Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

fome talk of, yet we dare not refufe to admit to partial communion orderly and rightful members, though by reafon of their doubts or mistakes they fhould not appear actually fit to come to the Lord's fupper to their comfort and edification.

But without difcuffing this point, it is fuppofed that fome who have not a right of actual fitnefs for full communion may, as rightful members, he proper fubjects of fome fpecial church privileges. But there are fome further special external privileges which belong to members in full communion: Some ordinances, to which fuch only may come and be admitted; particularly the Lord's fupper, and giving their fuffrage with the church in acts of government and difcipline, (not to mention the peculiar privileges of public officers.) Members of this clafs are not only to be refpected, loved and treated as difcipies of Chrift in charitable account, but also as more confirmed and perfect members in fpirit

ual attainments.

These observations fhew that the fubject proposed to examination involves feveral diftinct cafes which will require to be difcuffed feparately.

First, Who are qualified according to the rule of the gofpel to be members of an instituted church?

Secondly, Who are qualified for, and have a right to the privileges of full external communion?

Thirdly, Who have a covenant right to the inward fpecial bleffing of Chrift, and the fanctifying virtue and efficacy of the ordinances, in and with the outward adminiftration and use of them?

It is further to be obferved, that the external communion, which church members have with each other in gospel ordinances, is either active or paffive. When we voluntarily come and join with the church in ufing special ordinances, we have active communion with them. But they who are only paffive subjects to whom fpecial ordinances or privileges are applied, as in the administration of baptifm to infants, thefe have paffive communion. And this is alfo the cafe when any one is admitted into the church, or to any special privilege; for admiffion is not the act of the perfon admitted, but of those who admit him.

Hence the right of external communion with an instituted church confifts of two parts or branches. First, the right of paffive communion, or of being admitted as fit fubjects to whom fpecial ordinances are to be adminiftered, or on whom ípecial external privileges are to be conferred. This we fhall for diftinction call a right of admiffion; or a title to the privilege of being admitted, regarded, and treated by the church as a proper fubject of external

external communion. The other branch is a right of active communion; of coming voluntarily into the church, of using the fpecial ordinances and privileges which belong only to its members. And this we may call a right of access, or a warrant to come, to afk for, actively receive, and use these privileges.

A title to admiffion, and a warrant for coming are very different: They are annexed to different qualifications, and stand on different grounds. A perfon whofe right of admiffion is clear and unexceptionable may have no right or warrant at all to come, for, or use the privileges of a rightful member. Though a right of admiffion and of accefs are both required to give one a full and, regular right to the privilege of external communion, yet they muft by no means be confounded together: but confidered and determined feparately by their proper rules and measures. I fhall therefore in difcuffing the right of external communion, enquire firft who have a right to be admitted, and then who have a right to

come.

SECTION XI.

Other Diftinctions confidered.

BESIDES thefe diftinctions, which we have proposed for the purpose of reducing the feveral branches of this complicated subject to a proper train and method, that fo each part may be examined without confufion; there are feveral others to be met with in the difcourses of those who have treated on this argument: Such as a vifible right, a right in the fight or account of men, contradiftinguished from a right in fight of God.

On this I would obferve. That the gospel is the rule by which all rights to, or claims of spiritual privileges are to be tried. If we judge according to this rule, as we ought to do, no rights can be visible to us but fuch as are real. Nonentities are not vifible objects. Whatever is visible either to the bodily or mental eye is certainly real, unless our eyes are in fault, and create their own objects.

A vifible right then is not to be oppofed to a real one, or confidered as of doubtful validity. It is founded in reality. It is by the rule of the gofpel annexed to certain qualifications which may be seen by men. As far as it goes, it is as firm as the covenant of grace, on which it is founded. It properly stands opposed only to those rights which are invisible to men, and are not within their view and cognizance.

It

It is only the right of admiffion which is visible to the church, or of which they have a warrant to judge. And this belongs really to all whom the church ought to receive, be their inward character and qualifications what they may. Whether fuch have a right to come, and actively take and use the privilege of members, the church knows not. They cannot difcern those inward qualifications to which the right of access is annexed. The door keepers of the church are bound not to debar any from external communion who have this vifible right, this right of admiffion; but receive them as christian brethren in charitable account. And though the rule of the gofpel fhould be plainly laid before thofe who offer themselves for admiffion to fpecial privileges, and it is the duty of spiritual guides to affift them in examining themselves, yet it must be left to every man's confcience to determine, whether he has a good warrant to take and use those privileges to which he may be admitted.

[ocr errors]

A visible right to church privileges in the fight of men, judging according to the rule of the gofpel, is therefore not a mere feeming right, or an appearance of doubtful reality. It is valid in the fight of God. The act of a church regularly receiving to communion those who have a visible right, is ratified by Christ himfelf, who fays, Suffer fuch to come, and forbid them not. Whofoever receiveth fuch in my name receiveth me.

