STRICTURES, &c. CHAPTER V.

179

THE arguments drawn from the Holy Scriptures for the sacramental communion contended for in the “Plea,” are destitute of foundation.

---

IT would be truly remarkable, indeed, if the Holy Scriptures, which point out to the church of God a straight and narrow path to eternal life, should lay the foundation of that church on such a system of doctrine as to sanction every error which did not go the whole length of openly blaspheming the divinity of her Redeemer and Sanctifier. That there have always been in the communion of that church wicked and heretical men, is true—and that this arises from the imperfect condition of that church in this world, is also true; but it is another thing to assert that God has expressly opened the door for the admission of such men, and for this end allowed his servants to cover his truth in expressions of doubtful import, and to lay aside parts of it altogether. This last is the course which is certainly attempted by Dr. Mason. Under whatever names it may be disguised, with whatever pretences it may be palliated, Dr. Mason has attempted to prove that a communion, unsettled and undefined in doctrine, and wholly silent respecting the

180

worship and government of the church, is sanctioned in the word of God. That the attempt is in vain, and his reasoning superficial and inconclusive, I shall now briefly show. It is thus introduced:

“Strange as it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that men who have the Bible in their hands, as their only rule of faith and practice, appeal immediately to its testimony for their justification, but very rarely for their information. They take for granted that their peculiarities are right, and that the only use of the Scripture is to prove them.” Plea, p. 9.

The correctness of this observation must be acknowledged. But did Dr. M. never suspect its application to himself, in relation to the very subject of the Plea? “Strange as it may appear,” the future records of the church will certainly transmit the illustration of the remark in the conduct of the Author himself. Several years of his life had passed away in a communion, the formation of which was principally under his own direction, sealed with vows in which he had borne a distinguished share; to which no complaints, no objections had been openly made. While the whole church was in a state of very desirable tranquillity, and his brethren dreaming of nothing but peace, at one ministerial act he breaks down the system erected principally by himself, and admits—not one, not a few members of other churches, not such as a careful personal acquaintance had or could have made him assured of the correctness of their principles and conduct

181

—but a whole congregation, then newly formed and hardly settled! admits them with his own to that sacrament which he had vowed to guard with the confessions and standards of the Associate Reformed Church!* Then, when his brethren were overcome with astonishment, he explains, he defends, he condemns, and resorts to the word of God for his “justification.” This justification, drawn up under such singular circumstances, we are now to examine. Would, for the sake of the Author, both the act and its justification were of a more scriptural nature.

The first argument Dr. M. pleads, is the UNITY of the church, the doctrine of which he illustrates and proves from 1 Cor. xii. 12—14. “As the

_____

* A statement of this event, with Dr. Mason’s explanation for that time, together with some other occurrences of a similar nature, may be seen in the Minutes of the Associate Reformed Synod, 1811, p. 26, 27, &c. It appears that Dr. MASON, Rev. JAMES MATHEWS, and Rev. JOHN X. CLARK, were charged with transgressing the bounds of communion prescribed by the standards of that synod. Dr. M. assigned, as a reason for his relaxation, the constant association of the two congregations in the same house of worship. The explanation given by Mr. MATHEWS, was of the same general nature—both declaring the act to arise out of their peculiar circumstances, and not involving the question of communion with other churches. The Rev. Mr. CLARK’S explanation was somewhat different. Being indisposed, and having engaged the Rev. ARTHUR J. STANSBURY to fill his pulpit, he went without previous concert to Dr. Miller’s church, where, being invited to the sacrament of the Supper, then dispensed, he accepted the invitation, and participated. The spirit of liberal Christianity, “in the culture of fraternal charity, has” indeed “gained since that time a visible and growing ascendency.”—Preface to the Plea. But thus saith the Lord—“All the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will unto every one of you according to your works.” Rev. ii. 23.

