STRICTURES, &c. CHAPTER I.
James Dodson
THE principles of the “Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles,” are founded on a dangerous want of precision concerning the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or the “one faith” of the church of God.
It must have occurred to every serious observer of the Christian church, that, in general, the avowed terms of Communion have always been considered as embracing, at least, those principles of truth which are regarded as essential to the right regulation of the life in this world, and attaining, at length, to eternal salvation. A society, without any terms of communion whatever, is not to be considered as deserving the name of a church; no person of reflection will for a moment pay the least attention to the claims of such. And the human mind, except when greatly shackled by ignorance, as soon as it is capable of making any reflections on the nature of a church, and the privileges and obligations of a church relation, immediately connects with such
1
2
reflections the relation which the principles maintained in that church have to a correct life and eternal happiness. If these principles are not sufficient for these ends, under the blessing of God, the great ends of a church relation are not obtained, which are, a holy life and eternal salvation. Acts, ii. 47. “And the Lord added to the church such as “should be saved.” Hence, a conscientious person is not only desirous of knowing what is necessary to be believed in order to salvation, but, having made up his mind on this subject, will further be careful in uniting himself to a Christian church, that he may advance to the end of his faith. In some churches, he will see that principles are maintained which absolutely forbid him to enter into their communion—in others, he will see things less dangerous, indeed, but still hurtful—in others, he will see nearer approaches to those views which exist in his own mind, and greater agreement with his conceptions of the word of God, in the communion of which he can be satisfied. However rare these principles may be in an exercise so distinct as is here described, (and it must be confessed that there is, in too many instances, a lamentable indifference on this subject,) yet they are deeply inwrought in the human mind, and always have some influence in determining the choice. For, to decide it by putting the question to a serious person: would you unite yourself to a church, or society bearing that name, in which you knew principles to be maintained of a pernicious nature, and certainly and eternally
3
destructive to the souls of men; would you hesitate in the choice between two, in one of which there was a dangerous looseness in principles and conduct; and in the other of which there was a serious and scriptural regard to both?—Every person knows the answer which would be made. Now, what is the fact developed by this circumstance? It is, that the doctrines professed by the church are felt to have an intimate connexion with eternal salvation; that there is a consciousness on this subject in the mind of a reflecting, intelligent, and seriously awakened person, which insensibly, but irresistibly, impels him to attach a high importance to the nature of the principles, and even to the degree of truth professed in the church of God. It shows the conviction which secretly exists in the mind, of the connexion between a well-founded hope of eternal salvation, and the degree of truth in the understanding—that there is, indeed, an intimate and essential connexion between salvation itself, and the knowledge of the truth; a principle clearly established in the holy scriptures—“God hath from the beginning chosen “you to salvation, through the sanctification of the “spirit, and belief of the truth.” 2 Thes. ii. 13. And on the other hand, it equally confirms the conviction of the connexion between error and ruin, also testified by the word of God,—“That they all might be “damned who believed not the truth.” 2 Thes. ii. 12.
These principles have never been without their influence in the Church of God, and hence have arisen those vehement contentions which have dis-
4
turbed her tranquillity. It has been felt, however lukewarm Christians may judge, whilst they are immersed in the security of this world—it has been felt, that the objects of faith, the principles to be believed, are of vital importance. It was on this very ground that the Reformers engaged with such ardour and vehemence, in the investigation and defence of the gospel. They showed their conviction that the Faith of the Church of God (that is, the doctrines to be believed) was intimately connected with God’s glory, the salvation of men, and the preservation of true peace, order and holiness, in the Church on earth. The toils and the sufferings of their lives were a continued testimony to this principle, and many sealed it with their blood.
Any want of precision, then, on such a subject as the “one faith” of the Church or the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, is and must be of a suspicious and dangerous nature. It equally strikes at the convictions of the pious, at the testimony of the Scripture, and the toils and sufferings of the witnesses for the truth. In every exhibition of doctrine held by the Church it should be most carefully weighed, what is to be parted with as unessential in admitting to her communion. From the very nature of her profession, what you exhibit and require to be believed as the terms of admission to her communion, that you tacitly acknowledge to be sufficient for the holy direction of the life and eternal salvation. It is impossible it can be otherwise.—What you have required a person to know and pro-
5
fess as the test of his admission to sealing ordinances, that he will consider as essential to salvation, and no more; nay, your administration of the ordinance to him is a seal administered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which you recognise him to have professed all that is essential to a profession of faith in the Saviour. In what other light can such an act be viewed? If then such a person should never see or hear from you again; if he should die and go down to the bottomless pit, under the influence of errors sanctioned by you, God would require his soul at your hand. It is then not a light, but very important and weighty question, what profession is to be made, or what degree of truth is to be known and professed as the terms of admission to the Church of God—for it immediately involves this other, what degree of truth is essential to salvation? And it is on such a subject as this the writer of these pages apprehends the Author of the Plea to have been dangerously negligent—deficient in precision, in stating his views of doctrine—and deficient also in the doctrine itself. It is very true, indeed, that his great object appears to be only a warrant for occasional communion between members of different churches. But whatever may be the ostensible design, its certain tendency is to produce remissness in the great doctrines of eternal life. The qualifications which will answer in occasional communion will answer in permanent communion, and any person must see that to talk of maintaining terms among your own people different from
6
those which you maintain towards others, is like erecting a bank of sand to stop a mountain torrent—your people will give themselves no more trouble than others do, who are constantly or occasionally admitted to the same ordinances. But, however this its obvious tendency may be disputed—yet the Author has himself gone the whole length of such a tendency already. In arguing for occasional communion, he has been driven to state the doctrines which he expressly declares to be sufficient and essential to salvation—and in this, without waiting for the effect of his system, has already unsettled the faith of the church—and sanctioned, by his own acknowledgment of what is necessary to his scheme, a remissness in the great doctrines of eternal life. In a word, the principles of his Plea for catholic communion are founded on a dangerous want of precision concerning the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or the “one faith” of the Church of God. This I shall now endeavour to prove, by an examination of that part of his work in which he immediately states his views of the legitimate terms of communion, and the doctrines essential to salvation.
In page 48, the author enumerates the particular circumstances by which the primitive church did not consider her unity broken. Among others, he points out the following, p. 49, “dissonant views on “subordinate points of doctrine.”—This is the only part of that enumeration with which the present work has any concern; the others shall of course be
7
passed by in silence. After the consideration of some of the preceding points, the author (p. 100) commences the examination of this with the following remark:—“By ‘subordinate doctrines’ are meant “all those which may be either believed or doubted, “without sacrificing any vital principle of the Christian religion.”* By “vital principle of Christianity” is meant of course a doctrine essential to salvation, because ‘vital,’ or essential to life. The principles of doctrine, then, which the author enumerates in a following part of this section, we are to consider as the only vital principles of Christianity in his esteem—these he holds as the only doctrines essential to salvation. Whatever else may be revealed in the word of God is of such a subordinate nature, that it may be doubted without sacrificing any vital principle of Christianity—and whatever other doctrine may be proposed than those he has guarded us against, may be believed without danger:—a most incautious acknowledgment, to say the least. It is admitted, indeed, by the author,† that “to draw the line of “distinction between the essentials and non-essentials “of our most holy faith, is at all times a delicate and “difficult task. To draw it with perfect accuracy “is what no prudent man will attempt. But that the “distinction exists—that it cannot be abolished—and “that it is attended with important consequences, no “man of sober sense will deny.” To the justice of these remarks every body must assent. Yet, however difficult and delicate this task may be, it is
_____
* For the rest see Note A. at the end of the volume.
[NOTE A, page 7. It was intended here to have inserted at length the passage on which the Strictures of the first chapter are founded. But the most important part of that passage was, necessarily, afterwards transcribed in the body of the work itself; and the quotations from the Plea became so numerous, and this work has swelled to a size so far beyond the original design, as to forbid the mere addition of ten or twelve pages, and an increased expense, to no valuable purpose. The reader is, therefore, referred to the quotations which he will find as he proceeds, or, for more satisfaction, to the Plea itself.]
† Plea, p. 100.
8
plainly undertaken by Dr. Mason in the pages immediately following, with what accuracy it remains to be shown.
Previously, however, to a minute examination of what the author represents as the “essentials of our most holy faith,” it is proper to take notice of a few things which naturally present themselves to the mind of an attentive reader. His design in this part of the plea, is to show that the primitive church did not consider her unity broken by subordinate doctrines. What was then to be expected, was a statement, with appropriate evidence, of the doctrines which in her practice were considered as such. But instead of this follows an ingenious examination and statement of what the author himself considered as subordinate. And this he concludes with “Such was the judgment and practice of the primitive church.” Now if the intervening passage from the page (100) at which this design of adducing the example of the primitive church commences, be examined, it will be seen that neither fact nor writers are cited to support this declaration. A remarkable omission truly. In a former part of the work, indeed, there are several quotations from the fathers, and a reference to the ancient creeds, p. 38, &c.; but this is nothing to the purpose. What the author had undertaken to show here was, that the primitive church did not consider her unity broken by subordinate points of doctrine: this could only be done by a reference to facts in her history disclosing her conduct, for these facts explain her own understand-
9
ing of her creed—and of such facts, an abundance was at hand for the author’s selection. When he undertakes to show that she did not consider her unity broken by a difference in rites and customs in worship, p. 49—nor by imperfections in her moral discipline, p. 63—nor by modifications of her external order, p. 76—very large evidence is given from facts in history, and from the most distinguished writers of antiquity. But when he comes to subordinate points of doctrine, p. 106—not one such reference is to be found! Why so silent, it is natural to inquire, on the most important point of all? The conviction that must rise in a reflecting mind can only be, that no such evidence was to be had, and that a correct statement of the ancient church’s application of her creed to disputes on doctrine as they arose, would have led the author into an investigation fatal to the sacramental communion for which he was pleading. And one remark, made by the author himself, occurs very naturally here, p. 42.—“As heresies, corrupting any cardinal principle of Christianity, arose in the church, her public profession met them by an open and decisive assertion of the injured truth. This necessarily enlarged by degrees the number of articles in her creed.”—But the fault of Dr. Mason’s system is, that it does not meet heresies at present corrupting cardinal principles of Christianity—and that instead of being enlarged to meet such prevailing heresies, directly the reverse, it greatly diminishes the testimony of the church, and that for the very
10
purpose of setting aside the use of one, full and distinct, already in her possession. “Such was” not “the judgment or practice of the primitive church,” himself being witness.
The author proceeds, p. 111—“The basis of her “communion was laid, as we have already seen, in the substantial doctrines of the gospel, as summed up in her creed. This she required to be adopted and professed by all who offered themselves to her fellowship. It contained then her terms of communion. Consequently, agreement in opinions, about which Christians might differ without impugning any of these doctrines, made no part of her terms. In other words, she did not consider such difference as violating her unity. And how numerous they were, no one needs be told who has looked into her history.”
From the manner in which the ancient church’s use of her creed is here spoken of, and from the conduct which it is brought to recommend, it would be imagined that nothing more was required than a superficial approbation of that creed by her members—for it is difficult to understand this paragraph in any other way than, that an intelligent discrimination of principle was out of the question. But whatever negligence and corruption may have existed in some periods and places, it is well known that her common practice was to detain ‘catechumens,’ as they were called, or such as were not yet received into communion, some months in a course of instruction in the doctrines of the creed before
11
they were admitted to the sacraments. They were required, therefore, not only to adopt and profess the creed in general terms, but to prove their acquaintance with the principles it contained. From the manner, too, in which the “differences” in the ancient church are here spoken of, it might be imagined that history has recorded multiplied differences, allowed and sanctioned. To say nothing of the obscurity in which the author has left his meaning—to say nothing of his omitting to explain what those differences in opinion were, which was nevertheless the very task he was bound to perform—yet whoever has looked into the history of the church, will be more struck with the multiplied heresies which arose—with the distractions which they produced—with the merciful providence of God in raising up vigilant guardians of the truth, and the activity with which heretics and heresies were pursued and expelled—than with that unconcern and tranquillity which are here implied. This whole paragraph, therefore, and reference to the primitive church, is nothing to the purpose;—no proof is furnished of any one assertion it contains, and the conduct of the church, when even superficially considered, discovers a watchfulness far differing from the indifference for the truth sanctioned by the plea.
But further: This charge of the very incorrect representation of the actual character of the primitive church, in regard of her jealousy with respect to doctrinal truth and error, by the author of the plea, is confirmed by another passage of his work. Page
12
116—122, he shows, that among other things by which, in the judgment of the church, her unity was liable to be broken, she considered “the renunciation of fundamental truth as inconsistent with her unity.” Whilst there are, in a passage of some length, many very excellent observations on the zeal with which the church then guarded the truth in various ways, it is all of a most general nature: nor is there an allusion to any particular heresies but to those of Cerinthus and Marcion, with which every tyro in church history is acquainted. But were these all the heresies of importance? And will Dr. Mason affirm, that his creed in the plea will guard all that the church ought to consider, after the example of primitive zeal, fundamental truth? How did he happen entirely to overlook the ARIAN and PELAGIAN heresies, both which occupy a more conspicuous place in history, had a more extensive and desolating influence on the church, and are of much greater interest in the present day?
And since it was indeed Dr. Mason’s undertaking to exhibit and vindicate the conduct of the primitive church, and to recommend her conduct as a legitimate example, why did he not, in these few pages, briefly and perspicuously state the principles of her creed—and show that it corresponded with his own representation of the essential doctrines, rescuing it from the perversions of heresies, and misconstructions of erring brethren, and supporting it from scripture. This would have been to the purpose—this would have authorized him to say,
13
“such was the practice of the primitive church,” this would have satisfied an enlightened conscience, and made it plain what foundation the Author had to sustain his system. But alas! what a failure! And in this the very citadel of his work—the very heart of the system—the very point on which, at last, this whole concern will be determined, in the mind of every man who believes he has a soul to be saved by the knowledge and belief of the truth; what unguarded conduct is disclosed.
In entering upon the consideration of the subordinate doctrines, Dr. M. adverts to the structure of the human body, with its various members, as an apt illustration of the system of divine truth, and the importance of its different branches. The analogy is striking, and instructive also, but not in the way in which the Author considers it. In a passage, p. 100, (part of which has already been quoted) he says—“To draw the line of distinction between the essentials and non-essentials of our most holy faith, is at all times a delicate and difficult task.—To draw it with perfect accuracy is what no prudent man will attempt. But that the distinction exists, that it cannot be abolished, and that it is attended with important consequences, no man of sober sense will deny. All the members of the human body belong to its perfection, and have their peculiar uses. Yet a finger or a toe does not hold the same place in the system with an arm or a leg, nor an arm or leg the same place with the head or the heart. The
14
amputation of a finger may occasion death, the amputation of a larger member, often does it.”
This is enough to show the object of the writer. The thought is ingenious and eloquently expressed. But who ever thought of cutting off his finger or his toe, or his arm or his leg, because they were not essential to his existence? And what sanction is there in the word of God to lop off here and there a member in the system of divine truth, because it is possible to “live” without them? The son of God came that his elect might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly: here a book, full of his praises, has for its object, to prove that we can spare some of the members and vessels of life, and to reproach his liberality as wasteful and extravagant, seeing we can do with less than he has given. “Is this thy kindness to thy friend?” But one concession will be considered by the sober-minded, as fatal to its argument.—The Author admits, “the amputation of a finger may occasion death”—it may; there is an issue, however small, at which the fountain of life may be exhausted. Yes, it is possible to hold the essentials of Christianity, and yet, through the pernicious influence of one error, or through one unguarded passage, life may run out, and death reign. Oh! reader, whosoever thou art, remember this caution—“Buy the truth, and sell it not.”
I am aware it may be replied, this allusion is not designed to encourage the renunciation or neglect of truth—only to show that we ought not to reject
15
or disown a brother, who is so unfortunate as to want a finger or a toe, a leg or an arm. This appears very plausible; but this is not the only design. Turn to the top of the page, from which this quotation is taken, (p. 100,) and you find, that the Author is preparing the way to draw the line of distinction between the essentials and non-essentials of our most holy faith—and whatever may be said in defence of it, or however the inference may be denied and disputed, the object of it is to show, that, as there are members in the human body which may be wanted, without the destruction of its life, so there are parts in the system of divine truth, which may be wanted, without danger to the soul—that it is possible to want some of the vessels and members of spiritual life, and yet live. Supposing this to be a possible case, let us consider whether this is the light in which the scripture ever authorizes us to hold the truth of God? The acknowledgment of the Author himself is sufficient to go to the heart’s core of such as seek the salvation of their souls—that it is possible, by wanting them, to die—which is enough—“Remember Lot’s wife!”
