Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

the following paffages: He that believeth and is baptized shall be faved. Except a man be born of water and the fpirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the remiffion of fins. Then they that gladly • received his word were baptized. If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou mayeft. Arife and be baptized, and wash away thy fins, calling on the name of the Lord. The washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.'

[ocr errors]

Should it be objected here," that these texts do ་ not relate to the Lord's Supper," the anfwer is obvious they conclude as ftrongly in favour of the point we are defending as if they did. If the primitive churches admitted none to baptifm, but fuch as appeared to be real Chriftians, they certainly would admit none but fuch to the Lord's Supper; fince none were fuffered to communicate with them in this ordinance who had not been received as members of the church by the other. For baptifm was appointed as the rite of initiation into the church; whereas the Lord's Supper is a means of communion with it. And it

is moft eafy and natural to infer, that thofe who ought not to be admitted members of a fociety, ought not to have communion with it. This might ferve to account for it, if it fhould be found, that there are no inftances in the New Teftament, of a church's refufing any perfons communion with them in the Lord's Supper, for want of evidence, with respect to their piety; or if it fhould not be expreЛly faid, that none but fuch as give this evidence ought to be admitted to it. However, it is plain, that the primitive Chriftians were very cautious in admitting to intimate fellowship with them (and much more, furely, at the Lord's Table) even those that profeffed to be real converts, and to have been baptized; as appears from the conduct of thofe at Jerufalem, towards the apoftle Paul, when he offered

to

to affociate with them; though he could affure them (as no doubt he did) that he had not only been baptized, but even preached Chrift. We are told, Alts ix. 26. When Saul was come to Jerufalem, he effayed to join himself to the difciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a difciple.'-From these circumstances, let any unprejudiced perfon judge, whether "the primitive "church admitted all to communion, except those "that had been formally excommunicated;" and from the several arguments I have produced, whether every Chriftian fociety is not warranted to exclude all that do not give credible evidence of their being real Chriftians.

[ocr errors]

But it may not be amifs just to take notice here, of what you have alledged against this doctrine, in your Letter to Mr. Venn, p. 42. In this imperfect ftate (fay you) it is évidently our wisdom to fuffer many tares to grow up with the wheat. The proper time for feparation is the day of judgment, when it will be done effectually and finally. To this I anfwer, Our Lord in the parable to which you refer (Matt. xiii. 39. 40.) concerning the wheat and the tares, is not neceffarily to be understood, as forbidding his church to reject fuch mere nominal Christians as may have crept into it, when they have plain evidence of their being fuch; for this interpretation would make the excommunication of any members of the church unlawful; but only as dif couraging an attempt to discover and extirpate all hypocrites that may have gained admittance; as condemning a too officious zeal in the members of the church, in finding flaws in the characters of profeffors, and dealing with the utmost severity to wards them a conduct moft certainly very unbecoming fallible, finful men, from whom the utmost candour and tenderness are due to each other; and might be attended with very unhappy confequences, G 2

in

in often excluding fincere, tho' imperfect Chriftians. It is, doubtless, much better to fuffer many hypocrites to remain in a church, than to caft out one truly pious member. And, therefore, none ought to be excluded on account of the uncharitable fufpicions of particular perfons, or, on account of any thing not plainly made, in fcripture, effential to the Christian character; or without the clearest evidence of guilt, after an impartial examination, friendly reproofs, fuitable warnings, and a fufficient time of trial for amendment. But if, notwithstanding this charitable procedure, any members of the church are found to be deftitute of a truly Christian temper or conduct, and the excluding them could not be fuppofed to affect any real Christian, this parable of our Lord, I apprehend, does not difcourage excommunication; and we have feen, there are other fcriptures which warrant it. But, let it be carefully obferved, that whatever be the meaning of this parable, it is quite foreign to the purpose to apply it here, fince it relates entirely to the purging. the field, or cafting out what had proved a nuifance; whereas, the matter of our enquiry is, not whether mere nominal Chriftians are to be rejected from church-communion, but whether, when they are previously known to be fuch, they ought to be admitted. Between these two cafes there is a manifest and confiderable difference: though (as I have before argued) none ought to be received as members who would immediately deferve to be caft out, it does not follow, that all ought to be received, who, if they were already members, ought not to be ejected. There fhould be ftrong pofitive evidence of guilt, to eje a member; whereas the want of pofitive proof of piety, might be an objection to the admitting of one: fo that, fuppofing it were true, that all mere nominal Chriftians, who have got admittance into the church, were to be fuffered

to

to remain in it; you cannot juftly infer, that therefore all fuch ought to be received. Though it might be hazardous to pluck up tares, because the wheat would be in danger of being pluckt up with them, that is no reason why tares fhould be fown. In many cafes it would be fafe and eafy to prevent an evil, though it might be difficult to remedy it, and hazardous to make the attempt. But I am perfuaded, the paffage in queftion is fo far from favouring your cause, that it makes strongly against it. The tares are faid to be fown by an enemy, who, in the explanation of the parable, we are told is the devil: from which circumftance, as, alfo, from the hufbandman's difpleafure, it is manifeft, they ought not to have been fown among the wheat. Another remarkable circumftance is, that the tares are faid to have been fown while men flept fo that this evil is afcribed to the culpable remiffness of the fervants, who, if they had done their duty, might have prevented it: whence it is natural to gather this inftruction, that mere nominal Chriftians have no right to a place in the church; that if those that bear the keys of the church, are watchful and diligent in their office, they might, in a great mea fure, prevent their admiffion; and that fuch drowfinefs and neglect, as give fuch perfons an opportunity to enter, are highly culpable and difpleafing to

their master.

Having thus fhown what qualifications a Christian church may demand in those whom they admit to communion, we proceed to confider the other queftion which arifes upon this, viz. By what means they may feek fatisfaction, whether thofe that defire communion are thus qualified? Are we to take it for granted, that all those who offer to celebrate the Lord's Supper with us, are qualified according to the laws of Chrift, whether we are acquainted with their characters or not? Or (to ufe the words

[blocks in formation]

which you have, very naturally, put into the mouths of your readers p. 33.) "Muft not the minifter, "or the congregation, enquire into the life and con"duct of a perfon, before he be admitted to com"munion with them ?" The anfwer which you yourfelf have given to this question, is as follows. • I "anfwer frankly, that I find no fuch authority com*mitted to any minifter or congregation: men are "directed to examine themfelves-but the minifter

is not directed to examine them; and we must not go beyond our commiffion." An anfwer which has fo little foundation in reafon, that you yourself feem fcarcely fatisfied with it, as you have thought proper to foften the matter, and in a manner to unfay what you had faid, in the next fentence, of which I had occafion to take fome notice before. "I do

not (fay you) here speak of those vices which are a "fcandal to human fociety." In thefe words you have allowed (as I have already remarked) that a minifter or congregation may enquire, Whether thofe that defire communion with them, be free from fcandalous vices; fo that you have in fact granted that general right which you feemed to deny, of enquiring into the lives of perfons before they be admitted to the Lord's Supper. We only differ, then, in our opinion with refpect to the extent of fuch an enquiry. You allow, a minifter or congregation may enquire into the lives of candidates for the Lord's Supper, fo far, as to gain fatisfaction, that they are free from fcandalous vices (though you do not fay whether they are to examine the perfons themselves, or enquire their characters of others): Whereas, I affert, that a church may enquire, Whether they are free from every vice that is inconfiftent with a Chriftian profeffion? Whether they lead holy, exemplary lives? And whether they understand and believe the leading fundamental articles of the Chriftian doctrine. I alfo affert, that

[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »