moral difpofitions and conduct. As you have not laid together your thoughts on this head, you will give me leave to collect them. And I will first take notice of what you say is not declared in this ordinance.

[ocr errors]

"It is not, my brethren (fay you, p. 30.) a decla❝ration of any extraordinary degree of fanctity that હૃદ you make, when you attend the Lord's Supper. I don't know any, Sir, who will fay it is; if by extràordinary fanctity you mean, as your words import, greater degrees of purity than are common to good and pious men in general. In those Books upon the Lord's Supper which you moft except againft, it is generally reprefented as equally belonging to all confiftent Chriftians; to all whofe conversation is as becometh the gofpel,' tho' their attainments in faith and holiness be imperfect. Nay this imperfection is often urged as an argument to attend the Lord's Supper, as an important means of confirmation and growth in grace. If, by extraordinary fanctity, you mean, fuch purity of heart and life as is effential to denominate a man a real christian, (which, confidering the characters of the generality of those who go by the Chriftian name, may be called extraordinary) I must own there are fome few in the prefent day who have fo much of the Puritan ftill in them as to confider this as one thing virtually profeffed in attending the Lord's Supper, and as a neceffary qualification for coming to this ordinance. I am not ashamed to acknowledge myself of this number; and I propofe

[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »