Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

J

in another place to defend the opinion against what you have advanced in oppofition to it. But I difmifs it at prefent, partly because it will better come under confideration hereafter, and partly because I am not clear that you meant in this place to oppofe it. Again; you fay (p. 32.) It is not a profeffion "of a perfon's attachment to any particular fect or "denomination of Chriftians." It is readily granted this could not be the original or ultimate defign of it, fince in the primitive times, Chriftians knew no other name than that common one, and had no divifions amongst them, because they were, in the main, all of one mind. Nor are any weak enough to think that this is the principal end of the ordinance now. But it certainly is an accidental one; and I cannot conceive but that it must neceffarily be fo, fince fuch differences in fentiment have taken place in the church, and fuch different modes of worship havė been adopted, as are incompatible with each other, as are inconfiftent with uniformity or even with union in worship (what room foever there may be for the mutual exercise of charity) and fuch as render it neceffary to divide into feparate focieties. It certainly cannot be a matter of abfolute indifference what men believe, or in what manner the publick worship of God is conducted. It cannot therefore be indifferent with what fociety I unite. If the principles of any one denomination of Chriftians, and their mode of worship, appear to me by far more rational fcriptural and edifying than thofe of other fects, furely it is my wisdom and my duty statedly to unite with fuch a fociety, not merely for my own edification, but also to bear my teftimony to what I judge to be the truth, and against what I confider as grofs corruptions of christianity. But where fhall I receive the Lord's Supper? Where, but with thofe whom I efteem the pureft fet of Chriftians? not merely because commuhicating with others, (fhould they permit it) would

appear

appear to be countenancing erroneous doctrines and practices, and unfcriptural terms of communion (and there are many which you, Sir, confider in that light) but it would really be a tacit approbation of them. In what way could a perfon more strongly declare that he belonged to this or that particular fect, than by conftantly joining with them in worship (I mean where other places of worship were near) and partaking with them, in their way, of the Lord's Supper? Your own remark (p. 21.) upon that paffage in which Paul reproves the Corinthians for partaking of the heathen facrifices is a confirmation of what I fay. Ye cannot (fays the Apostle) drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils; ye cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of devils.' Your remark is this: "The whole meaning of this "paffage is, that joining in idolatrous worship is the "fame thing as renouncing chriftianity." That is, this is not only the commonly received, but the natural, language of the action. By the fame rule it may be faid, that ftatedly joining in worship at all, (especially receiving the facramental bread and wine) with any that I judge a corrupt fet of Chriftians, is tacitly renouncing what I confider as true christianity. An approbation of the diftinguishing tenets and practices of any one fet of Chriftians is not only, as you allow, the commonly received, but the real and natural language of frequent communion with them. Nor does it appear to me at all foreign to, or much lefs inconfiftent with, the original and grand defign of the Lord's Supper, to confider and acknowledge my receiving it ftatedly with one particular denomination of Chriftians, as a proof that I am, in the main, of their perfuafion, while I receive the ordinance itself as a proof that I am a Christian.

Having thus confidered what you affert is not, I will now attend to what you fay is, profeffed in the Lord's Supper.

On

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

On this head you exprefs yourself thus: "The " utmost that can fairly be inferred by any juft confequence from the nature of the ordinance is, that "fince the custom is peculiar to Chriftians, it may be "confidered as an open declaration of a man's chriftianity. The language of it will then be this: By joining in this folemn action in remembrance " of Chrift, I declare myself a Christian, and resolve "by the grace of God to live and die as becomes a "Christian: for (say you) a resolution to behave as "becomes a Chriftian is the neceffary confequence of "an honeft man's declaring himself to be one." (p. 30.) Upon this paffage I beg leave to make the following remarks. The firft is, that this account of the matter is much more than I can find in any paffage of fcripture, treating directly of the Lord's Supper. You do not, indeed, pretend that it is expreffed in any of the texts which you had before quoted, but you infer this general account of it, as a profeffion of one's christianity, from the nature of the ordinance, and from that inference deduce this further particular, that it is a profeffion of a refolution to live as becomes a Chriftian. I have no objection, Sir, to either of thefe inferences, I believe them to be juft: but in having recourfe to them, I must remark, that you forgot the grand principle which you adopted from Bishop Hoadly, that we are to be guided by the words of scripture relating to the ordinance, and that Chrift and his Apoftles have decided all matters relating to it with fufficient clearness. If you reserve to yourself a right to infer any thing from what you apprehend the nature of the ordinance, you give us a great advantage against you, by leaving us alfo at liberty to infer any thing which we think justly deducible from what we judge to be the true nature of the inftitution; unless you deny us the liberty which you claim to yourself. Let us then no more hear it faid, this or that does not belong to the Lord's Supper, because it is not fully expreffed

