without this dispensation, they tell us, they will not communicate with In this case, we are persuaded, that God is saying to us from heaven, Let them return unto you; but return not ye unto them.

us.

What is now said of the comprehension of this communion, is agreeable to the scriptures quoted by the Assembly, Heb. x. 24, 25: "And "let us consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works: "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of "some is." Here the apostle is speaking of the communion of the members of the same church making the same public profession. The connection of this exhortation with that in the 23d verse leads us to conclude, that those, with whom the apostle would have the Hebrews to associate, were not persons who denied any article of their christian profession; because communion with such was likely to be an occasion of that wavering, which the apostle here prohibits, with regard to every article of their profession, however non-essential it might be reckoned. He certainly considered professors as in danger from the communications of such persons, 1 Corinth. xv. 33. Another of these texts gives us an account of the practice of the primitive christians, Acts ii, 42: "They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship; and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer." According to these words, they with whom the first christians had sacramental fellowship, were such as continued in the apostle's doctrine, not only in some essential parts of it, but in the whole of it. The other texts refer to that sort of fellowship, which lies in relieving the necessities of the poor; about which there is no controversy.

66

The advocates for what is called catholic communion often speak as if these words of the Confession, “ Which communion is to be extended "to all those, who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus," were to be understood without any limitation, of all who profess to call on the name of the Lord Jesus. Thus, they represent the Westminster Assembly as teaching us, that we are bound to have sacramental communion with Arians, Socinians, and other gross heretics; because they all, in their several ways, call on the name of the Lord Jesus. This is a gross abuse of the character and meaning of that assembly. We cannot do justice to this passage of the Confession, unless we understand the phrase," Calling on the name of the Lord "Jesus" in the scripture sense. It is often used to denote invocation and prayer. But 1 Corinth. i. 2, and in some other places, it is descriptive of the character of persons, who profess a cordial and firm adherence to the name of Jesus Christ; that is, to the whole display that he has made of himself in his truths and institutions. Hence, a particular church may justly decline sacramental communion with such as openly and obstinately deny any of the truths or institutions of Jesus Christ; as, in respect of that denial, they are deviating from the character of those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus.

§ 57. Alex. The opposers of catholic communion distinguish between church communion and the communion of saints; or as they sometimes express it, christian communion. By the first, they understand communion with a church in her social character; as organized under a particular form of doctrine, worship and government. By the second, they understand that communion, which subsists between christians as individuals simply, without reference to their church com

munion at all. This distinction seems to be erroneous and hurtful. It is indeed somewhat extraordinary, that the communion of a church made up of visible saints, of christians, should not be the communion of saints; and that the confession of faith, which treats professedly of the church of God, should not contain one syllable on that momentous topic, her communion. The little compend, commonly called the Creed of the Apostles, was current in the christian world without the clause, communion of saints, until the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century. It was then inserted, in order to maintain the principle of the union and communion of the Catholic church, against the schismatical doctrine and conduct of the Donatists. Thus it is clear, that the phrase, communion of saints, was originally so far from signifying what is now called christian communion in opposition to church communion, that it signified exactly or nearly the reverse : that is, it not only comprehended, but strictly and properly expressed, and was put into the creed for the purpose of expressing, church com

munion.

In this sense, it was handed down to posterity, and understood at the Reformation; as might be shewn, by adducing passages from the Helvetian Confession, the Confession of Basil, the Strasburgh Confession, the Bohemian Confession; and from the writings of celebrated divines, such as Calvin, Davenant, Usher, Baxter. Even the excellent John Brown of Haddington, speaking of the Seceders, who left their parishes in the established church of Scotland, says, "In vain you told them, that their withdrawment was a breaking up of the "communion of saints. They challenged you to prove, that the obe"dience of Luther and Calvin to the call of God, to leave the church "of Rome, amounted to a breaking up of the communion of saints." But the communion, from which Luther and Calvin withdrew, was certainly church communion: therefore, Mr. Brown himself being judge, church communion is the communion of saints.*

