STRICTURES, &c. CHAPTER III.
James Dodson
72
THE principles of the “Plea for Communion on Catholic Principles,” are absolutely incompatible with a faithful adherence to the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, or to the respective standards of any of the Reformed Churches.
IN this part of his undertaking, the writer of these pages is sensible that he has to contend with some strong, subtle, and very popular prejudices; prejudices, however, which are attended with contradictions, the most evident and glaring in all who sanction them, without any exception. The prejudices, are those which exist against creeds and confessions, as terms of communion in the church of God. That effect which it will be the object of this chapter to show, against the work of Dr. M., does not spring from any principle peculiar to that Author himself—but from one which operates powerfully and universally in the hearts of men, dislike of restraint. There is scarcely a section, scarcely, did I say, there is certainly not one section of the church of God but will be found to contain some exemplification of this opposition to any settled and definite terms of communion.* Let them be
_____
* It is worthy to remark, that all the troubles of that eminent servant of God, Jonathan Edwards, (“a man of whom,” it is well
73
reduced to gratify ease at one time—it will be required again at another—and still another and another reduction must follow, till every shade of distinction between the church and the world is abolished. They are too profound for common understandings—or too particular for Christian liberty—or too rigid for Christian charity—they are only
_____
[continued from the previous page] observed, “it is not easy to speak with justice, without seeming, at least, to border on the marvellous, and to incur the guilt of adulation,”) all his troubles—which served to illustrate the grace of God in him, and the wickedness of men in others—sprung from an attempt to set limits to the communion of the church, by prescribing some settled terms. The prevailing custom had been, for all baptised persons to partake of the sacrament of the supper, without a confession or engagement to the minister of a pious nature. To this he was opposed, and required a profession which should have some relation to the covenant of grace, of which both baptism and the Lord’s supper are seals. Among the forms of profession he required, were these following; and yet these excited such a ferment in the congregation as ended in his dismission.
“I hope I do truly find a heart to give up myself wholly to God, according to the tenor of that covenant of grace, which was sealed in my baptism, and to walk in a way of that obedience to all the commandments of God, which the covenant of grace requires, as long as I live.”
The other—“I hope I truly find in my heart a willingness to comply with all the commandments of God, which require me to give up myself wholly to Him, and to serve Him with my body and my spirit, and do accordingly now promise to walk in a way of obedience to all the commandments of God as long as I live.” If such requisitions as these could excite such disturbance and opposition, I think we may safely infer that it is a settled principle with Satan, to resist all definite terms of communion in the church of Christ; that no moderation will satisfy him, and that every reduction from the truth insisted on in the word of Christ, is only a vain attempt at peace. See Edwards’ Works, vol. 1. p. 106. Worcester. 1808.
74
the productions of men—they may be wrong—the Bible is the only standard—are objections which are commonly and vehemently urged, according as the objector’s occasion may require. The prevalence of such objections, not only among those who give every reason to believe that they spring from a deliberate opposition to the truth, and also from the ignorant and inexperienced, but even from ministers of the gospel, from whom better things would be expected, proves that this is a subject deserving consideration. When such symbols of doctrine have been adopted, as terms of admission to the sacraments, by the most solemn ecclesiastical acts, they ought not lightly to be parted with. The ministers of every regularly organized Reformed Church, whose example is likely to have any influence in this country, are bound by oaths and vows, as solemn as an appeal to the Searcher of Hearts can make them, to maintain their respective creeds and confessions, and exhibit, in their public instructions, the doctrines they contain. This was settled by men eminent for their wisdom, piety, and learning, in an age when the truth of God was most solemnly investigated, and is a testimony to the importance of such formulas in church order, which no sober man will despise. All opposition to them, therefore, and all efforts to set them aside as terms of communion, which, in reality, after all that can be said, is their proper, important, and essential office, should be regarded with suspicion. But, besides, there is a glaring contradiction in the con-
75
duct of all the adversaries to these productions, for not one of them, be they communities or individuals, but must have “a creed.” Even this volume, (the Plea,) of which the effect is to strike them all but its own away, with one fell blow, has, as we have seen, its “creed.” Every society must have some settled principles in which they agree, and by which they are united in one. Independent churches, and Baptists, who have furnished some very decided opponents of such tests of principle and character, are compelled to adopt some brief compend of doctrine and government. Socinians, who take the lead in declaiming against the unlawful and uncharitable nature of creeds, yet have their confessions—nor, in fact, can any society subsist without some such bond of union. Indeed, every individual has his creed, by which he measures and approves or condemns men and principles without the least hesitation. Many of those who are the most vehement advocates of liberty and charity, freely extend their charity, indeed, to all who agree with themselves in a few maxims, and in thinking all others of no importance:—but there it stops, and is converted into a judgment against all others as severe as if the judgment of the world were committed into their hands. They censure their principles, they shun their society, they will not attempt even to convince and reclaim them; but, pronouncing the terrible epithet, “bigots,” adjudge them to universal obloquy and contempt. The friends of these productions, who consider with interest and with
76
just reverence the place which they have occupied, and usefully occupied, in the church of God, from time immemorial, have at least some reason to conclude, from such contradictions, that there is a latent opposition to some creeds and confessions in particular, from which all this declamation proceeds; that these exhibit a test too severe for the unrenewed mind, and detect and expose, with too much precision, some hidden poison.
A few remarks will be offered, to show their importance and necessity; these will show their proper and legitimate use, and prepare the way for an examination of the principles and effects of the Plea in relation to them.
1. It is evident that there must be some settled principles, as terms of communion, which the church, through her ministry, must use in admitting applicants to the ordinances appointed by her head. No person of the least sobriety on the subject of religion, will hesitate to acknowledge this. Besides the general principle of the necessity of order and harmony in every human society, this must follow from the very nature of the “one faith” of the church. That faith is but one, and, whatever it may, this should be the settled, the established rule of admitting members into the society by which that faith is held. If there are no such terms of admission at all, of course, every applicant, however ignorant, profane, and blasphemous his principles and conduct, must have a right to a participation of sealing ordinances. At this, every serious
77
person must shudder. It is evident, then, that there must be some settled terms of communion, which the church must use in admitting applicants to her privileges. These must be settled, that is, defined and established, so as to be applicable to all cases; and so embodied and exhibited as to be accessible, without difficulty, at all times.
2. It is also evident that the Scriptures, in themselves considered, cannot constitute these terms of communion. It appears to be the opinion of many professors of religion, indeed, that an acknowledgment of the truth of the Holy Scriptures is quite sufficient to entitle to Christian communion. But the title to a Christian character, and the right to sealing ordinances, cannot consist merely in the profession of a belief in the Scriptures as the word of God, and an undefined approbation of its doctrines; for this profession may be made, and is made, by persons most discordant and contradictory in their sentiments, and most diametrically opposed, in some instances, to “the faith of God’s elect.” Socinians, Arians, Universalists, and Arminians profess, in general with the orthodox, to believe the Scriptures to be the word of God, and respectively affirm that they truly receive its doctrines. But no man of reflection can imagine that all these, so heterogeneous in their sentiments, some of whom, at least, must be chargeable with idolatry, falsehood, and blasphemy, can possibly associate as “the one fold,” and in the “one faith” of the church of God.—But there is one great and
78
perpetual sanction of the principle here contended for in the word of God itself. At the great and interesting period in which the gospel dispensation was introduced, there were, in the visible church, two parties, widely distinguished and separated, who both professed to embrace the Scriptures as the word of God—on the one hand, the Jewish nation who rejected Jesus of Nazareth, and on the other, such of that nation as owned him to be the Messiah.* Both appealed to the word of God, as that word then consisted of the writings only of the Old Testament—both professed to receive it as the standard of faith, yet were they utterly divided; and, by the apostles of Jesus, it was declared indispensably necessary to eternal salvation to be separated from the one, and united to the other. “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”—“And the Lord added to the church, daily, such as should be saved.” Acts ii. 40, 47. What must be inferred from this fact, is, that a wide separation may lawfully exist between such as, at first view, appear to constitute together the visible church of God, and jointly, or, at least, both profess to embrace the Holy Scriptures; and that a mere profession of belief in the Scriptures, as the word of God, cannot constitute a right to Christian fellowship, or admission to the ordinances of the church of God—a fact
_____
* It may not be improper to remark, that these last were then called “a sect,” by the first; see Acts xxviii. 22. but were acknowledged as the only true church by the Apostle Paul, Phil. iii. 6. This may take away some of the offence of that name in the present time.
79
which establishes this principle to the end of time, and makes it always at once the duty and privilege of the people of God, to separate themselves from a false church, however loud her pretensions.—“Come ye out of her, my people.”* Therefore,
3. These terms of communion must consist of a summary of doctrines drawn from the Scriptures—in other words, it is not the Scriptures themselves, but what they mean and what they teach. This will embrace a statement of the fundamental doctrines of the word of God, especially with a relation to living controversies, and the existing circumstances of the church. This application of the doctrines of the Word of God, in the Confession of the church, to living errors, is acknowledged and approved by the Author of the Plea, in his evident approbation of the conduct of the primitive church. “It is also certain,” he says, “that 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, as well as the scope of her ministerial instruction.” Plea, p. 42. Such a summary of doctrines as this, at once preserves the faith of the church pure and en-
_____
* It is unnecessary to advert to historical records of a later period, in confirmation of this principle. Every reader of church history will remember illustrations of it in the controversies raised by Arius, Pelagius and others, in which these heretics appealed to the Scriptures, and yet the orthodox either expelled them from the church, or shunned their communion as detestable and profane.
80
tire, and maintains harmony among her members. For this end it must be settled; for the use of the whole ministry and every congregation, to prevent discord and independency. Both the unity of the faith, and the unity of the church require that this summary of doctrine should be settled, definite and obligatory on every part.*
Now what have we from these plain principles, so evident that they do not require further proof, but a clear sanction, arising from the very nature of the case, an unavoidable inference from first principles and from fact, authorizing and establishing as lawful and necessary, the use of creeds and confessions as terms of communion in the church of God, or of admission to her ordinances? and how can they be used to this end, except they be presented to every applicant, with a requisition of his intelligent approbation; that is, of his doing it with understanding? In what other sense can they be terms of communion? But before making all the use of this
_____
* No person who has considered the state of the visible church at the present time, but must be struck with the great variety of qualifications required in different parts of even such churches as are considered orthodox, for admission to sealing ordinances. In some churches these qualifications are made to consist entirely in religious affections, with but little regard to the nature of them, or their correspondency with the word of God. Where this is the case, these qualifications must be as various as the constitutional temperament of the ministers who preside in the admission of applicants. In other churches there is some attention to religious principles; but these, in many instances, being left optional with the ministers, whose conduct in this matter is rarely if ever examined, or even attended to, by the superintending judicatories of the church—these principles must vary with the principles, capacities, and attainments of the ministers themselves. It is absolutely impossible that all these can be right, or that such a state of things can be consistent either with the nature of the church of God or the welfare of immortal souls. This fact certainly shows the importance of such a formula of Scripture doctrine as terms of admission to sealing ordinances, which, being framed by the collective wisdom and piety of the church, shall be equally obligatory on every minister, and not expose applicants to the neglect, the errors, or the blind enthusiasm of any.
81
which it presents, it will be proper to consider a little further what these formulas of doctrine should contain.