He proceeds, p. 101. “Thus also in the system of Revelation. All the very least of its truths belong to its perfection. Not one of them may voluntarily be renounced, nor any contrary error be knowingly embraced; because, he who does either, resists the obligation to receive and obey the truth.” The remainder of this paragraph is taken up in an illustration of this point, from the universality of
16
the obligation to obey the moral law in all its parts, from James ii. 10, in which the author asserts, that the indulgence of one known sin betrays men to be destitute of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.* The design of the whole paragraph is to show the universal obligation to receive and obey the truth. For he proceeds, p. 102, “In like manner, resistance to God’s truth, to any of his truths, when perceived to be truth, argues the predominance of the spirit of falsehood—a spirit which, as opportunity should serve, would not hesitate to relinquish every truth of his most holy word. Hence, no Christian can surrender the least tittle of that truth, which he believes to be the testimony of his God, nor do any act which implies such a surrender.” The author continues, in the following sentences, to show, in an energetic manner, the dangerous consequences of renouncing or yielding, by any means, “known truth.” But is this, it ought to be inquired, indeed, the whole of the danger in this great concern of God’s truth? Is the important and perilous effect of this rejection, dependent on its being known to be truth? He says, no truth may be voluntarily “renounced”—“nor any error knowingly embraced”—“resistance to God’s truth, when perceived to be truth, betrays the predominance of the spirit of falsehood.” And is it so, indeed, that the only sin
_____
* In the author’s zeal, on this subject, he appears to have gone too far. Certainly, David could not have been ignorant that adultery, deceit, and murder, were sins; and yet it will not be said that he was destitute of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
17
and danger of renouncing truth is, that it be done voluntarily? Is the sin and danger of embracing error to be found alone in its being done knowingly? Is resistance to the truth never a sin; does it never betray the predominance of the spirit of falsehood, unless when the truth is perceived to be truth? These, surely, are dangerous maxims in theology or morals.* If they be correct, then Saul of Tar-
_____
* There is a strong resemblance between these and the maxims of the Jesuits of the sixteenth century. “They (the Jesuits) maintain, that a man never sins, properly speaking, but when he transgresses a divine law, which is fully known to him, which is present to his mind when he acts, and of which he understands the true meaning and intent.” [See Mosheim’s Hist. Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. P. 1. Ch. i., or Vol. 4. P. 223. Charlestown Ed. 1810.] “And hence they conclude that, in strict justice, the conduct of that transgressor cannot be looked upon as criminal, who is either ignorant of the law, or is in doubt about its true signification, or loses sight of it, through forgetfulness, at the time he violated it.”—ibid. “Their adversaries,” the historian adds, “behold these pernicious tenets with the utmost abhorrence, and assert, that neither ignorance nor forgetfulness of the law, nor doubts that may be entertained with respect to its signification, will be admitted as sufficient to justify transgressors before the tribunal of God.”
It is worthy of remark, that Dr. Witherspoon, in an Inquiry into the Scripture meaning of Charity, contained in his works, (Vol. 4th, Edinburgh edition, 1804,) observes, that a similar sentiment was held by some ministers of his time. They held, that a man is not an heretic unless he “is acting contrary to his own conviction.” See the Vol. above mentioned, p. 285.—The passage is near the beginning of the “Inquiry.” And, since Dr. Witherspoon has been mentioned, it may not be irrelevant to state, that, in his time, there were certain fashionable preachers who indulged themselves in witty censures on the “old divines,” “the learned theologians of the Reformation,” such as Turretin, together with the antiquated doctrines of the Confession of Faith. Some allusions of this nature
18
sus was not resisting the obligation to receive and obey the truth, when he did many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth—because “he “thought he ought to do them.” He “embraced the error” which led him into this course, not knowingly, but ignorantly—yet he was not the less a “blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious.” He received mercy, indeed, as he says, because he did it ignorantly; but the very fact that his conduct needed mercy, and that he so highly extols the mercy which he received, shows, that embracing error, even when it is not known, and resisting truth, even when not perceived to be truth, is sin—which divine mercy alone can pardon, which the grace and blood of Jesus Christ alone can take away. Put the sentence in another form—leaving out the qualifying terms, “knowingly,” and “voluntarily”—and let any man of sense reflect whether it does not express the truth with plainness and force. “Not one of the truths of revelation may “be renounced, nor any contrary error embraced; because he who does either, resists the obligation to receive and obey the truth.” That obligation, Dr. M. appears to have forgotten, is founded in the veracity and authority of God, in his own testimony, not upon man’s perception or knowledge. “He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar,” is
_____
[continued from previous page] will be found in his “Characteristics.” In the society or character of the clergymen, whose portrait he draws with such life and precision, no serious, faithful minister of Christ can wish to be found, with whatever popularity they may now be attended.
19
the doctrine of God’s word. Does the fact of this guilt depend upon its being knowingly incurred? Will any be released from its perdition at the great day, by pleading that they did not do it knowingly or voluntarily? No! Men, we are assured, will “believe a lie,” and yet be righteously “damned.” Nay, “God will send them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thes. ii. 11, 12.—Does this look like the exceptions made by Dr. Mason? Reason teaches us that it is not knowingly embracing an error which brings guilt and ruin—it is the error and its influence. Alas! how many seducers are there, and blind teachers, who mislead souls to their eternal destruction. If the principle here plainly supposed be true, men are bound to believe and obey God’s word no further than they know it, and know it to be true: but God’s word is true, and its evidence sufficient, whatever men may think; and they who die in the belief of a lie, and the rejection of the truth, will certainly be damned, whether they know it or not. Here is certainly another instance of a dangerous want of precision in a matter of primary importance; not only of precision, but, I grieve to say, of correct principle itself—making the moral character of that act, which rejects truth and embraces error, to turn upon its being voluntary and knowingly, in direct opposition to reason and the word of God. And while the principle itself is utterly wrong, how calculated it is
20
to lull men into an awful security and profound ignorance of the truth, let those judge who are acquainted with the human mind, and the deceitfulness of sin.