preffed in the paffages which you have cited as the only ones relating to it, fince this is equally true with refpect to your own account of it.But I must further remark, that what you infer from the nature of the ordinance concerning the profeflion made in it, is inconfiftent with the main drift of your work, which to me appears to be this, viz. to prove that the Lord's Supper is only a publick declaration of a man's chritianity, or his belief that Jefus is a teacher fent from God, and that therefore ALL, who in this general fenfe are Chriftians, ought to attend this ordinance. That this is your fentiment is fufficiently evident from fuch paffages as thofe, p. 28, 32, 42, &c. fome of which I fhall have occafion hereafter to quote. But it is notoriously inconfiftent with this fentiment to fay, as you do here, that the language of the action in receiving the Lord's Supper is, "I resolve to live and "die like a Chriftian.' This is faying much more than that "I am a christian," in that sense of the expreffion which you have elsewhere given, and there are many perfons who can truly fay the one, who are very far from being able with truth to fay the other. You add in vindication of this, "for a refolution to

[ocr errors]

behave as a Chriftian is the neceffary confequence "of an honeft man's declaring he is one." I must own I can fee no neceffary connection between thefe two. A man may very honeftly declare that he is a Christian in your general fenfe of the word, viz. that he believes Chrift to be a teacher fent from God, without any resolution or intention to act according to that belief. What you have afferted in another place (p. 43.) is undoubtedly true, "that receiving

the Lord's Supper, which is the fame thing as fay"ing in the face of the world I am a Chriftian, cer"tainly implies an obligation to live as becomes a Chri

ftian." All indeed who believe that Jefus is the .Chrift, are (as you further obferve) under an obliga-tion to live according to fuch a belief, whether they

declare

t

declare it or not. But is an obligation the fame thing as a refolution? In my apprehenfion they are as different as a sense of duty, and the practice of it. Give me leave to obferve, it is your confounding these that has led you into a mistake which runs thro' your performance, by which your readers are liable to be be wildered. If you had afferted that an attendance upon the Lord's Supper implies a profeffion of obliga tion to live like a Chriftian, that would have agreed very well with your main principle, that all who believe in Jefus as the Meffiah have a right to this ordinance, and with your general account of it as a profeffion of a man's christianity. But a refolution to live and die like a Chriftian is a profeffion which all fuch perfons cannot make. It therefore follows, either that fuch a resolution is not implied in attending this ordinance, or else that a mere belief that Jéfus is the Chrift is not, as you have afferted, the only qualification for it; for those who have only this belief, but no fuch refolution as you mention, by attending this ordinance, in which that refolution is profeffed, do profefs a lie. In a word, if an attendance upon the Lord's Supper implies a refolution to live and die as becomes a Chriftian, it implies every thing which we contend for as neceffary in a worthy communicant, and may be confidered as including all those pious difpofitions and devout exercises of the mind which we affert this ordinance requires. What' they are, I am now particularly to fhew.

And here I muft proceed according to the rule which you have adopted, viz. inferring from the nature of the ordinance. I have already fhewed that it is a memorial of Chrift, in general; particularly of his death; and among other views of it, as a facrifice for fin; and that it is alfo a fign or feal of the covenant of grace. I infer then from this account, that those who with propriety attend the ordinance, fo as to answer the defign of it, feriously remember the Lord Jefus Chrift accord

ing

« ПредишнаНапред »