Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

this head, and that is what Solomon has afferted concerning vows in general, (of which you have in effect allowed the Lord's Supper to be one fpecies) Better

[ocr errors]

it is that thou fhouldft not vow, than that thou 'fhouldft vow and not pay.'* From a careful attention to these paffages, and foberly reafoning on the nature of the Lord's Supper, let our readers judge, whether that sentiment be not just rather than cenfurable, which you afcribe to fome communicants, of whom you fay (p. 42.) " the greater they fuppofed to "be the honour and advantage of communicating "worthily, the greater would they fuppofe to be the penalty and danger of communicating unworthily." A fecond argument from fcripture I derive from the directions therein given with refpect to ExcoмMUNICATION. It muft, I think, be univerfally allowed, that thofe perfons ought not to be admitted as members of a church, who, if they were already admitted, would deserve to be excommunicated from it. You yourself, Sir, have taught me thus to argue, when fpeaking of the perfons fit for communion, you fay (p. 34.) "I do not here fpeak of thofe "vices which are a fcandal to human fociety, and "which, according to the judgment of St. Paul, will

66

justify excommunication." What vices you would call a fcandal to human fociety, I am not quite certain. One might naturally rank under this ad, all open immoralities habitually indulged. But in your Letter to Mr. Venn (p. 42.) you feem as if you intended only the groffeft crimes of which human nature can be guilty. "We do not find (fay you) that "merely nominal Christians were excluded from the "Lord's Supper, this was only the cafe with the in

cestuous perfon at Corinth." Surely you forgot that in the very fame chapter in which the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians to put away from among them a particular perfon who was found guilty of inceft, he also warrants them to exclude all fuch as

Ecclef. v. 4. 5i

they

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

thy might hereafter find chargeable with other immoralities of a lefs heinous nature. I have written unto you (fays he) not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one, no not to eat.' By eating here I have no doubt the Apostle meant receiving the Lord's Supper. But fuppofing the expreffion refers to a common friendly meal, we may naturally infer, communion in a Chriftian ordinance with fuch a person must have been more unwarrantable; for the arguments against the former would conclude much stronger against the latter. Now if a Chriftian church be forbid holding fellowship with fuch finners as are here specified, we may by a parity of reafon add to the lift all openly immoral perfons, all who walk unfuitably to a Chriftian profeffion, as equally unworthy of, and unfit for, this privilege. The juftice of fuch an inference I think you will not difpute, and there are other paffages of fcripture which confirm it; particularly that exhortation to the Theffalonians to withdraw from any that walked diforderly, from idle perfons and bufy bodies. * Now if a church be warranted to refufe communion with those whom they know to be immoral, I infer, that they who know themselves to be fo, tho' it be unknown to others, are as really difqualified for this ordinance as if their immoralities were publick, and ought in confcience to abstain from it. Why is it that the church is forbid to have fellowship with a perfon who is guilty of "fuch vices as are a fcandal

to human fociety ?" Is it merely because his vices are publickly known and of a fcandalous nature? Or because he thereby the more openly declares to the world that he is really unholy, and therefore unfit for fo holy an institution? It is, I apprehend, the immorality itself in which his difqualification principally * 2 Theff. iii. 6, &c. See alfo Matt. xviii. 15—17. Rom. xvi. 17.

E 3

pally confifts, tho' it is its being publick that renders it apparent, and gives the church the plainer warrant to deny him communion. It is true, an openly immoral perfon, whofe vices are a fcandal to fociety, would be (as you fuggeft concerning the incestuous perfon) "a difgrace to the Chriftian name," which a more fecret finner might not; fo that the former would be more unfit for fellowship with a fociety of Chriftians than the latter, and there would be a ftronger obligation upon them to exclude him, as the credit of religion would be more concerned; for the openness of his vices would afford the world evidence of the badnefs of his character, and would expofe the whole fociety, to the charge of encouraging immorality; fo that the ways of God would be in danger of being evil spoken of, and men would be taught, (as they were by the iniquity of Eli's fons) to abhor

