Page images
PDF
EPUB

church on principles of patience and forbearance, condescension and long suffering, it should seem, this argument also ought to have some authority

over us.

From arguments of this sort, and we omnit many, which might be adduced, there arises a high probability, that it is just and right for christian churches to admit of free communion.

Were these reasonings on the nature of things alone, and were they unconnected with revelation, and unsupported by it, they would come under the description of general dispositions not regulated by particular directions, and consequently they ought not to be urged in this controversy as decisive in point of right or law; but when we examine the scriptures, and find, that christianity is actually constituted on these principles, that these are adopted as grounds of the divine conduct to us and rules of our actions to one another, we have a right to conclude, that these arguments are fair, valid and conclusive.

We have not hesitated to affirm, that God was the original projector of those associated bodies of men for divine worship, which we call christian churches. We have made no scruple of affirming that the original projector formed these churches on principles of wisdom, equity, compassion, love of holiness, and so on. We have not quoted passages of scripture to prove this, for the point is beyond contradiction, and the quotations would be endless. If these should be accounted only pro

L

bable arguments, we trust the next will produce de monstration.

Our second class of arguments we take from EXPRESS LAWS OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP contained in the written revealed will of our excellent legislator.

First. We argue from his law of exclusion. There are in the new testament many lists of persons, who may not be admitted into the christian church in this world, and who will be denied an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. Some of these lists are general, others descend to particulars; but there is no mention of the persons now before us in any of them. Had the law of exclusion been made by a legislator, who could not pry into futurity, it might be imagined he did not foresee the case, he did not know that such persons would ever appear; but there is no room to urge this, for our lawgiver was a prophet, and a tender prophet, who foresaw all future periods and persons, and forewarned his church of every thing that would endanger the constitution of it.

The natural tendency of every good man is to associate with other good men, and to go with them into the enjoyment of every immunity, that belongs to their society, and his apparent right to enjoy all the comforts as well as to suffer all the crosses of his condition is so highly probable, that nothing less than a clear, positive, express law of exclusion seems necessary to empower any church to refuse his claim. If there be no such law, and none such there is, we cannot help saying to the

candidate before us,-Come in thou blessed of the Lord, wherefore standest thou without?

Secondly. We argue from his law of toleration. The particular case of the persons in question, we allow, is not mentioned in the new testament; hut a general law including this, and many more such cases, is published, and answers the end better than the insertion of any particular case could have done. This law is, that all christians should enjoy unmolested IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH the right of private judgment. In a multitude of passages in the new testament, the disciples of Christ are exhorted to judge for themselves in all matters of religion and conscience, and this right of selfdetermination is vindicated not only against magistrates, philosophers and Rabbies, but against fellow-members, as in the xivth of Romans; and even against inspired apostles, as in the 8th and 10th verses of the xxiiid of Matthew. By this law we are bound to allow an universal toleration in all matters, that do not destroy the essence of gospel worship.

Before we proceed, it will be necessary to explain our meaning, and an answer to three plain questions will sufficiently do so. First: What do we plead for? We answer, A free toleration of the right of private judgment. There is in our churches, strictly speaking, no such thing as publick faith; our standard of faith is the holy scripture, and whatever we publish beside are the private sentiments of different men, and different commu

nities; and it is questionable whether any two churches so exactly agree as bona fide to constitute an uniformity. Now we plead for the allowance of this right to unbaptized believers. What one of our churches allows to another of our churches, that, we suppose, each church ought to allow to all its own members, and to all good men. Secondly: Where do we plead for the free exercise of this right to be tolerated? We answer, not in the state, that our civil governors allow, but in the church. We do not only affirm, that unbaptized believers have a natural right to freedom in Britain, so that they may congregate, and form churches of their own faith and order; but we affirm, that they have a scriptural right to their own faith and order in our churches. It will be objected, this would destroy our own faith and order. In answer to this, we propose a third question,How far is this toleration to extend, and where shall we draw the line? We answer, We answer, in general, Toleration ought to extend as far as is consistent with purity of faith and order, and of this each church ought to judge for itself.

If we descend to particulars, we must observe, that the objects of toleration are two, errors of faith, and irregularities of practice. In regard to faith we must distinguish between the facts recorded in scripture, such as the birth, life, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, second coming, judgment, and universal dominion of Christ, from reasonings upon these facts; they are the latter that are the proper objects of toleration. He who

denies the facts is an infidel, he does not believe the record God has given of his son, and consequently he is not a disciple of Christ, and so can have no claim to sit at his table. A man, who does believe the facts, but who reasons obliquely upon them, is a believer, and he ought to be tolerated though he is an inconclusive reasoner. The other object of toleration is irregularity of practice. Christian obedience is submission to two sorts of precepts, the one moral, the other positive. The object of toleration in moral obedience is that sort of improper action, which proceeds not from malice, but from infirmity. The object of toleration in positive obedience is that sort of irregularity, which proceeds from innocent mental error. Now this kind of toleration, while it provides for the peace and prosperity of the church, and for the ease of tender consciences, neither destroys the essence of christianity nor the purity of gospel worship.

In effect, we do tolerate in all our churches each of these imperfections. 1. In regard to faith. A church believing the mediation of Jesus Christ, which is a fact, admits a believer of this fact to fellowship, although he thinks it was necessary in order to this mediation that the human soul of Christ should pre-exist his incarnation. In such a case the church distinguishes between the fact, that Christ is a mediator, which the member believes, and his false reasoning upon the fact, that it was necessary the human soul of Christ should be first created, and that it should exist in heaven before his incarnation, in order to mediate between

« EelmineJätka »