182

body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one spirit are we all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. This analogy between man’s natural body, and the spiritual body of Christ, which he elsewhere declares to be the church,* Paul presses at great length and with great minuteness. He does it, as any one who shall seriously peruse the context may see, with the design of reproving, and, if possible, destroying that vainglorious temper which had infected the Corinthian converts; each one arrogating to himself, or to that class with which his gifts more immediately connected him, a peculiar pre-eminence and sanctity; as if he and his associates were the special favourites of God, and enjoyed so exclusively the nobler ministrations of the spirit, as to justify their contempt of others, whom they thought to be less distinguished.”† From this, Dr. M. proceeds to analyze this passage, and to show the principles it contains. He then admits that the Apostle turns his argument directly against the contentions in the Corinthian church about the superiority or inferiority of public offices and spiritual gifts, but shows, by several considerations, that the principles of the Apostle’s argument, are general, and applicable to every thing which tends

_____

* Eph. i. 22, 23. iii. 6. iv. 3—13.

† Plea, p. 10.

183

to cherish among Christians a party feeling. After some observations, he proceeds, p. 15, “to gather up the results” of this similitude of the church to the human body, which furnishes him with “this general conclusion.”

“4. The members of the church of Christ, individually and collectively, are under a moral necessity, i.e. under the obligation of God’s authority, to recognise each other’s character and privileges, and consequently not to deny the tokens of such recognition. Sacramental communion,” he adds, “is one of those tokens; therefore the members of the church of Christ, as such, are under the obligation of God’s authority to recognise their relation to Christ, and to each other, by joining together in sacramental communion.” This is the grand point with Dr. Mason; all else is either illustration, or argument, or dust, to blind the eyes against a clear and steady view of the whole amount and effects of this “result.”

Now it is to be observed, in order to set this in its proper light, that in the whole of this discussion, Dr. M. silently lays aside every test and discrimination of the Christian character, both of individuals and churches; and, therefore, at one sweep, every distinction of the church of God is cast away, and every individual making any pretensions to Christian character—every church that bears the name, is here granted an indisputable title to sacramental communion! What explanation will Dr. Mason give of this? “None,” he says, “whom these pa-

184

ges address, will pretend that there are no true “Christians in the world but themselves, and no true churches but their own.”* But whilst this Author, with so much dangerous ingenuity, avails himself of this just and necessary and spontaneous acknowledgment, he has made it the covering of a doctrine which extends the communion of the church in every direction and without limitation. It is absurd—it is worse—it is base and dishonourable, to make use of the confession that there are Christians in different denominations, as a means of breaking down every barrier in the church of God, and uniting all who make any pretensions to the name, without distinction of principle or conduct, in a heterogeneous mass. For this is the necessary “result” of this “result.” Not one limitation has the Author pointed out in this whole discussion. But this result, and all the consequences with which it is connected, have been formed by an entire misapprehension, I am bold to say, of the meaning of the Apostle, in his doctrine of the unity of the church,

_____

* Plea, p. 17. And then, precisely in this spirit, the Author proceeds for several pages in a course of most uncandid and disingenuous argument, in which he purposely avoids, throughout, stating any test of Christian character, forcing upon those by whom this concession is made, the admission of every applicant to the sacrament, or the false and groundless charge of what is no less, in reality, than a daring prevarication in the service of God. Perhaps, when the manner in which Dr. Mason has admitted applicants, is better known, and more fully disclosed, his meaning here will be better understood, and the circumspection with which other ministers have guarded the ordinances of God’s house, gain by a contrast which cannot now be made.

185

and an entire perversion of this doctrine from its legitimate use.

1st. The doctrine of the Apostle respecting the unity of the church is mistaken by the Author of the Plea. The doctrine of the Apostle Paul evidently comprehends the facts of the church’s peculiar character, as utterly distinct from the world, united under one head, by the same spirit; and as a visible society, subject to the same authority, laws, professing the same faith, which is one, and not many, under obligations of mutual regard and help, in subordination to the authority of her head, Christ Jesus. All these features Dr. M. keeps entirely out of view; and with his system it is impossible to tell what is and what is not the church;—but all or most of these features are pointed out by the Apostle whom he has quoted, if not in the very context in which the passage is found, certainly in this and in the Epistle to the Ephesians, to which Dr. Mason has referred in a note (Plea, p. 10.) explaining the term “body of Christ.” According to the Apostle, the head is “Jesus the Lord,” 1. Cor. xii. 3.; the spirit is the “Holy Ghost,” v. 3 with 11.—As a visible society, subject to the same authority and laws, v. 28., “God hath set some in the church.” Professing the same faith, which is “one,” Eph. vi. 5., in which faith they are enlightened by the Holy Ghost dwelling in them all. This unity of the church, the more closely it is considered the greater peculiarity of character does it discover, and the greater remoteness from that confusion, ob-