the offering of the Lord.' Nevertheless, it is the immorality of the man's character, that renders him difqualified; it is this that conftitutes him unworthy in the fight of God; it is this in which the fcandal and offence confift: For, the honour of religion would be as much hurt in the world, and the church of Chrift would fuffer as much difcredit, if it could be known that they held communion with one who was guilty of fecret vices, (tho' his outward behaviour were unexceptionable,) as if they permitted an openly immoral perfon to communicate with them. And let it be further confidered, that the fcripture not merely requires Chriftians to exclude those who are guilty of publick immoralities, and fuch as would bring a fcandal upon religion in the eye of the world, but also fuch as have given evidence of a more private nature that they are not poffeffed of a truly Christian temper. In a paffage before quoted, they are ordered to withdraw from thofe that walk diforderly in general, whether it be publickly known or not. And our Lord himself mentions fo private a crime as

3

an

an offence committed against one individual member of the church, if it be perfifted in, as a fufficient cause of excommunication. "If thy brother (fays) "he) trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault "between thee and him alone if he will not hear "thee, take with thee one or two more-and if he "fhall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church :

*

and if he neglect to hear the church, let him be "unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." Such a fault as this would be no " fcandal to hu"man fociety," but it would be to the church a plain evidence that a man was not a real Chriftian, and therefore unworthy to be confidered as a member of it. Now if thofe are to be excluded from communion with a Chriftian church who are convicted of any fuch fin as proves that they are not real Chriftians; it feems to me naturally to follow, that they who are confcious to themselves of fuch fins, tho' the church may be very far from fufpecting it, are as really difqualified as if their characters were fully known; and therefore they ought to abstain from that ordinance in which a relation to the church is expreffed. It appears to me an abfurdity to fuppofe that any one fhould have a right to the Lord's Supper, and be warranted to attend upon it, who is confcious to himself of fuch vices, as, were they known to the church, would justify them in excluding him. "What excludes a man from admiffion, "when it is known to others, excommunicates him "to his own confcience, when it is only known to "himself." Now if this reafoning be admitted, it may easily be applied with respect to unholy perfons in general, whether they are fecretly guilty of iniquitous practices, or whether they habitually omit any effential duties of religion; for in the fight of God there is but little difference in their characters,

+

Mat. xviii. 15-18.

E 4

+ Charnock, vol. ii. p. 787.

and

and their incapacity for a worthy attendance on this holy ordinance is much the fame. They are neither of them true members of Chrift's church, and therefore have no right to communion with it. An objection will probably be urged here, taken from the diftinction between the visible and the invisible church, This distinction is indeed often made, but it has no foundation in fcripture, nor can I fee that it has any in reafon. The church of Chrift is but one. This he is faid to have purchased with his blood, and this we are told he will finally prefent a glorious church, without fpot or wrinkle or any fuch thing.' It confifts entirely of believing, penitent, holy fouls. It is indeed partly vifible and partly invisible, i. e. the members of it are not with certainty known to the world; we can only judge of them by appearance, and may be deceived. Under the Mofaic difpenfa tion there was indeed an external visible church, including all the feed of Abraham after the flesh; but the gospel knows no fuch thing: *it fpeaks only of one church, compofed of true believers, called Abraham's fpiritual feed. So that to speak of the visible church of Chrift, as diftinguished from the invifible, is at beft an impropriety of fpeech; and it is founded on a falfe fuppofition, if any thing more be meant by it, than being visibly (or to appearance) of the true church of Chrift; which is the cafe with none but those who appear to be true believers and lead holy lives. They who are known to lead unholy lives are not visibly members of Christ's church, and therefore the church ought to exclude them from their communion. And they who know themselves to be unholy, are no more members of the church than the others, and therefore ought to exclude themselves.

You

See this point well argued in the Second of the Theological Differtations, in anfwer to Dr. TAYLOR's Key to the Epistles, by JOHN ERSKINE, M. A. 1765.

« ПредишнаНапред »