It is evident that they should comprehend, in the first place, a plain and succinct statement of the great doctrines of the word of God, especially of those which are and always have been most hated, resisted, and corrupted in and by the world, in its opposition to the church. This is necessary on various accounts—these are evidently the peculiar doctrines by which the true church is to be known and distinguished in the world—in the profession of which she is eminently to honour God—which, by their very nature, are best adapted successfully to repel the approach of corrupt and worldly men. And, as these confessions are to guard the people of God against the assaults of error, so they should be distinct in their declaration of those truths which are most usually assailed. Neglect or silence, indeed, on any of these points, can only be considered in the light of infidelity to the great Head of the Church, and to every soul to whom her testimony comes. Besides, the church is “the pillar and ground of
82
the truth.”* With this must be connected her faithful regard to “the present truth”—whatever that doctrine be which is impeached, whatever error it be which is proposed, there her testimony should, in some form, be turned. Still further, it is plain they should comprehend some clear exhibition of the government and worship which is prescribed by the Lord Jesus in his word. Whatever may be said of “ceremonies,” or such regulations as are left to the light of nature and christian prudence, it is perfectly plain these now mentioned are not to be considered in that light. Or shall we imagine that there is no form of government for the church prescribed by God in his word—or that nothing settled and definite is revealed concerning his worship? No person who views the works of God with a reflecting mind, but must be struck with the order which prevails in every part of his visible creation; the believer penetrates, by faith, to the contemplation of invisible objects, and sees the same order prevailing and discovering itself. And can we imagine that the church of the living God, the most glorious of all his works, the most wonderful effect of his wisdom—nay, that which is emphatically “the kingdom of God,” “the kingdom of Christ,” “the kingdom of heaven,” in which is displayed, “to the principalities and powers in heavenly places, the manifold wisdom of God,” of which “such glorious things are spoken,” shall be left destitute of settled laws for its government, and eviden-
_____
* 1 Tim. iii. 15.
83
subjection to him? The thought is at once profane and absurd. Artful men, indeed, have, in different ages, endeavoured to cast clouds and darkness over this, and begin here with their unessentials, and good men have been beguiled. That love of power and eminence, that hatred of restraint which distinguishes man in his fallen state, often steals into the church under this very pretence, and whenever it gets ground and operates according to its own nature, ceases not till it has effected her dissolution. The farther men can go from an immediate subjection to Christ’s supreme authority in his church, so much more extensive is their corrupt liberty; and, generally speaking, history shows us that loose views on this subject, granted to the people, are well repaid on their part by their indulgence of the ministry in wealth, indolence, luxury, and ungodliness. The pages of ecclesiastical history bear an ample testimony to this fact—the records of the word of God show its prevalence among his ancient people; witness the disorders and corruptions prevailing through the mutual indulgence of priests and people, when the whole nation had forsaken the laws of God.* The “Harlot of Babylon” stands an awful lesson of this truth; and the rejection, on the part of the church of England, of the true and scriptural order and government prescribed by the Lord Jesus Christ in his word, as these were exhibited by the Westminster divines, has been written in the history of that church “with a pen of iron.”
_____
* Jeremiah vii. 30, 31. viii. 9, 10. and the whole of chap. xxiii.
84
They have chosen, (and that especially under the influence of a monarch, as sensual and licentious in his life as profane in his religious sentiments,* who said that “Presbyterianism was not fit for a gentleman;”) they have chosen a system of government more corresponding with the lusts of men than with the will of God; and in righteous judgment Zion’s king has visited them with a ministry licentious in their conduct, and heretical in their principles to a lamentable extent. While there are and have been many, very many, illustrious exceptions to this fact, it is in general too true to be disputed, that there are numbers besides, more decent in their exterior, who, in the face of their subscriptions and vows, disbelieve and oppose in a bold or subtle manner the doctrines contained in the articles of their church—the writings of Toplady, Romaine, Scott, and other faithful witnesses give ample testimony. Let it not be thought, then, a light matter to reject the laws of Zion’s King. He is a jealous God, and visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.†
_____
* Charles the Second.
† This will appear in a stronger light when the different effects of the ecclesiastical constitutions of Scotland and England are compared in their respective histories. It is not saying too much for the former, that, although as a church she has produced no very eminent divines, her ministry has been respectable, respected, and highly useful. The careful observation of the Sabbath—the general prevalence of family worship morning and evening—the morality and sobriety—the careful instruction of the children—and the great diffusion of religious knowledge, which have distinguished the people of Scotland, certainly bear a strong testimony to the value
85
From this general view of the nature and subjects of “confessions of faith,” it is evident that they are applicable to every member of the church capable of making a profession of faith in Christ, and obedience to him. Because a profession of faith in Christ must comprehend an intelligent profession of what belongs to the offices of Christ, as the prophet, priest, and king of his church: and a profession of obedience to him must include an intelligent engagement to obey such a government, and such a worship, as he has prescribed. Any thing else is not obedience to him. And what objection can possibly be raised to this? Can an objection to this come from any other quarter than Antichrist, either confessed or disguised? Such terms of communion as
_____
[continued from the previous page] of that ecclesiastical constitution under which such effects have been produced. Besides, compared with other countries, sectarianism has been rare, and open infidelity, until late years, very unfrequent. A very great contrast is presented in the religious character of her neighbour, England. While here there have indeed flourished divines eminent for learning and piety, the general character of the people is marked by neglect of family worship to a very considerable degree, especially among the members of the establishment—the profanation of the Sabbath is common—amidst great excitement on the subject of religion, there is confessedly a deplorable ignorance and a general dislike of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. In addition to this it would be almost, if not wholly, impossible to enumerate the sects which have sprung out of that church—and the prevalence of infidelity among the highest and lowest classes of society, the names and writings of Hobbes, Rochester, Toland, Blount, Gibbon and others, make too manifest. That there are pious, zealous, and active Christians there, is not to be doubted. But let it be remembered that God had a Lot in Sodom,
86
these would be the expression of the faith of the church, and of her “professed subjection to the gospel of Christ;” nor could any one of the articles now enumerated be omitted. An objection which will apply to one part will apply to another, and therefore to the whole of it; and terms of communion, or qualifications for admission to sealing ordinances, must be abandoned in toto.
Here, then, we see what is meant by a faithful adherence to the standards or confession of the church. It consists in making use of them as the settled terms of communion, and requiring of all applicants for admission to her privileges, an approbation of the faith she exhibits in them. It is admitted, that, in all instances, a perfect observance of such a system is impracticable, and that time and prudence are necessary in introducing it, where it has fallen into disuse: but this is very different from laying it aside where it has once been established, and introducing, in its stead, an order of things only calculated to diminish the importance of truth, and suffer the people to wander, unheeded and unheeding, over the dark and pathless mountains of error and destruction. “My people perish for lack of knowledge.” On the other hand, the observance of the system, which is here recommended as the legitimate use of confessions, must make and keep the people acquainted with the great doctrines of the word of God and eternal life. By this means, the church will act as the “light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth,” and, holding forth the truth
87
in her profession, will be a constant witness for God. It is one fatal characteristic in the Plea, that it is absolutely inconsistent, and irreconcileable with an adherence to any full, distinct, and settled terms of communion. The doctrines the Author lays down as essential to salvation and a proper foundation of communion, make this most evident. For, if these terms of communion, which he has proposed, be sufficient, what further use for creeds and confessions? Agreeably to this inference, so is the fact. The Author of the Plea plainly shows, that, with him, confessions of faith are at an end, as to all their important and practical effects.*
But in order to avoid giving them up entirely, he has asserted, that, in the use of them here contended for, and long practised in many churches, they can only be applicable to ministerial or official, not to private communion—that is, to the ministers and other officers, not to the private members of the church.† This, however, is a very extraordinary distinction. Do confessions comprehend any more than the faith of the church, plainly expressed? And are not the people, as well as the officers of the church, interested in possessing a scriptural representation of the great doctrines embraced in that faith? Have not the people a deep interest in the one and only faith of God’s elect, “the truth as it “is in Jesus,” the belief of which is the means of the salvation to which they have been chosen from eternity?‡ Dr. M. says, indeed, in endeavouring
_____
* Plea, p. 353.
† Ibid, p. 352.
‡ 2 Thess. ii. 13.
88
to prove that “they cannot, in effect, be terms of Christian communion,” p. 356, “Not only the attainments but the faculties of the mass of mankind, must be different from what they ever have been, before such extensive terms of communion can be enforced.” This is a very remarkable sentiment, indeed, from the pen of a great divine. He speaks of the “mass of mankind,” he has forgotten that the doctrine of salvation, revealed in the Scripture, is not intended for the “mass of mankind,” but for “a peculiar people, a chosen generation,”* separated, in the eternal purpose of God, from the rest of the world, and that all the rest are left in their natural darkness. “The election hath obtained it, but the rest were blinded; as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear.” Rom. xi. 7, 8. Can any thing make it more plain, that the doctrine of eternal salvation, was never designed by the glorious Author of the Bible for the mass of mankind, and that, therefore, we are never to measure the doctrine we are to hold up as the truth, essential to salvation or to communion, by their attainments, or their faculties to perceive it? If there were any correctness in Dr. M.’s principle, it would regulate and cut down the whole doctrine to be preached in the stated and public instructions of the ministry of the church—the very principle for which all unregenerate men contend, who resist and hate the peculiar doctrines
_____
* 1 Pet. ii. 9.
89
of grace. The faculties of the mass of mankind must be very different, indeed, we believe, for naturally they “are darkened in their understanding, and alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them”*—and that all such as know the truth, know it from the peculiar grace of the Spirit of God, “enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.”—“Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.”—“The Son of God hath come, and hath given us an understanding.”† Any arguments against the use of confessions, which comprehend a full view of Christian doctrine, as terms of communion, drawn from the inability of the mass of mankind to apprehend them, are wholly inapplicable: seeing that the Spirit of grace and truth is ready to apply and seal their doctrines upon the mind of every true member of the church of God—that wherever that difficulty is to be removed, there is a provision of spiritual illumination abundantly sufficient. And, to return to Dr. M.’s limitation of these creeds to ministers—is this spiritual illumination confined to them only, and are the people of God excluded from it?—far, far is this from being the case: it is the portion of all God’s people. “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord.” Is. liv. 13. “Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit”— “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should
_____
* Eph. iv. 18.
† 1 John ii. 20 v. 20.
90
show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” 1 Pet. i. 22. ii. 9. What an evident contradiction, therefore, it is to an elementary doctrine of Christianity, to assert that the faculties of the mass of mankind should regulate the doctrine of the church—or that the people are not qualified to embrace the saving truth and the great doctrines of God’s word equally with ministers.
But to see into what contradictions this principle (viz. that an approbation of creeds and confessions should not be required of private members, but of ministers only) leads the Author, let us examine a few quotations, which will also lead us further to see how absolutely untenable the ground is which he has taken.
After having stated the objection which is brought against his system of communion, which forms the subject of the present Chapter, thus expressed in his work, “Catholic communion subverts confessions of faith”*—there are some remarks of a very severe nature against them, in that use which they have long answered in the church; remarks which must awaken suspicion that the person who made them could never have entertained any cordial esteem for those standards. These, again, are followed by others, equally remote from the point, never once seriously answering the objection, but violently thrusting them (confessions) aside. In the midst of these remarks, stands the following
_____
* Plea, p. 348.
91
sentence, p. 349: “But if they are intended, as “indeed they are, to proclaim wherein believers “differ from the carnal world, and to be luminous rallying points of their strength and efforts, in their conflict with the enemies of our Lord and his Christ, it is inconceivable how they should interfere with the broadest Christian fellowship, or the broadest Christian fellowship with them.”—After the severe censure pronounced upon their use, as terms of communion, what end does it answer to talk of their being “luminous rallying points of believers’ strength”—and means of “proclaiming the difference between them and the carnal world?” Cease to use them in that way, which this Author proscribes with such severity, and their light is extinguished, and their discriminating influence done away entirely. But let us consider this a little more closely. Here is an explicit acknowledgment that confessions of faith are, “indeed, intended to proclaim wherein believers differ from the carnal world, and to be luminous rallying points of their strength and efforts in their conflict with the enemies of our Lord and his Christ.” Now, it is to be inquired, how do believers proclaim this difference, held up in their confessions, to the carnal world? how are the confessions themselves rendered and maintained luminous rallying points of strength to the lovers of truth? By merely having them printed and talking of them here and there?—by commending or censuring them, as occasion may offer?—No—but by
92
studying to be acquainted with them, and by a profession of them, public and solemn, in the sacraments of the Lord Jesus Christ,—for there believers profess to the world their faith in him, there they “confess him and his words,”* and testify to the doctrine which they receive from him. In what other way, and by what other act, can they do it? How can confessions of faith proclaim this difference to the world, unless believers themselves are actually acquainted with their contents, and sincerely embrace them? In any other case, it must be a proclamation of a difference which does not exist, and a holding up of a rallying point under which they are not arrayed themselves. Upon the definition, therefore, the Author himself gives of the use of confessions of faith, every believer must be acquainted with, and believe that confession which he owns, or be a deceiver and a hypocrite, in making a profession which he does not mean. And that it is in the sacraments of the Lord Jesus Christ that this profession is, and must be made, there is such a cloud of witnesses as to banish doubt entirely: so plain is it, that the common sense of men always leads them to connect with the stated public reception of ordinances in any church, not only the idea of a profession of the Christian religion in general; but, moreover, an approbation of the great peculiarities of that church in which they then commune†—
_____
* Luke ix. 26.
† To this may be objected the fact that Christ, his prophets, and apostles communed with the Jewish church, in its most corrupt and
93
all the ingenuity of the Author of the Plea, cannot make it appear otherwise. It is for this reason that a person, having changed his mind on religious subjects, goes from that church to which he had been united, to another, and signifies that change to the world by relinquishing the ordinances he once participated in, and going to those connected with the profession he has newly adopted. Thus, an episcopalian renounces or declines presbyterianism—thus, a baptist renounces or declines pædobaptism—thus, an Arminian renounces Calvinism—thus, a Calvinist renounces Arminianism—and each testifies his change to the world, by partaking of the ordinances holding forth the principles he approves.* All
_____
[continued from the previous page] disordered state. But mark the difference. Their communion was attended with an open and faithful testimony against these corruptions and disorders—a testimony in which they persevered, till they were cast out of the synagogues, or silenced by a violent death. On the other hand, a silent communion in a corrupted church must be considered as a tacit approbation of her errors. It is on this very principle that Dr. M. himself so strenuously condemns communion with Socinians, or any communion “which surrenders the least tittle of that truth which is believed to be the testimony of God.” Plea, p. 103 and 105.”
* I observe, indeed, a sentence, (already noticed,) towards the conclusion of the Plea, in which an attempt is made to cast into contempt all these distinctions. “With one,” says the Author, “with one, the watchword is, ‘our excellent apostolical church’—with another, ‘the mode of baptism’—with a third, the solemn league and covenant—with a fourth ‘the burgess oath’—with a fifth, ‘psalmody,’” P. 376. If this sentence had not come from the pen of Dr. Mason; had it been the product of an infidel, any one would have thought it an open attempt to turn into ridicule all religion. Dr. M. has here mingled some of the minor with some of the more important differences of Christians; and, as if
94
the logic in the world cannot destroy this fact, nor the principle it establishes—viz. that Christians believe that they, in the ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, make a solemn and public profession to the world of what they believe to be the truth. Thus, for a further evidence, in the form for the administration of baptism by the ministry of the Reformed Dutch Church, one question is,
“Do you acknowledge the doctrine which is contained in the Old and New Testament, and in the articles of the Christian faith, and which is taught here in this Christian church, to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation?”
In the form for the administration of the same ordinance in the Associate Reformed Church, the parents are required “to profess their approbation of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the form of presbyterial government, and the directory for public worship, as received
_____
[continued from the previous page] what he mentions alone constituted the dividing lines; but every body knows this is not the case—it is not the form of government in the episcopal church, which is alone boasted of against a consistent presbyterian—nor the form of baptism which divides serious Christians—nor the burgess oath—nor even the solemn league and covenant—nor psalmody. Every body knows that these things have connexions and relations of a much higher nature, and this sneer and sarcasm will have no weight with men of reflection and conscience. However Dr. M. may turn things upside down, people will still think that there is a difference between different principles, and that it would be a daring aspersion on the truth of God, and a mockery of the Supreme Being himself, to turn all the distinctions of the different religious bodies, above mentioned, into nothing. No man, who has any reverence for God, could deliberately think of doing it.
95
by this church.” Now, it would be absurd to imagine a profession less than this to be made in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper—it is to be concluded that there the same is made. And is all this nothing? is the conduct of all Christians, acting in circumstances the most solemn, and is the requisition of a profession instituted by the highest judicatories, and the best men in the church, to go for nothing? Here is the way by which, with one voice, Christian people and Christian ministers declare how confessions of faith are to proclaim the difference between believers and the carnal world; and how also they are to be held up as luminous rallying points of their strength in the conflict with the enemies of our Lord and his Christ—here too is the only way in which they can answer this, confessedly their proper end; and yet this is the very use which it is the object of this writer wholly to set aside; and which, he says, is converting them into “the shibboleths, the symbols, the flags of religious, or rather irreligious factions, challenges to battle among believers, wedges of distinction to split the church of Christ into pieces.”* Let this be carefully marked. While it is a contradiction to his own acknowledgments, it is such an aspersion of the maxims and conduct of the whole church of God as few of the boldest enemies of confessions of faith would have ventured to make.
The examination of one more quotation will conclude this chapter. P. 351.
_____
* Plea, p. 348.
96
“Before we quit the subject of confessions of faith, it may be proper to notice a mistake which is growing more and more prevalent, concerning their intention and use; I mean in their present amplitude.* They are supposed, and, in some instances, are declared to contain the terms of church communion; i.e. the terms upon which, and upon which alone, an individual can be admitted into church fellowship. There are good reasons for doubting whether such an opinion is correct, and such a declaration discreet.”