But it is to be remembered that a vifible right, though real and valid in the fight of God and man, yet is no warrant for any one actively to take and ufe any of the special ordinances or privileges of the church. It is not a full and abfolute right to them. It is only one branch. The other lies out of the fight of the church, and is to be examined and approved in the court of confcience. He who has a visibleright, may indeed claim the privilege of having the doors of the church open to receive him, and upon his coming in, he is a proper fubject of paffive communion, that is, to be received and regarded as a faithful brother. But if he has not also a right arifing from inward qualifications, which no man can difcern in another, he can have no lawful accefs actively to take and use the privileges of a member.

Upon the whole; if any by a vifible right to privileges mean no more than a feeming one, this ought to be of no more account with men, than it is in the fight of God. A nullity will be regarded as fuch, if it be judged of according to the rule. If by a vifible right be meant a right connected with qualifications difcernable by men, which feems to be the most proper acceptation; this, as far as it goes, is as real and valid in the fight of God, as it ought to be in the account of men. The fubject is, in the juft

account

1

account of the church, and by the fentence of God himself, entitled to admiffion to external communion. Finally, if, by a right in the fight of God, be meant a full and abfolute right to privileges to use as well as be admitted to them, this none have in the fight of the church, which pretends not to discern those inward qualifications which are neceffary to give one this right. In a word, though christians may, in the fight of God, have a covenant right to important privileges, which the church cannot difcern, yet I conceive that there is no vifible right which any one has in the juft account of men, which is not as good and valid in the fight of God. Perhaps the loose way in which fome use this distinction, of a visible right in the fight of men, and real right in the fight of God, may have led fome unwarily to imagine, that the church can act only in an uncertain, conjectural manner, in judging who are entitled to external privileges, which is, I think, a mistake, tending to fill the minds of chriftians with fcruples, and entangle them in inextricable perplexities. But if they attend to the rule of the gofpel, and regulate their judgment concerning the vifible rights of proponants by it, they need not doubt but that whatsoever they bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loofe on earth is loofed in heaven.

Having endeavoured, in the preceding remarks, to give fome general opening to the subject, Ishall next proceed to confider the feveral cafes mentioned in their order.

CHA P. IV.

Of the RIGHT of ADMISSION into the CHURCH.

SECTION I.

The Right of Admiffion distinct from the Right of Accefs.-Vifible
Saints the Subjects of it.—External Holiness only properly Visible.-
In what Senfe inward Holiness may be faid to be Vifible.

THE enquiry now to be especially attended to is, who have a right of admiffion into the church; who are qualified to have fome at least of the special outward privileges of church members conferred upon them?

The

The right of admiffion now enquired for, evidently means not the right of admitting into the church. It belongs to the church in fubordination to Chrift, minifterally and declaratorily in his name, to admit or reject those who offer themfelves. But it is the right of being admitted to external communion, or of having special privileges conferred upon one, of which we are confidering who are rightful fubjects.

Since admiffion in this fenfe is not the act of the perfon admitted, but a paffive reception of a privilege; the right in queftion is not a right to act, or do any thing, but to have a benefit conferred. Indeed, no adult perfon can ordinarily become a member of a church without his own concurring act. And his being admitted is not sufficient to constitute him a rightful member, unless he has a right to do his part in concurrence with the church. But this will be confidered in its proper place.

Now there is an important difference between a right to act, and a right paffively to receive or be admitted to a privilege. A right to receive, or poffefs a privilege, is the fame with a title to it. But a right to act is a warrant for doing it. A man may have a good title to privileges, though he neither knows nor believes any thing of it. But no one can have a warrant to act which will justify him without being conscious of it? All true faints have a covenant title to the privileges of the children of God, though fome doubt of it, and believe it not. But no one can have a fufficient warrant for doing any thing while he thinks he has not. Our title to any benefit is not at all invalidated, if we are ever fo fully perfuaded that it belongs not to us. But a warrant or right to act must be approved in the court of confcience.

Our title to gofpel privileges is founded in the grant or promise of the new covenant to perfons qualified, whether we are confcious of having these qualifications or not. But a warrant or right to act arifes from, and is always annexed to a fufficient reafon for acting in the judgment of our own confcience, when rightly informed. If then it be afked, who have a right to be admitted to external communion with an inftituted church, the answer must be, they who have the qualifications to which, according to the gospel, a title to the privilege of admiffion is annexed. But if it be afked, who have a right or warrant to come into the church, and take and use the privileges of external communion, the answer will be, they who have fufficient reafons fo to do, in the judgment of their own confcience when rightly informed.

It is the first of these enquiries which is now to be attended to. In answer to which, I would fay in general: All and only they whom the church, by the rule of the gofpel, may and ought to receive, have a right of admiffion. And all ought to be received

who

« PreviousContinue »