Further, there is in the last sentence of this passage, a very remarkable concession, which bears hard upon the Author’s whole scheme. “No Christian,” he says, “can surrender the least tittle of that truth which he believes to be the testimony of his God, nor do any act which implies such a surrender.” Passing over the extraordinary qualifications which again meet us, as if surrendering truth were only sinful, and to be avoided when it is known and believed—passing over this, let us consider a concession made on the general subject of communion—in which he prohibits communion with men of erroneous principles, knowing them to be such. Page 105, it is said—“If a man, from whatever cause, renounce the obviously vital doctrines of the gospel, he is not, he cannot be a Christian—there is no relief for him; no help, no hope, he dies the death. Those doctrines, therefore, must be the basis of all Christian communion.” Page 109—“With such men (i.e. Socinians) there can be neither communion nor compromise.”—Now why, it is asked, must the vital doctrines of Christianity be the basis of all Christian communion, if it be not because leaving them out of the basis, is, in fact, a renunciation of them? It is impossible, on any other ground, to see why they must be the basis of all Christian communion.
21
And why with Socinians can there be no communion, but because such a communion would be an approbation of their error, and a renunciation of our truth. This would be an act which surrenders the truth, which is the testimony of God. Now Dr. Mason has said, that “no man can surrender the least “tittle of that truth which he believes to be the testi- “mony of God, nor do any act which implies such a “surrender.” What a prohibition is here! how explicit a testimony against his own scheme!—It is added, in the next sentence but one—“No motives of “conscience, peace, charity, good to be effected, or of “what kind soever, can justify, much less require, un- “der any possible circumstances, the sacrifice of a “known truth. Such a sacrifice might end in eter- “nal ruin!” I shudder at the consequences to be drawn from these premises.
Let us proceed to the consideration of the passage which contains, in reality, all that is said on this most important subject, viz.: the doctrines themselves, which form the basis of legitimate communion, the essentials of our most holy faith. This basis is adverted to elsewhere, but no where else plainly, and to the point discussed. And yet, when it is recollected that it is the most important part of the whole undertaking, I am persuaded, every serious reader will be grieved and surprised that such a subject should be handled in so superficial a manner—and that there should be a deliberate and powerful attempt to overturn all the existing order among the Churches of the Reformation, with a
22
view of reducing them to such a foundation as is here presented.
P. 105. “Should it be asked, how shall I distinguish an essential from a subordinate doctrine of the gospel? The answer has been chiefly anticipated. You are not under the necessity of nice and subtle discriminations; and can certainly distinguish with sufficient accuracy for every practical purpose. You are in no danger of mistaking a man’s arm for his finger—his head for his foot, nor of supposing that they are equally important to his life. You cannot imagine for one moment that the question ‘whether Christ, by his death, purchased temporal benefits for all mankind?’ is like the question, ‘whether or not he bought his people unto God by his blood, in making a true, proper, meritorious sacrifice for their sin, when, ‘through the Eternal Spirit,’ he offered up himself?’—Nor that the dispute ‘whether the Covenant of Redemption be different from the Covenant of Grace?’ or what are “so called, be, in reality, but one and the same covenant, viewed under different aspects?’ is to be classed with the dispute whether ‘Jesus, the Lord, our righteousness, is a mere man like ourselves, or the true God,’ and therefore ‘eternal life?’ In deciding on the relative importance of such points, there is no room for hesitation. Whatever degree of mistake may be reconciled with union to Christ, and an interest in his salvation, it is not, it cannot be a matter of doubt, among those who have tasted his grace, that blaspheming his divinity—rejecting his propi-
23
tiatory sacrifice, and the justification of a sinner by faith only, in his mediatorial merits—denying the personality, divinity, renewing and sanctifying virtue of his holy spirit, and similar heresies, invalidate every claim to the character of his disciples. They who disown or explain away such truths as these, pretend what they may, are no more servants of Christ, nor partakers of his benefits, than Jews, Mahometans or Pagans.”
This passage contains evidently the foundation on which the whole superstructure framed by Dr. Mason is to rest; it was designed certainly, if it had any design at all, to show what he deemed essential to be known and believed, or rejected, in order to salvation, and in order to safe, profitable and scriptural communion. With this, therefore, I think the whole system, of whatever parts it may be composed, however fair it may appear, however plausible the support afforded from other views—with this the whole system must stand or fall. If the ground here taken can be maintained on scriptural principles, unquestionable opposition to Dr. Mason’s system should cease—but if not, no man who is concerned “to glorify God, and enjoy him for ever,” will hesitate to acknowledge, that it must all be abandoned.
And first, let us observe the sentiment with which it is introduced. “You are not under the necessity of nice and subtle discriminations, and can certainly distinguish, with sufficient accuracy for every practical purpose. You are in no danger of mis-
24
taking a man’s arm for his finger—his head for his foot, nor of supposing that they are equally important to his life.” Will it be deemed uncandid and uncharitable here, to inquire whether this is language becoming a Watchman whom the Lord hath set on the walls of Zion, and on the event of whose fidelity the blood of souls is depending? I am sensible that Dr. Mason’s years and labours make this inquiry one of a most delicate and solemn nature, and demand reflection in proposing it—but it is absolutely impossible not to be smitten with the utter discordance between such a counsel, and the awful charge which is committed, and given to a servant of Christ—“Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; for in so doing, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” “Watch thou in all things.”—“I charge thee, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the world at his appearing and kingdom; preach the word; be instant in season, and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.”—“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing; but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”*—Is this a way to fulfil those awful and repeated charges, to lull men asleep with such a counsel as this—“you are not under the necessity of nice and subtle discriminations, and can certainly distinguish, with suffi-
_____
* 1 Tim. iv. 16. 2 Tim. iv. 5, 1—3. Matth. vii. 15.
