members of it, whom they judge equally unworthy, under what pretence foever they may defire admiffion. The right of refusing members ftands upon the fame footing with that of excommunicating them.

4

But why need I thus attempt to vindicate this right, when you yourself have allowed it, if there be any meaning in that paffage (p. 33.) in part before quoted, in which you infer the authority of a church to refuse admiffion to fcandalous finners, from that which Paul's warrant gives them to excommunicate fuch. Having obferved that neither the minifter nor congregation have any right to examine thofe that defire communion, or enquire into their lives, you add, "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 justify excommuni"cation." I must own the meaning of this paffage is not very clear, (not to infift upon the inaccuracy of it, you not having before fpoken of any vices :) You do not say whether we may examine men concerning those vices which are a fcandal, &c. or whether we may refufe communion to fuch as are guilty of them. The connexion feems beft to fuit the former sense; tho' it must be owned, it founds rather odd to talk of examining men about thofe vices. which are a fcandal to human fociety, fince, if they are fuch a scandal, they must be too well known to need examination. But admitting this was your meaning, the latter fuppofition is implied in, or neceffarily follows from it; for if a minifter or congregation have a right to enquire concerning mens characters, they certainly have a right to refufe communion to those who are found to have bad ones; without fuppofing this, the enquiry would be utterly useless.

Well then, we seem thus far to be agreed: That a Christian society has, in general, an authority over its members, fo as to excommunicate, and by parity of reason refuse, certain perfons as unfit for communion

with

with them, in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. What remains to be debated is, How far this authority extends That is to fay, What qualifications a church may demand as neceffary in those that are admitted to communion-and by what means they are to obtain fatisfaction concerning thofe qualifications. As to the former, it is no wonder that we fhould differ, fince I find you differ from yourfelf. In one part of your work work you fay, there is nothing in the New Teftament that requires any other qualification than a profeffion of chriftianity, and afk in the language of defiance, (p. 30.) "What right have Chriftians "at this day to infift upon any other ?" Nay, it feems, 66 a previous declaration of a man's being a Chri"ftian is by no means neceffary."-In the paffage just before quoted, (p. 33.) you allow that "fuch "vices as are a fcandal to human fociety" are a fufficient bar to communion. But in the very next sentence (which you defire may be noted), you in effect allow all mankind a right to it, if they defire it, excepting only those that have been excommunicated. "Let it be noted (fay you) that, according to the "practice of the primitive church, no perfon was ex"cluded from the Lord's Supper, who was not for

66

mally excommunicated." A remark, worthy of note, truly! and which could not eafily escape obfervation, on account of its glaring inconfiftency, not only with the well-known truth, but even with what you yourself had allowed, viz. that a profeffion of christianity, and a freedom from fcandalous vices, are neceffary terms of communion. With what confiftency can these be allowed neceffary, if the primitive church admitted all but the excommunicated? unlefs you will fay that the primitive church excommunicated all infidels and scandalous finners; that is, (like the church of England) excommunicated those that never belonged to it or elfe, that we may insist upon other terms of communion than the primitive church

3

church required: neither of which fuppofitions, I am perfuaded, you will allow.

What terms of communion a Chriftian is warranted to demand I now proceed to enquire. And here I defire it may be "noted," that (as was before acknowledged) I am of opinion, no church has authority to make any new terms of communion for itfelf; as this would be invading the office, and even difputing the wifdom of Chrift, the alone head of the church. I as much abhor all human impofitions in matters of religion, as you can do, and would as warmly enter my protest against them. I am willing to determine this part of the prefent controverfy, as well as the others, by the fole teftimony of scripture, defiring only the liberty of interpreting fcripture according to the rules laid down in my First Letter, on which I have all along proceeded. Strictly adhering to these, I cannot but think, that all Chriftian churches are warranted to admit none to communion with them but fuch as give credible evidence, that they embrace christianity as a divine religion, that they understand and believe the leading articles of it, that they are free from all fcandalous vices, and that they are holy in heart and life; in a word, that they are

altogether Christians.' I have already proved, by feveral fcripture arguments, that fuch perfons as these alone have a right to communion with a Chriftian fociety, in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, or can with propriety attend upon it; and that all but fuch ought to abftain from it and I have now proved that every fuch fociety has authority to judge concerning the qualifications of thofe that propofe themselves, as members, before they be admitted From whence it seems to me naturally to fo low, that such a fociety has a fcriptural authority to refufe admittance to all who do not answer to the above defcription. If churches have any authority at all with respect to the admission of their members, it is reafonable

reasonable to fuppofe it extends to every qualification of which they can be thought competent judges, and that they are warranted to exclude all who give plain evidence that they are excluded by the laws of Chrift. It would feem very strange that he fhould appoint an ordinance for the true members of his church, his genuine difciples, to celebrate alone, forbidding others to intrude amongst them, and autho rize them to judge concerning the qualifications of fuch as may offer to join them, and yet warrant them to refuse none, except known infidels, or perfons guilty of fuch vices as are a scandal to human fociety; but admit mere nominal Christians of all kinds, whom they knew to be as really incapable of answering the ends of the Lord's Supper, as the openly profane. Whatsoever the fcripture makes to be an effential qualification of a communicant, it appears moft rational to suppose, that, as none ought to offer themfelves to communion who are deftitute of it, fo those who are the appointed judges of mens fitness for this ordinance, ought to require credible evidence of it, and to admit none without it.

But further; we have feen, in the preceding letter, that the directions of fcripture with refpect to excommunication of members, will affift us in judging concerning the neceffary qualifications of them. It has been obferved that chriftian churches are required to reject from their communion fuch as are guilty, not merely of thofe vices which are a fcandal to human fociety, but of any irregularity which proves them not to be real chriftians. From hence I argued, that such persons ought to abstain from the Lord's Supper, tho' their real characters were known only to themselves. I now further infer (which I think I may do with at least equal justice) that the church has fufficient authority to refufe admittance to fuch, when they have plain evidence of their characters, though they fhould defire it: for it would be most

3

unrea

unreasonable to think, that they ought to admit fuch perfons as members, whom they would be obliged to excommunicate as foon as admitted.

But my chief argument I referve as my last, which is drawn from the example of the primitive churches. You have been pleafed to affert, that they refused none but fuch as had been formally excommunicated. I have already obferved to you, that they admitted neither infidels, nor fcandalous finners. I fhall now attempt to prove, that they received none but fuch as gave credible evidence of their being "Chriftians, in the moral fenfe of the "word." It is, at leaft, a ftrong prefumptive argument, in favour of this fuppofition, that the members of those churches (as I have before fhewn) are addreffed as faints, as fanctified, as juftified, &c. and that thofe who afterwards were found to be wicked, are called falfe brethren, crept in unawares. But not to infift upon this, it is too well known to need proof, that the firft Chriftians admitted none into the church, that had not been baptized; and it is as well known, that the first preachers of the gofpel would baptize none but thofe that profeffed to believe and repent. Even in the earliest dawn of gofpel-light, John the baptift, our Lord's forerunner, exprefly forbade the Pharifees coming to his baptifm, for want of the fruits of repentance correfpondent to their profeffion. See Matt. iii. 7. 8. His baptifm is called the baptifm of repentance for the remiffion of fins;' and those that were baptized by him, are faid to have come confeffing their fins." Nor was the baptism of Chrift adminiftered to any (that were adult) but to fuch as profeffed faith and repentance; by which are meant, not fuch an external regard to the gospel as mere nominal Chriftians might difcover, but fuch graces as conftitute a real Chriftian, and are connected with falvation, as is plain from

4