66

Ruf. The proposition, that church communion or sacramental communion may be called eminently the communion of saints, was never denied, I suppose, by any who regard the Lord's supper as his ordinance, excepting by some very extravagant writers in defence of the Romish church, who have represented the church as a society, which is constituted and supported on principles of carnal policy; and which, according to these principles, might subsist without any real saints at all. But though all church or sacramental communion, which is according to the word of God, belongs to the communion of saints; it does not follow, that there is no communion of saints or of christians, but what is properly termed church communion. It seems neither agreeable to scripture nor reason, to assert, that there is no communion of saints in that prayer and that spiritual conference, which are often necessary, in order to our attaining a judgement of charity, concerning persons, that they are saints; and therefore necessary, in order to our church or sacramental communion with them. Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch had christian communion, before Philip proposed the terms, upon which the Eunuch was to be admitted to baptism. But, before those terms were proposed and agreed to, it could not be said with propriety, that there was church communion between them.

It is evident, that the Westminster Assembly, in the chapter of which we have been speaking, do not limit the communion of saints to church or sacramental communion. They speak in general terms, of the duties both public and private, belonging to this communion; and of the obligation that saints are under to these duties; first, from their union to Christ; and secondly, from their profession. It will not be asserted, by any considerate person, that the saints have no communion with one another, in the worship of God, and in other spiritual services; no communion in relieving each other in their straits and afflictions; while they are not admitted to sacramental communion; or while they are justly under church censure. It is not denied, that according to our Confession, church or sacramental communion, is to be extended to all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus; that is, who are willing to make that profession of his name, of his truths and ordinances, which the church warrantably requires according to his word. This is taught here by the assembly, in opposition to the Novatians, Donatists and Brownists, who excluded all from their fellowship, that had not given positive proofs of their regeneration. They also teach, that church members in different and distant parts of the world, have communion with one another in maintaining the same profession of the faith, the same worship and order, according to the word of God. We have no local peculiarities in our religion. But with respect to the particular order, according to which the Westminster Assembly judged that church communion ought to be regulated, it is to be learned from their chapter on church censures, from their form of Presbyterial church government, and from their Directory for public worship; an order which can never be reconciled to that latitudinarian communion, which is the great idol of the present generation.

With regard to the passages of the public confessions, and of the writings of the divines to which you refer, it is unnecessary to enter into a particular consideration of them. It is sufficient to observe, that the design of these passages, is to assert the communion of all saints, as members of the catholic church; and that that communion is eminently declared and enjoyed in their participation of the Lord's supper; positions, which those, who oppose this scheme of catholic communion, are very far from calling in question. It is obvious, that these passages cannot have any bearing upon the point in question, but, on the supposition, that the act of declining the sacramental communion of any particular church, is in itself, or without any consideration of the grounds of it, a declining of the communion of the catholic church; an absurd supposition, of which enough has been said already.

§ 58. Alex. There had been published, by the joint authority of the French and Dutch churches, a Harmony of the reformed confessions, digested under distinct heads: so that whatever is contained in the several confessions, on any one subject, was gathered into one chapter of the Harmony. And it was compiled for the very end of shewing to the world the concord of Protestants, not excepting the Lutherans, in all matters which ought to form the bond of union and communion; and thus to repel the reproach of the Papists, that they were separated from each other as much as from Rome. This book was translated into

English and published in London, 1643, during the sitting of the Westminster Assembly; and not only so, but allowed by public authority. This public authority, was lodged by parliament in June 1643, for the department of Theology, in the hands of twelve divines, seven of whom were members of the assembly: who would not have licenced a book containing any thing materially at variance with an important doctrine as received by themselves. The assembly itself, in an official letter of Nov. 30th, 1643, to the Belgick, French, Helvetian and other reformed churches; styling them, right reverend and dearly beloved in our Lord Jesus Christ, our much honoured brethren ; subscribed by the commissioners of the church of Scotland, among whom were the ever famous and venerable Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie; stating, that the object of the assembly was to commend to our Zerubbabels, the political rulers, such a platform, as may be most agreeable to God's sacred word, nearest in conformity to the best reformed churches, and to establish unity among ourselves. That the Westminster Assembly and the evangelic interest generally were desirous of bottoming the communion of the church upon the broad foundation of the common faith, without regard to minor differences, is one of the most incontrovertible facts in ecclesiastical history. To the proofs already produced I shall add some more out of a multitude. The first, I produce, is, that Mr. Neal, in his history of the Puritans, tells us, that the English Anabaptists in 1644, were more exposed to the public resentment, because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped. This shews, that, in the judgement of the Calvinistic churches at that time, neither difference in the government of the church, nor as to the subjects and mode of baptism, were valid reasons for breaking up communion: and therefore error either in respect of church government, or in respect of the subjects and mode of baptism was then reckoned less blameable in itself, than the refusing of sacramental communion on account of it.*