25
cient accuracy for every practical purpose,” &c. This, indeed, is not only discordant with the plain and awful commands of the word of God, but there is satisfaction in believing that it is, also, with the great and prevailing character of Dr. M.’s ministry. In a considerable part of that ministry, he has been justly esteemed as an able advocate of the great and peculiar doctrines of Christianity. But in those labours did he himself, let it be inquired, act under the influence of this, his present counsel, “you are not under the necessity of nice and subtle discriminations?” Was it under the influence of such a principle as this, that for a series of years the most laboured, acute and successful reasoning, was displayed. I am happy to say, that the Author’s conduct is one of the severest censures of his maxims. For, is it wise, is it just, is it consistent, towards the close of a ministry, remarkable for laboured vindication of truth, and the severest condemnation of error, to inform the Church of God, “you are in no danger of mistake?”
If, indeed, the perception and preservation of the truth, which is to save our souls, were a matter of no more difficulty than the discrimination of the different members of the human frame, with the bodily eye, the illustration would be just, and the Author’s counsel perfectly safe. But so far different are the two cases, in reality, that it certainly looks more like a deliberate design (I grieve at the necessity of making the remark) to turn into ridicule every serious and earnest inquiry, after the knowledge of
26
the truth, thus to lessen its real difficulty. He who spake as never man spake, has placed this in a point of view very different indeed—“Strive to enter in at the straight gate, for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.”*
To this representation, which, it is acknowledged, represents the Author’s views and conduct as dangerously and criminally loose, especially, considering the high standing he occupies in the Church of God, it may be objected, that his sentiments here, are only designed to open the door to a more free communion, between Christians of different denominations—and, also, that he has, in other parts of this work, given earnest cautions against remissness and infidelity, on this subject, and that this is an unfair and partial view of his sentiments. To this it is replied: The first objection is utterly untenable—it has already been shown, and it ought never to be forgotten, that this is designed, not only to show what principles form the basis of scriptural and legitimate communion, but also, what are essential to salvation—to use the Author’s own words, what are, and what are not those “subordinate doctrines, which “may be believed or doubted, without sacrificing any “vital principle of the Christian religion.” p. 100. With this, the second objection comes to nothing also. It is acknowledged, that strong language is used—that we are told—“No motives of conscience, peace, charity, good to be effected, or of what kind soever, can justify, much less require, under any
_____
* Luke xiii. 24.
27
possible circumstances, the sacrifice of a known truth. Such a sacrifice might end in eternal ruin.” We are told, too, that—“to try how far we may go ‘before we discern our salvation to be in jeopardy, is the insanity of one who should have his limbs amputated higher and higher, in order to try how near the operation might approach his vitals, without destroying his life. In judging for himself, every one must make sure work by keeping on the safe side, not wilfully rejecting any truth, or adopting any error. In judging of others, he must go every length which the charity of the gospel dictates; i.e. every length consistent with his own attachment to, and support of, the truth, and which does not rank among matters of forbearance, a clearly vital doctrine of Christianity. This would be, not charity, but treason and murder.” The strength of these cautions is acknowledged; but then so far from extenuating, they go to place in a still stronger light, the guilt and danger of a counsel so loose as that already considered—which, after all these warnings, tells us, “you are not under the necessity of nice and subtle discriminations, and can certainly distinguish with sufficient accuracy for every practical purpose,” &c.—What ingenuity shall reconcile counsels so evidently contradictory?
After this general examination of this passage, in which I think it has been shown that there are great contradictions, unguarded views, and a very important false assumption in appealing to the conduct of the primitive church—all which go to place,
28
in a strong point of view, the absolutely untenable nature of the ground which Dr. Mason has taken—it still remains to show more distinctly, that want of precision in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity which is to be found in this work, and which exists particularly in the passage quoted, in which are enumerated, ostensibly at least, these doctrines, which should form the basis of the communion contended for. I say ostensibly, for I admit that such is the structure of the passage, that it may be denied that such an enumeration is here intended—and yet, if it is not here, where else throughout the work shall we look for it? Throughout the whole work besides, the author goes no where into a professed statement of what must form the basis of communion, or of what is essential to salvation. And I show, therefore, that I have correctly described its character by the following considerations.
I. Its entire silence on the subject of the sacraments and the government of the church. However small this may appear at first view, reflection will convince us that such an omission must draw after it consequences the most deplorable—that it can issue, if carried out to its full extent, in nothing short of the entire dissolution of the church as a sacred society distinct from the world. Besides, it is an article of faith, that “Jesus Christ, upon whose shoulders the government is, whose name is called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,—of the increase of whose government and peace there shall be no end,
29
who sits upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and justice, from henceforth even for ever—having all power given unto him in heaven and earth by the Father, who raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand, far above all principalities and powers, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come, and put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all—he, being ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things, received gifts for his church, and gave officers necessary for the edification of his church and perfecting of his saints.”—This is an article of faith—strike it out of the system of divine revelation, and what security have we that we shall not be carried the whole length of the corruption, disorder and tyranny of the Mother of Harlots. It is of no importance what are the real sentiments of the Author of the Plea, on the government of the church instituted by her glorious head—he has here classed the doctrine of God’s word, on this subject, among those which are to be passed over in utter silence. He has laid a foundation which not only surrenders that “true and only form of government which the Lord Jesus Christ hath prescribed in his word”* directly in the face of his own warning, that “no man can surrender the least tittle of that truth which he
_____
* Const. of Ass. Ref. Ch. Book I. Ch. I. Sect. III.
