Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

LETTER IV.

Rev. SIR,

HE next queftion propofed to be confidered

T (viz. by whom is the Lord Supper to be cele

brated) is fo intimately connected with the laft, that the answer which was given to that will determine what is to be given to this. Whatsoever profeffion is implied in attending the ordinance, thofe perfons and those only ought to attend it who can with truth make that profeffion. If receiving the Lord's Supper be only a declaration of a man's christianity, then all who believe chriftianity may and ought to receive it. But if this action implies a profeffion of a practical regard to Christ and the gospel, then those alone who poffefs that qualification can with propriety engage in it. In the preceding letter I attempted to prove that the last fuppofition is the truth. I now proceed to justify the inference from it, and to examine what you have faid on this branch of the subject.

Your answer to the question now before us is as foldows" This rite is to be celebrated by all profeffing "Chriftians, who are arrived at years of difcretion. "In nothing (fay you) that I have read to you, (and "I have read to you every thing that relates to it in "the New Teftament) can you find any other quali"fication required [than profeffing chriftianity I fuppofe you mean] and therefore what right have "Christians

[ocr errors]

D 3

"Chriftians of this day to infift upon any other ?" (p. 28.) Give me leave to ask you, Sir, what you mean by profeffing chriftianity. I must own myself at a lofs to conceive what is here meant by it, fince in the very next page you fay " a previous declaration" (or profeffion, for both the words are of the fame import, and you yourself use them promifcuously)" of a

man's being a Chriftian, is by no means neceffary. "This action is itself the declaration, and a more fo"lemn one than any other." You must excufe me if I say these two paffages are directly contrary to each other. Which of them you will abide by I muft guess from the general ftrain of your book. This leads me to fix upon the latter, and therefore obliges me to correct your definition of the perfons duly qualified for the Lord's Supper by striking out the word profeffing, and reading it, all Chriftians, i. e. all who believe that Jefus is a teacher fent from God, without regard to their moral character, fave only (what you bethought yourself to add in a parenthefis, four pages afterwards, p. 33.) that they must be free from fcandalous vices. That I have not misreprefented your meaning appears plain from the following paffage (among others) which I find under your head of abuses which have crept into this inftitution. Upon this, the terms of communion began to be "more ftrict, and a greater purity of heart and life than was before required, was now thought abfo"lutely neceffary." (p. 42.) You then introduce Origen with evident difapprobation as faying, "It does not

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

belong to every one to eat of this bread and drink "of this cup. They must have been both baptized, "believe the articles of the Chriftian faith, and ac"cordingly live holy and pious lives." You go on,

This advance being made, &c." evidently reprefenting Origen's account of the matter as an innovation. I fhall now lay before you my reasons for believing it is the truth.

The

The firft I fhall mention is, that it beft agrees with the nature of the ordinance, and the profeffion implied in attending upon it.

As to the ordinance itself, I have before attempted to prove that it contains a declaration on God's part of his readinefs to beftow certain bleffings purchased by his Son's death, and promised in the covenant of grace; which may all be confidered as included in what our Lord mentions, in the words of the inftitution as the great end of his fhedding his blood, The remiffion of fins. Now it feems unreasonable to fup-pofe that any have a right to, or can with propriety, receive, the outward figns of thofe fpiritual bleffings, or the feal or token of that covenant in which they are contained, but those who are interested in the bleffings themselves reprefented thereby: on the contrary fuppofition, they lofe their propriety and become deftitute of any meaning. But who are the perfans fpecified in the new covenant as interested in the bleffings of it? Not all that believe Jefus is the Chrift, nor any but fuch as believe in him with the heart, as repent of fin, and live according to the gofpel. It follows therefore that only fuch perfons as thefe are warranted to partake of the facramental bread and wine.