Ruf. Permit me, Alexander, to offer some remarks upon your quotations as you go along. It has been already shewn, that the ground, which the Confessions of the Reformed churches afforded them for sacramental communion with one another, was not such a harmony, as latitudinarians suppose to have been the ground of their communion, that is, a harmony in some parts only of christianity, which are reckoned essential; but a harmony as to the subjects and mode of baptism, and in a great measure as to church government, and other points, not reckoned essential; a harmony according to all that they had attained. There was no opposition stated in the Confession of any one of these churches, even as to minor truths or duties really contained in the holy scriptures, and exhibited in the public profession of any other of thein. The foundation of their sacramental communion with one another was far broader than that of latitudinarian communion. The. truth of this observation is much confirmed by the assembly's letter to the Reformed churches on the continent; since the platform recommended in that letter is no other than the whole confession, the whole form of church government, and the whole directory for public worship, which the assembly afterwards exhibited. As to the passage of Neal about the Anabaptists, it seems to be of little consequence. What are

*Plea, &c. pages 251-256,

we to understand by the public resentment? It might be the resentment of some other erroneous sects, such as the Antinomians and Libertines. It does not appear, that they who considered exclusion from the communion of the Anabaptists as worse than their errors about the subjects and mode of baptism, were members of the Westminster Assembly or Presbyterians. Mr. Bailie in his letters, speaking of the Independents, says, " The most of their party are fallen off "to Anabaptism, Antinomianism, and Socinianism."* In another letter, "We hope shortly to get the Independents to declare them"selves either to be for the rest of the sectaries, or against them. If "they declare against them, they will be but a small inconsiderable 66 company; if for them, all honest men will cry out upon them for "separating from all the Reformed churches to join with Anabaptists "and Libertines." In another he says, " Sundry officers and elders 66 are fallen from the Independent way to Antinomianism and Ana"baptism." It is, indeed, well known, that the Anabaptists at that time were far more remarkable for their gross errors, than they are at present. These errors, and not their excluding others from their sacramental communion, excited the resentment of Presbyterians against them. Hence Mr. Bailie ranks them with the Antinomians and Socinians. Hence he represents the Independents as in danger of bringing an odium upon themselves by taking such steps as would lead them rather to join with the Anabaptists than with the Reformed churches. Mr. Bailie, as I formerly observed, writes, that Dr. Goodwin exposed himself to the public resentment by the laxness of an opinion he expressed concerning church communion. On the contrary, Mr. Neal relates, that the Anabaptists exposed themselves to the same resentment by their strictness. If the resentment meant be that of the members of the Westminster Assembly or of the Presbyterians, it is surely necessary to prefer the testimony of Mr. Bailie who was a member of the assembly, with regard to what was the prevailing sentiment on church communion at that time.

§ 59. Alex. The second proof I offer is from a book published by the provincial synod of London in 1654, five years after the termination of the assembly, entitled, Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici ; or the Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry. The ministerial portion of the committee of that synod, at its first meeting in 1647, were all members of the Westminster Assembly. One of them, Mr. Jeremiah Whitaker, had a chief hand in composing their work. It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude, that they not only knew, but expressed the sentiments of the Westminster divines. In their preface, speaking of the different sorts of men, whom they then had to deal with, they say, to use their own words: "A fifth sort are our reverend brethren of "New and Old England of the congregational way, who hold our churches to be true churches; though they differ from us in some "lesser things. But we profess, that this disagreement shall not hin"der us from any christian accord with them in affection; and that "we shall be willing to entertain any sincere motion that shall further "a happy accommodation between us. The last sort are the mode"rate, godly Episcopal men, that hold ordination by presbyters to be "lawful and valid; and that a bishop and a presbyter are one and the * Bailie's letters, vol. 2, page 24. † Ibid. 142.