This is followed by a paragraph containing the Author’s high approbation of confessions of faith—then he proceeds, p. 352,
“As the ‘fixed testimony’ of a church, ‘by which her principles are to be tried,’ or as ‘her judicial expression of the sense in which she understands the Holy Scriptures, in their relation to the doctrine, government, and worship of the Christian church,’ when these things are matters of controversy, it is difficult to conceive how a confession of her faith can be dispensed with. She must
_____
* A grievous error in point of fact. Let the Author of the Plea remember how long since he ceased to enjoin upon applicants a perusal of the Confession of Faith. How many ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church are there who enjoin upon their people the perusal of their standards? Is there one in the Presbyterian church who insists upon embracing their confession, &c., as the terms, and the only terms, by which any individual shall be admitted into church fellowship? Let a fair investigation of the facts on this subject be instituted, and it would, I think, be found that “this “mistake,” as the Author is pleased to term it, “is growing” less and less “prevalent.”
97
proclaim what she believes, and what she means to teach. This is her confession of faith, and is put into the hands of her officers, to be by them inculcated and supported. Nothing can be more absurd than to employ, as preachers and guardians of her religion, men, who, for aught she knows, may labour to subvert the whole system which she is endeavouring to build up. She has, therefore, a right, and it is her duty, on the ground of self-preservation, as well as of fidelity to her king, to exact from them an explicit avowal of their belief on all those topics which more nearly or more remotely affect the main interests of truth, and a positive, unequivocating engagement to maintain them. For this purpose, she must bring them to a test, which can be done so effectually in no form as that of requiring an approbation of her confession.”
Nothing is so remarkable in this passage as the ingenuity with which the Author thrusts away the people from any interest in the doctrine and confession of the church, and commits it all to the ministers. But how are the people to know whether they are not employing, as preachers and guardians of their religion, men, who, for aught they know, may labour to subvert the whole system which the church collectively is endeavouring to build up, unless they too are acquainted with the standard of doctrine? They have the power, and upon them it devolves, as a solemn duty, to call a minister of the gospel to take the charge of their souls; and, in this case, “their duty, on the
98
ground of self-preservation, as well as fidelity to their king,” require understanding and prudence in calling and receiving one who shall instruct them in the truth. Their own souls, and the souls of their children, require these. Besides, multiplied counsels of Scripture point out their duty, in relation to public teachers, in terms too plain to be misunderstood. “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” “If any man preach any other gospel to you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” “Beware of dogs, beware of evil-workers.” “Let your loins be girt about with truth.” Math. vii. 15. Gal. i. 9. Phil. iii. 2. Eph. vi. 14. Now, can it be imagined that the people can have but little concern in this?—Is it to be believed that these cautions are addressed exclusively, or even principally, to the teachers of the church, when it is with respect to them that the cautions are given? This is the church of Rome all over. It is admitted, indeed, that the heaviest part of the responsibility on this subject, rests with them, and that they ought to be best qualified to guard the church against the intrusion of wicked or heretical teachers: but, then, have not the people the great concern in this, and ought not they to be qualified to judge of the principles of those who teach them? If, as is admitted by the Author himself, her teachers must be brought to a test, and if this can be done in no way so effectually as by requiring an approbation of her confes-
99
sion, should not the people, by whom he is called, the people, to whom he is to minister in holy things, be acquainted with the test by which his principles are to be tried, the confession which he is required for this end to approve?* If a discriminating
_____
* It is worthy of remark, that Calvin, in the letter to the Lord Protector of England, which Dr. Mason has quoted in support of his plan of communion, (Plea, p. 181,) which goes to do away, as we have seen, the application of creeds to private Christians, makes use of this argument to retain them. “It becomes you,” he says, “to be fully persuaded that the church of God cannot be without a catechism; for, therein the true seed of doctrine is to be contained, from which, at length, the pure and seasonable harvest will be matured, and from this the seed will be multiplied abundantly. Wherefore, if you expect to build an edifice of this kind, which shall stand long, and be safe from destruction, give all care that each child should be instructed in the faith, by the catechism published for that purpose; that they may learn briefly, and as their capacities will admit, in what consists true Christianity. The usefulness of the catechism, will not be confined to the children. The consequence will also be, that the people, being taught by it, will be better prepared to profit by the ordinary preaching of the word; and also, if any one puffed up should introduce any new opinions, he may be detected by an immediate appeal to the catechism.” Calvin’s letter to the Lord Protector of England, in Waterland’s Life of Calvin, p. 336. Hartford, 1813. Here he asserts that the church of God cannot be without a summary of Christian doctrine for instruction, and also as a standard by which the people are to try their teachers. Dr. Owen also has a very strong expression on this subject, “The trial of the spirits of the prophets,” he says, “is the duty of all believers under the gospel. And those who would deprive them of this liberty,” (and the effect is the same, when, under whatever pretence, or by whatever means, an effectual method of trial is taken out of their hand,) “would make brutes of them, instead of Christians, unless to believe, a man knows not what, and obey, he knows not why, be the property of Christians.” Owen on the Spirit, B. I. Ch. I. Sect. 22. Whatever ingenuity may be prac-
100
test is necessary to satisfy the ministry of the church, by whom he is to be ordained to that holy office, with all their superior advantages over the people, how much more necessary must such a test or standard of doctrine be to them? By means of this, they may, with the greater facility, “beware of false prophets,” bringing their principles to a ready trial. It is nothing to the purpose, to say that the Scriptures are sufficient for them—their sufficiency is not doubted; but if an abstract of their doctrines, a confession of faith, as a test of principle, is of importance, and is necessary to the ministry, in proving men whom they are to ordain, it is equally so at least to the people. It is, indeed, on this very point that artful men show great adroitness; and, under the pretence of high zeal for the word of God, censure, with severity, the adoption and use of every other test. But men “wrest them to their own destruction,” and we have already seen, that the Scriptures, in themselves considered, cannot constitute the terms of Christian communion, but what they mean. This
_____
[continued from the previous page] tised to explain Dr. Mason’s language and procedure, it is perfectly plain that his object in the paragraph under examination is to apply creeds or standards of doctrine only to church officers; that the acquaintance of the people with them is of no importance; their part in the examination and trial of the doctrine of their teachers is evaded and overlooked; and the end of his system must be, that this trial will be lodged wholly in the hands of those who are already over them in the church. How unlike the jealousy with which these two great divines, whom he so often names, to perpetuate among the people a watchful regard of the principles of their teachers.