Further; the Profeffion which is made in the participation of these elements is an additional (and to me a ftriking) proof, that they belong only to real Chriftians. A perfon who attends this ordinance, is fuppofed from the nature of it as above explained to profefs (and if he attends it worthily means to profefs), his grateful remembrance of Chrift and the unfpeakable benefits procured for finful men by his mediation, particularly by his offering himself a facrifice for fin; his own chearful acceptance of those benefits, upon the terms on which they are offered, his hearty approbation of the grand requirements of the gospel covenant, and his refolute purpose to live according to them. No less than this you yourfelf, Sir, include in

D 4

this

this profeffion when you fay, "It implies a refolution "to live and die like a Chriftian." But can all that believe the truth of chriftianity honeftly make fuch a profeffion? Can those make it, who do not heartily defire the bleffings of the gofpel covenant, nor inwardly relish its requirements, nor even intend to comply with them? but who, on the contrary, are yet under the power of their fins, if not of fcandalous vices, yet of fecret lufts, whofe minds are carnal, and therefore at enmity with God?' which indeed is the cafe with all unconverted perfons, whatever their outward behaviour may be. No mere nominal Chriftian does or can thus refolve. A refolution of this nature fuppofes fuch an hearty approbation of the laws of Chrift, and fuch a zealous attachment to him, as are the grand characteristics of a real Christian, or a truly good man.

This obfervation feems to me to destroy that diftinction on which the author of the Plain Account has said so much stress, between a perfon's being himself worthy or pious, and his exercifing difpofitions worthy of, or fuited to the nature of the Lord's Supper. How an unholy man can exercise holy difpofitions is to me inconceivable, fince that which conftitutes a person holy or unholy, is his being poffeffed of, or his wanting, thofe difpofitions which are required to be exercised in attending this inftitution.

There is another paffage in your performance, in which you feem not only to allow the neceffity of exercifing pious difpofitions, but of poffeffing a pious character in order to have a right to the Lord's Supper. Speaking of the preparation neceffary for it (p. 35.) you fay," this act of religion only requires that ferious and compofed state of mind, which is a temper that a GOOD MAN, who never indulges bimfelf in any criminal exceffes, habitually carries "about with him." I should be glad to know, Sir, what fort of a perfon you intend by a good man, if not

fuch

fuch an one as I am endeavouring to prove is the only fit perfon to receive this ordinance. I cannot fee, with what propriety a wicked man can be called by this name (and fuch every man is, who is not holy in heart and life) or how any other than a real Christian, can be faid "habitually to carry about "with him a ferious and compofed ftate of mind." In a word, I only contend for the neceffity of fuch qualifications in a communicant as you here defcribe.

Now if the exercife of fuch holy difpofitions as I have defcribed, be neceffary to intitle any one to the Lord's Supper, and be profeffed in attending upon it; and if it be true that no unholy perfon can exercise them, not being poffeffed of them; I infer, that those who attend the Lord's Supper while they remain unholy, as they folemnly profess a falfehood, eat and drink unworthily from whence it seems most clearly to follow, that all unholy persons ought to refrain from this ordinance till a thorough change takes place in them, left they eat and drink judgment to

themselves: unless it be fuppofed that it is better to receive unworthily, and declare what is abfolutely falfe, than wholly to neglect the ordinance; which appears to me too unreasonable to need confutation.

You apprehend that there is no danger in a perfon's coming to the Lord's table who is deftitute of

a truly chriftian temper. "If I be afked (you say, p. "34.) whether it be not hazardous for a perfon of a "dubious or indifferent character to receive the Lord's

46

Supper, I answer, you may judge for yourselves "by confidering, that receiving the Lord's Supper is "the fame thing as standing up in the face of the "world and faying I am a Chriftian." You ought to have added, (and to make you confiftent I muft fuppofe you intended to include,) what you had before faid fuch a declaration implied, "And I refolve "(by the grace of God) to live and die as becomes a

Christian." You go on "This declaration cer"tainly implies an obligation to live as becomes a “Christian

« ПредишнаНапред »