30
believes to be the testimony of his God, nor do any act which implies such a surrender”—but has left it immaterial, in his bond of communion, whether the form of government be after the fashion of apostate Rome, or “her ape Prelacy,” or the disorganizing system of independency, or any other form which human ingenuity might devise. But let those who still hold a form of church government agreeing to the word of God, and see its value in maintaining order, consider whether they are ready to leap this gulf. Let those who esteem the order of the church, attained to by the glorious reformers, for which they contended against the tyranny and impositions of Rome and England, which has been consecrated by the blood of many martyrs, especially in Scotland—Let those consider whether this order, confessedly “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,”* is thus to be laid aside with silent neglect;—the wisdom of men who are now admired by the world—the sufferings and blood of the witnesses of Jesus—the word of Christ—all to go for nothing. And let prudence speak;—who does not see that a plan for communion which makes every form of church government immaterial, and offers none to supply the place of what it surrenders, must be aimed at the prostration of all ecclesiastical government whatever, and must end, if left to its own operation in that, as its own necessary effect? Be-
_____
* Eph. ii. 20.
31
sides, there is an equally dangerous silence on what will be esteemed more interesting to the church of God—“the seals of the covenant of grace, baptism and the Lord’s supper.” These are here classed with those things which are entirely subordinate. From all that can be gathered here, it is of no moment what views are entertained on this subject. It is of no importance to “believe or to doubt” whether God has included the children of his people within the bond of his government, and granted to them the seal of his gracious acceptance:—by these terms of communion—by these essential doctrines—that great mercy of God is returned into his own hands, and he is tacitly informed it is not wanted. Dr. M. indeed, in another part of his book, in an angry fling at the contentions of Christians, charges some with contending about “the form of baptism,” (p. 376.) Here he is silent about the subjects also—nay, the ordinance itself, with that of the body and blood of Christ, are passed by in common silence. It is impossible not to be moved with concern at the view of such a system for the communion of the church of God. It tacitly abandons intelligence, faith, and submission in respect of the covenant and sacraments instituted by her head, and opens a wide door, nay, casts down the very walls themselves for the admission of every error and confusion on these subjects which wicked, ambitious, ignorant, and profane men may contrive. Besides, who that can look into eternity but must see the consequences there of such disorder as is here coun-
32
tenanced? Must not multitudes perish in ignorance and disobedience, and in an awful profanation of ordinances which they do not understand? Doubtless our Lord Jesus instituted his form of government, that under its mild, and wise, and just restraints, and his sacraments, that by their intelligent use, his people might be brought to glory. This system tacitly abandons and eventually goes to subvert them all.
II. It was incumbent on the Author of that work, to have explained with distinctness the meaning of the terms which he uses in stating the doctrines essential to salvation, and forming the basis of lawful communion. No person of reading need be informed that most, if not all controversies on Christian doctrines, grow out of different views of the meaning of terms. Socinians, Arminians and Calvinists agree in acknowledging the scriptures as a rule of faith—and the first of these three, although they find themselves under the necessity of making some bold retrenchments on the word of God, still admit enough to leave room for attacking them on scriptural ground: so that the real difficulty is not in using scripture terms, but in explaining them. In this, Dr. Mason has utterly failed. A long introduction makes way for this brief statement of “vital principles,” which are flourished over (I lament to say it) in the slightest manner—and all that follows in vindication of these peculiar, distinguishing and essential doctrines, is confined to the Socinian heresy, as if there were no other in the visible church,
33
requiring the vigilance, and deserving the detestation of the servants and people of Christ. The impression which must remain on the mind of every reader, is, that this heresy alone is the pernicious destroyer of souls, every other may be admitted without danger.* “Is not this trying how far we “may go before we discern our salvation to be in jeopardy? Is not this the insanity of one who would have his limbs amputated higher, in order to try how near the operation might approach his vitals, without destroying his life?”—Plea, p. 104.
Easy as Dr. M. may imagine it, “to distinguish with sufficient accuracy for every practical purpose,” this is the very difficulty which he has here left untouched, which has often thrown the church into convulsions—which has caused the prayers, tears, and groans of the pious—and the rage, stumbling, and destruction of the reprobate.† A few examples will explain and prove this deficiency in his system. In one part we have this assertion: “You cannot imagine, for one moment, that the question, ‘whether Christ, by his death, purchased temporal benefits for all mankind?’ is like the question, whether or not he bought his people unto God, by his blood, in making a true, proper, and meritorious sacrifice for their sin, when, through the Eternal Spirit, he offered up himself?’”—It is very true, that no per-
_____
* This impression was from the first on the mind of the writer of these pages—nor does he ever recollect, in his conversations with any of the friends of this new scheme, a hint from one of them, at any other exception to the fraternal embrace, than the Socinians.
† See Ps. 119. throughout. Isaiah vi. 9. viii. 14. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 8.