101
whole argument, therefore, which is designed to take confessions out of the hands of the people, goes conclusively against the Author. Confessions of faith should be kept in the hands of the people equally with the public teachers of the church, to instruct and establish them in the truth, and qualify them to try the doctrines of the men to whom they commit the care of their souls. But to conclude the examination of this paragraph, are ministers only wicked, heretical and ungodly? is the church in danger only from her teachers? It is readily admitted that her greatest danger is from them—“Also of your own selves,” said the great apostle to the elders of the church of Ephesus, “shall men arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.” But it is not from them alone; unprincipled, ignorant, and heretical people also endanger the church; they introduce disorder, destroy discipline, bring sound doctrine into disrepute, and undermine the influence and usefulness of a faithful ministry. This is too well known to need evidence: many ministers have felt, with grief and indignation, the powerful, artful, and successful influence of worldly professors of rank, who have obtained an unlawful admission into the church, where they often employ the distinction which God has conferred upon them, for the destruction, not the promotion, of truth and piety—and these are ultimately the means of introducing, to countenance and support themselves, ministers of like principles and like conduct. Now, should
102
there not be some defence against “people” of this description? certainly there should. It is the influence of a system of doctrine, government, discipline, and worship, of a scriptural nature, as terms of communion, to guard the church from their destructive influence; and demonstrates, therefore, the necessity, if the church will keep herself pure and safe, of requiring from all her adult members an intelligent approbation of, and a subjection to her established system of doctrine, government, and worship.
But to this, made more evident I think every step we take, and constantly arising, too, from the Author’s own acknowledgments, he presents what appears to be an unanswerable objection. “They cannot be, he says, in effect, terms of Christian communion.” Page 356. This is preceded by two other considerations, but as this is evidently the strongest, and, if overcome, leaves the others of no importance, I pass them by. He says, then,
“3. Because they cannot be, in effect, terms of Christian communion.
You may declare them to be so; you may pass synodical acts for that purpose. And thus the Westminster Confession of Faith, catechisms, form of church government, and directories for worship, are declaratively and legally terms of permanent communion, or membership, in the Associate Reformed Church. But declarations and acts of synod cannot alter the nature of things; nor make that to be practicable which is
103
in itself impracticable. Not only the attainments but the faculties of the mass of mankind, must be different from what they ever have been, before such extensive terms of communion can be enforced. It belongs not to the church power to ‘call things that be not as though they were.’ Will a discreet man suppose, that every plain Christian, who knows enough for his salvation, and has learned to glorify God in his body and his spirit, can also be acquainted with the whole doctrine of those standards—a work which occupied for years the care and study of a body of divines, second to none in the world—which has condensed the literature and labour of their lives, and covers the whole ground of didactic and polemic theology? Is it a reasonable expectation, that every plain Christian, however unlettered, should be able to grasp a work like this? to distinguish its numerous propositions, and to fathom their sense? How many private members of our churches, our best and most exemplary members, could abide such an ordeal?’” This, I apprehend, is sufficient—the rest of the paragraph is taken up in showing that it is impossible, in the nature of things,—and that, in fact, it is never done—to require such an acquaintance with theology as the Author has here described; to both of which, and their propriety, too, the writer readily subscribes. But still the whole objection requires examination, and, though very formidable in appearance, will, it is thought, turn out to be
104
more remarkable for boldness and ingenuity where the Author appears to have been conscious he was contending on the last spot of defence, to overturn effectually the legitimate and salutary use of creeds and confessions.
One reason why they cannot be terms of communion to the people, asserted in this paragraph, the inability of the mass of mankind, has been already noticed,* and its erroneous and unscriptural nature proved. The question which it contains likewise concerning the capacity of every plain Christian, is much to the same erroneous purpose. A reader might be disposed to inquire, in reply, how much should a plain Christian know for his salvation, and to learn him to glorify God?—and he would seek in vain for any answer to satisfy his mind throughout this book, the dangerous tendency of which is to unsettle every thing and to settle nothing.
But to the objection itself—who has ever required, and who insists on requiring, that every member of the church should be able to grasp a work like this, to distinguish its numerous propositions, and to fathom their sense?—What a parade of difficulty and complaint is here! It is impossible to understand or consider it in any other light than an attempt to render confessions of faith odious, by representing them as profound, obscure, perplexed, and unfathomable writings—and the labour of reading them an unjust and intolerable burden—as if
_____
* Page 88, of this work.