186

scurity, and unlimited admixture of every thing bearing the name of Christian sanctioned in the Plea. Dr. M. has set no limits—all Christendom may, for aught we know, be his “body of Christ.” The Apostle Paul, directly the reverse, sets about an exhibition of some of the great peculiarities of the church, which help us to understand its real character.

2. The legitimate use of this doctrine is perverted. The use which Dr. M. makes of it indeed corresponds with his mistaken view of the doctrine itself; having no settled character to give to the church, all limitations are cast away. The Apostle Paul, keeping these limitations in view, and expressly stating those which were questioned at Corinth, proceeds to make a direct and powerful application of them to the subject in hand. In that church disorders had arisen which went to dishonour the supreme authority of the Lord Jesus Christ; some claiming to themselves a power and distinction which did not belong to them—others declaring themselves independent on the collective body, as is perfectly evident from the chapter which Dr. M. has quoted. Is the Apostle silent on this dispute? Does he command, does he persuade them to return to a quiet reunion in which the debated question is left unsettled and unimportant? Just the reverse. He expostulates with them on their presumption; plainly intimates who they are that depart from the government and Lordship of Jesus Christ, since these are certainly and only acknow-

187

ledged through the influence of the Holy Ghost—v. 3; severely condemns the separating and independent spirit which some betrayed—v. 15—21; but shows that union and order is to consist in a proper subjection to those whom “God hath set in the church.” See how he recalls them to the faith revealed by the Apostles, and the ordinances instituted by them in the name of God. But is this Dr. M.’s use of the doctrine of the body of Christ? Far from it: He gives it such an extension as will apply to the whole length of papacy, prelacy, or independency. In that church heretical ministers had crept in, and were labouring to “corrupt believers from the simplicity that is in Christ.”* But does the Apostle cover their poison under a vague counsel to “Christian love,” and mislead believers into the impure embrace of a spiritual adulterer? Far from it: He calls them, what they are,† “deceitful workers,” “ministers of Satan transformed into the ministers of righteousness,” and declares that their end shall be “according to their works,” which is the society of Satan, their master, in hell for ever.‡ There were some in that church who said that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” Does the Apostle Paul command them to hush the contentions this heresy produced, as calculated “to cherish among Christians a party feeling,” and “weakening a sense of their union?” Does he command them to return to order and union, under

_____

* 2 Cor. ix. 3.

† 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15.

‡ Matt. xxv. 41.

188

a profession of their faith that shall make it unimportant what is believed concerning the resurrection of the dead, or whether it be entirely “a subordinate doctrine, to be believed or doubted without sacrificing any vital principle of Christianity?” Exactly the reverse: He sets himself to a serious, laboured statement and defence of the doctrine, showing the horrible profanity and desperate consequences of its denial, and the very existence of the gospel to be suspended upon its truth; the shameful nature also of ignorance or error on such a subject, and that it is owing to a criminal intercourse with the profane that its importance can be overlooked.—1 Cor. xv. But is this the use Dr. M. makes of his doctrine of the body of Christ? Just the reverse: He uses it to plead for the union and communion of all professing Christians and churches, with what truth or falsehood soever they may claim the name, and, in this part of his book, is silent on every heresy which may exist; and in that part of it which states the doctrines forming the grounds of communion, fatally for his claims of patronage and support in the Apostle Paul, wholly omits the disputed doctrine of the resurrection of the dead! Nor will it avail one moment here to reply, that the churches, for communion with whom Dr. M. was pleading, are all known to be orthodox: how is it known?—where is it stated?—where are their names given, or their character described? He has nothing, therefore, to plead from the Apostle Paul, who restores order in a distracted