34
son, in his senses, will make such a mistake, but what then? Does this settle the doctrine which is to be embraced concerning the atonement? The language in this sentence is just such as Arminians, and many, who are considered Hopkinsians, would make no difficulty in using, while they still hold to an indefinite, or universal atonement. Nay, it is such as the late Mr. M’Chord, who was, for his errors, suspended from the ministry, by the almost unanimous vote of the Associate Reformed Synod, (see Minutes of that Synod, for May, 1817)—this language is such as he could not have hesitated to use—and yet, such would have been his constructions, as to forbid his admission in that body. These men could not, they do not deny, that Christ “bought his people unto God, by his blood”—nor that he made a true, proper, and meritorious sacrifice for their sin, when, through the Eternal Spirit, he offered up himself—but then their acknowledgments are accompanied with explanations which evaporate, or blaspheme the truth of God. Again, in the same page, we have enumerated among the essential doctrines, “the renewing and sanctifying virtue of his Holy Spirit.”—The Arminians, during the controversy which caused the Synod of Dort, and ended in their expulsion from the Church of Holland, used language equally, if not more distinct. They admitted that “man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable of either thinking, or doing, any good thing, and that, therefore, it is very necessary to his conversion
35
and salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed by the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God, through Jesus Christ”—they admitted, that “true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will.” Yet, the venerable divines, who composed the majority of that Assembly, saw sufficient in this system, to justify them, in pronouncing the advocates of it guilty of pestilential errors, and excommunicating them from the church. (Mosheim’s Ch. Hist. translated by Maclaine, Vol. V. p. 426. and 433. Charlestown, 1811.) In both these instances, there is an evasion of the doctrine most consoling to the church of God, most hostile to the pride of the unregenerate, and which carnal men endeavour to disguise, or fritter away into nothing, when they have not the boldness, openly, to deny it. Had Dr. Mason asserted that Christ made “a true, proper and meritorious sacrifice, for his elect alone”—and the “renewing and sanctifying operations of his Holy Spirit, for his elect alone,” every body can see that this comprehends more, and forbids more than is comprehended or forbidden, in the language he uses. But this is the very point which his language, and the language of disguised Arminians, avoids. Dr. Watts, who held, in his time, and continues to hold, in the present day, among many, the reputation of an eminent divine, has published, under the shelter of such language as Dr. M. uses here, sentiments of a most dangerous and pernicious nature. He admits
36
the “divinity and personality” of the Son and Spirit, in one place, in words—and denies them, in another place, in fact—and this, while he calls himself an advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity, and invites an Arian to the Orthodox faith.* The errors which, under this guise, and in these speculations, he broaches, the celebrated Toplady pronounces “pernicious and horrible heresies.”† Had Dr. M. asserted the proper equality of the Son and the Spirit with the Father, and their subsistence as persons in the same sense with the Father, this would have been what heretics always reject, and what the children of God have always received. These are examples to show the necessity of a precise and distinct explanation of terms, to guard the mind against the seduction of error. Nay, the Author himself has shown this, in the most energetic language, when he says, of the Socinians, that “while they remain in their unbelief, denying, in fact, though acknowledging in words, that just and holy One, there is an immeasurable gulf between them and real Christians.” It is not enough to say, in reply to all this, that men may pervert and abuse any language and any terms. The censure which is to be applied to the principles of the Plea is, that it goes to set aside a long established, and well
_____
* Works, 8vo. Lond. 1813. Vol. VI. p. 362. 365.
† Toplady’s Works, Vol. IV. p. 115, Lond. 1794. He expresses, to be sure, his happiness, in believing that Dr. Watts “did not die under the delusions of so horrible and pernicious an heresy,” but without offering any evidence to recommend his belief to others.
37
known form of sound words, as the terms of communion, and as a test of saving truth, and to substitute this in its place, which is so plainly deficient in precision. What right had the Author to frame and offer a creed to the churches of his own?—Why did he not leave them in possession of those they had? In attempting to set these aside, he has presented one in their stead, which, under its broad shelter, will admit men and principles of the most pernicious and dangerous character—principles which strike at the vitals of Christianity.
III. And lastly. It was incumbent on the Author not only to define and explain his terms in such a manner as would have guarded them from the use of heretics, and excluded them from the communion of the church, but also to prove that these doctrines, which he mentions, were alone sufficient to salvation; and here, unquestionably, he should have been most clear and convincing. If any thing is of importance, it is to know and be assured of what is essential to salvation;—but, instead of this, there is perilous carelessness, I fear. At the conclusion of this brief enumeration of the errors to be avoided, is this vague, and, in such a case, most censurable term—“similar heresies.” How does it comport with fidelity to speak in such a way? Here are ‘blaspheming the Saviour’s divinity—rejecting his propitiatory sacrifice, and the justification of a sinner by faith only in his mediatorial merits—denying the divinity, personality, renewing and sanctifying virtue of his Holy Spirit’—all damnable er-
38
rors, destructive to the souls of men, followed by such a caution as this, “similar heresies.”—What are they? who is to know them?—The design of this work is, to diminish the standard of communion, to take off the attention of the people from their well known terms and formulas of doctrine; why should Dr. M. substitute in their place a system so dangerously uncertain as this evidently is? Why, reverend sir, are they not declared distinctly, that the people learning from you the doctrines essential to salvation, and the only errors to be avoided, may know what those other “similar heresies” are, which are so truly dangerous? You have said, that “they who disown or explain away such truths as these,” (viz. in the quotation already made), “pretend what they may, are no more servants of “Christ, nor partakers of his benefits, than Jews, “Mahometans, or Pagans.” And yet, having set about describing the marks by which such men were to be known, you have left your readers in the dark as to your own meaning, and exposed them to fall into errors, equally dangerous with those you have mentioned, by this unintelligible caution, “similar heresies.”—Was this giving to the trumpet a certain sound?
It is nothing to the purpose to ask a few questions respecting the relative importance of some disputed doctrines—nor any thing to the purpose to discharge some vehement censures against the blasphemers of the Saviour’s divinity—the solemn obligation incumbent on him as a steward of the
39
mysteries of God, as one intrusted with souls, and bound by the most awful considerations to maintain the glory of God’s truth, and whatever is of moment to God’s church; as one who was avowedly setting aside long-established terms of communion, and simplifying the doctrines of salvation—to prove satisfactorily that those he mentions were quite sufficient, and alone required by the word of God. But of this there is not a syllable of evidence proposed. Many well known, most important, and long and violently controverted doctrines are wholly unnoticed—predestination, grace, original sin, the perseverance of the saints, the resurrection of the dead, and others, equally precious to the church of God, which might be mentioned, are all disputed by men who would freely admit the language used by the Author of the Plea. An omission which alone, passing by all the other considerations which have been offered, will sustain the charge at the head of this Chapter—the principles of the Plea are founded on a dangerous want of precision concerning the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The Author (it is certainly to be hoped, without designing or apprehending these consequences) has entered into the very citadel of Christianity, has broken down the inner wall, and left her dearest principles, her fairest hopes, a prey to the enemy and the destroyer.