105
there was no such thing as coming to a decent and profitable acquaintance with them and the doctrines they contain, without being able to “grasp a work like this”—“distinguishing its numerous propositions”—“and fathoming their sense”—as if there was no such thing as deriving useful instruction from the careful perusal of them, without the years, the literature, and the labour of a body of divines, second to none in the world! The Confession of Faith composed by the Westminster divines, so far from being marked with obscurity, or being ladened with a parade of literature, making it burdensome to the poor and uneducated, stands unrivalled for the comprehensiveness, plainness, brevity, and perspicuity, with which it states and arranges doctrinal propositions, and for the correctness and force with which it confirms them, with appropriate quotations from the word of God. Its great design, as is evident from its history, was the instruction of the ignorant in the knowledge of the truth; and it is expressed in language peculiarly suited to the “plain and unlettered Christian,” and presents him a safeguard against crafty and heretical men, which these last have rarely been able to stand. And to this very end the literature and labour of these divines were devoted—with what success let thousands and thousands, who have made it a manual of personal and family instruction, answer.* How absurd, then, and how
_____
* Among a considerable proportion of the dissenters in England, throughout the whole body of the “Seceders,” and “Reformed
106
dangerous to talk in this manner of the labour and difficulty of becoming acquainted with their writings. At a time like the present, when Satan has so interwoven heresies, of a most pernicious nature, with the true gospel of the grace of God; is it an unreasonable and unprofitable labour for an applicant for admission into the church, to read with care a compendious system of doctrine, government, and worship, confessedly designed and calculated to furnish him with most suitable and seasonable instruction? This is an age, or at least is
_____
[continued from the previous page] Presbyterians,” in Scotland and Ireland, together with a considerable number in America, this compilation of Scripture doctrine is made the constant and stated manual of religious instruction in families. Among these, it is well known, is comprehended a very considerable number of the poorer and more uneducated classes of society, who are, nevertheless, distinguished by their diligence in improving, in this very way, in religious knowledge—What a rebuke to this learned Author’s complaints! One more remark on this fact. It is among these religious societies, or sections of the church, just named, that all candid persons must confess there prevails a very remarkable and peculiar intelligence on all that relates to religion, as it is revealed in the Holy Scripture. And yet it is among these that Doctor Mason finds a decline of religious information. See Plea, p. 376—where he says, “the rise of party sense is the fall of sacred knowledge. Sectarian fires put out Christian light.” Whatever truth there may be in the remark, it has no application to those parties, or sects, as Dr. M. is pleased to call them, to which he refers. It is submitted to himself to determine whether, for a body of well informed and established Christians, in whatever relates to the truth, order, and worship of God’s house, he would go into one of those denominations, with whom he is now at war, or into any of the congregations of ministers who are followers of himself in his present views. I fear he would be ashamed of some of his own friends.
107
so considered, of remarkable religious light and knowledge—the iron times of ignorance are passing away—Bibles are multiplied and distributed, to an unprecedented extent—tracts, of a religious nature, are dispersed with activity, and read with greediness—religious information is transmitted, in numberless publications, from every quarter, to an inquiring public, who, on this subject, are like the daughters of the horseleech, continually crying “give, give.” Is it in such an age, that the reading and knowledge of a system of religious instruction, unrivalled for its real value, is to be represented as an intolerable burden?—can no time be spared from the fleeting publications of the day, for the profit of acquiring the knowledge of truth, which shall last for ever? In approaching the symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, there is an act most interesting and pregnant with eternal consequences: there is a profession made of embracing a Saviour, with the hope of everlasting joys, and deliverance from everlasting pains—of having renounced this world, and set out for eternity as his home. Shall it, can it be considered, by a person under such circumstances as these, an oppressive burden to read with care a work which is, confessedly, by those with whom the present argument is held, calculated to direct and establish the mind in an undertaking so important as this? In fact, the objection comes to nothing; it is founded on a high colouring of difficulties which do not exist, and of qualifications which are never exacted. There is
108
no difficulty, to any who love the truth, to apprehend the doctrines of the Westminster divines, whatever there may be to others: nor do any insist upon a minute and exact acquaintance of every thing these standards contain. It is asserted, as a fact which no man of sense will have the boldness to deny, that any serious and candid person, who has a mind and a will made docile by the Spirit of God, will, by one serious reading of these standards, be qualified to judge whether, in their general character and principal points of doctrine, they correspond with the Holy Scriptures, and to approve them as such; and, also, that a reasonable degree of attention in examining these standards, will qualify them to make an intelligent, useful, and respectable profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And if men in their hearts dislike, and are unwilling to embrace and profess these doctrines, let it be considered, what is their right to the ordinances of Jesus Christ? Here we arrive at that use which has been already proved and illustrated. If they cannot approve of these doctrines, let them state the reason why: mistakes may be thus rectified—ignorance removed—and ungodly and heretical men debarred from the church.
There is, therefore, no truth in the objection; they can be terms of communion in the church of God: that they ought to be, we have already seen, from a variety of considerations. The objection arising from the incompetency of man in his natural state is nothing to the purpose; the writings themselves contain, it is acknowledged, nothing but
109
the truth—they are exactly adapted to the sincere, “plain, and unlettered.” The importance of the case, and the conduct of men in other religious concerns, justify a request on the part of the officers of the church, that all applicants for admission to her privileges examine and approve the respective confessions of faith.
And look for a moment at the consequences which must result from such an abandonment of confessions, as terms of communion, as is here pleaded for. Sanctioning the admission of men into the church, without any security for their principles or their conduct, or leaving this to the qualifications and the caprice of every minister—in one generation, the effect of such a system must be the prostration of every “difference between the church and the carnal world.” If this book contained the plan and proposal of some definite system of doctrine, government, and worship, agreeable to the word of God, in which all evangelical churches could unite, and safely relinquish their former standards, this would be a very different affair; but it aims at the abandonment of all that exist at present, and the substitution of none hereafter. All who have at heart the interests of Zion, are, therefore, loudly admonished to be watchful in the maintenance of their respective standards of truth. The voice of the Redeemer speaks to them—“Whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.” Phil. iii. 16. Every minister of the reformed churches has, in the
110
truth contained in the confession of faith which he has vowed to maintain, a sacred trust committed to his hands, for the welfare of a future generation, and of that church, which shall undoubtedly survive every secret, as well as every open attack. To guard that trust, he is certainly bound to examine, with the greatest circumspection, every attempt at communion, which goes to renounce these symbols of truth, and to exclude them from their proper and salutary use, in securing and promoting the edification of the church: he is to sanction no such attempt, unless it can be accomplished by the substitution of a fair equivalent, in a confession, which shall exhibit, with equal fulness and precision, all that belongs to the faith and testimony of the elect of God. When this can be done, then let the dispersed of Israel unite, and under one distinct and intelligible standard, unfurled for the display of the truth, enlist all their forces in the service of the living God, their Lord and Saviour. “Behold, I come quickly; hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.”*
_____
* Rev. iii. 11.