189

church, not by reuniting them all, good and bad—not by disguising heresy in doubtful language—but by pointing out the disputed truth, portraying in its just deformity the error which opposed it, and exhibiting to the righteous the awful character and end of the disturbers and destroyers of the church of God. And to close these remarks, on this entire misunderstanding of both the doctrine and the use of the unity of the church, let us consider the exhortation addressed by the Apostle Paul to the people of God, in this church of Corinth, almost overwhelmed and distracted by factious and heretical men. “Come ye out from among them, and be “ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” On Dr. M.’s interpretation and use of the body of Christ, it would be impossible to understand from among whom we are to come out and be separate, and what we are not to touch. Attend to them both, as exhibited by the Apostle Paul, and you hear in these words the voice of a jealous God, commanding his people to make an open renunciation of all impurity in his doctrine and worship, and promising his everlasting and all-sufficient favour and almighty protection against the scoff and hatred and rejection of the world.

From this most erroneous view of the scripture doctrine, and perversion of its legitimate use, Dr. M. proceeds to “facts,” illustrating and proving the

190

foundation of communion in the church of God:—these are facts in “the history of the church, strictly called Apostolical, i.e. as it existed in the days of the Apostles themselves.” Plea, p. 27. The first to which he refers is “the case of the first converts, who became such under the first sermon after the full introduction of the New Testament economy.” From the brief view which Dr. M. takes of this event he proceeds to the following deduction.

“It appears, therefore, that in the very first precedent for admission to sealing ordinances, and that set under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, the only qualification was faith in the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour of sinners, by the blood of his cross—a faith manifested by a credible profession of his name.”

This last clause seems to have been added to help out or make up something of a terrible deficiency, into which the Author felt he was rushing; but it makes little addition or alteration for the better; “a credible profession of his name,” means so little, and may mean so many things, that it might have been wholly omitted—for it is equally adapted to the mouth of a Socinian, an Arminian, as to a Calvinist. But, if there were any truth in the assertion this paragraph contains—if the Author himself had a serious conviction that this was all, why did he not spare himself and his readers the trouble of such a mass of evidence, and such an examination of principle, in the course of which

191

he not only implies but asserts other and additional qualifications? But let us try it. 1. “The only “qualification was faith,” &c. Now, it is insisted that this is utterly wrong. “Faith” itself is invisible—it exists in the heart—it is capable of being ascertained only by the all-seeing and heart-searching eye of God; but the qualification for admission to sealing ordinances must be such as is capable of being examined by men whom God has appointed to dispense those ordinances—it must be visible or audible, and therefore this qualification has been much better defined, “a profession of faith in Christ,” (adding, also, with great propriety,) “and of obedience to him.” It is the profession and the effects of which they must judge—the faith itself can be known to God alone, besides the person who makes the profession himself. 2. Could a Universalist, an Arminian, desire more? Is not here a relinquishment of almost every thing that is peculiar to the Christian name in the doctrine, worship, and obedience, by which the church is to honour her Saviour and Lord? Such a daring attack on his honour cannot be passed unnoticed—the principle which is here established sanctions the profanation of the seals of the covenant, to “dogs and swine.” Justice to the sacred blood of Jesus Christ—justice to the church of God, purchased by that blood, required of Dr. Mason greater plainness. The meaning of “a credible profession “of his name” should have been fully and clearly

192

explained, when he was attempting to exhibit to the church the great pattern after which all her servants should model their conduct in administering the seals of God’s covenant—a pattern which he himself has warned us, “is set under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”

Will Dr. Mason then assert that all the profession and faith of the church of God was merged in such an unintelligible testimony? Was the faith of the ancient church, concerning the covenant by which she was united to God, and the promise to faithful Abraham, “I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee,” now laid aside, or become of no importance?* Was her faith concerning the person, the offices, the glory, of the now exalted Messiah, unfolded “in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,” of no more moment? Was her faith concerning the precious doctrines of divine grace in the eternal election, the effectual calling, the free justification, and the everlasting inheritance of his people—that, also, of the appointment of the rest of mankind to eternal death, to be for their sin inflicted—were all these of no importance?—did the apostle hide and smuggle them under a falsely named “credible profession?” So far from this, this very sermon of the Apostle Peter, is remarkable for its exhibition of all those

_____

* Dr. M., in this instance, has given the Baptists all the ground they could desire. If his view of this first fact, in the erection of the New Testament dispensation, be correct, there is an end of insisting upon the perpetuity of the ancient covenant.

193

very doctrines which enter essentially into the Christian faith, which have ever been most disputed in the world, but a distinct perception and confession of which constitute the felicity and glory of the church of Christ. Besides, if we go to the writings of this apostle, (first and second epistles of Peter,) in which he must have addressed many now converted, (afterwards among the “strangers scattered throughout Pontus,” &c.) we find him stating, with the greatest force, all these doctrines. The free and unchangeable election of some of mankind to eternal happiness, and the appointment of others to eternal misery—the nature of the graces of the Holy Spirit, and their special and saving communication to the elect alone—the exaltation of Jesus over all power in heaven and earth—the awful nature and the certainty of the day of judgment—are doctrines on which he dwells with peculiar plainness and earnestness, but all of which are passed by in silence by the Author of the Plea.* Now, is it to be believed that the Apostle would have administered the sealing ordinance to any person, on that occasion, who was either ignorant of these doctrines, or who was opposed to them, or who desired to conceal his unbelief of them in doubtful expressions? Such a supposition is utterly abhorrent to his character, to the truly awful circumstances of that whole transaction, and to the history of the church during that

_____

* 1 Pet. i. 2, 5. ii. 8, 9. iii. 22. 2 Pet. i. 1. iii. 7.

194

particular period. The line of distinction between truth and error—between the holy and profane—between the true believer and the hypocrite—was too plainly drawn (as was soon after manifested in the case of Ananias and Sapphira) to allow of such prevarication. That credible profession, therefore, was a profession of the whole system of truth, capable of being stated in few words, concerning the person and offices of Messiah, and the covenant of grace, together with the nature of God, as exhibited in his decrees and works—as this system is held forth, in its different parts, in the sermon and the epistles of the Apostle. Or shall we imagine that the Apostle could, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speak what he did not mean should be understood—or, if understood, what his hearers need be at no pains to believe? Or shall we imagine that, in his epistles, he afterwards surprised them with doctrines which they had never heard, which he had before concealed; or which, when they were written, it was of no importance to understand and believe? The very thought is absurd and impious, in the highest degree. Yet, without this absurd and impious supposition, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that those very doctrines, which Dr. M.’s representation of this event is suited to keep out of view, were certainly clearly understood, believed, embraced and professed by those adults who joined the church on the day of Pentecost.—“The first fact,” therefore, requires only to be examined, to

195

show how wholly it has been mistaken and misrepresented by the Author of the Plea.*

_____

* Here I cannot avoid subjoining a quotation from an Essay on the Church of God, contained in a series of numbers in “The Christian’s Magazine,” commenced at New-York about 1807. Of these Essays Dr. M. is the well known author. Although a close examination will show that they contain the seed which has sprung up in such a plentiful crop of catholic communion, yet it is evident they were written in a better day. “Some think,” he says, on admission to the privileges of the church, “some think that a general profession of Christianity is all which she may exact; alleging, in support of their opinion, the example of the Apostles, who demanded, say they, nothing more than a confession that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God; and therefore they conclude that nothing more ought to be demanded now. But it is not to be denied that this proposition contains the substance of all the doctrines and predictions of the Old Testament, concerning the Redeemer’s person and work.” [The same surely must be admitted in behalf of the Apostle Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost.] “No man could give it his intelligent assent without a knowledge of those doctrines and predictions, nor repose his hope upon their truth without that divine faith which receives the whole testimony of God, and operates with a purifying influence upon the heart and life. The Scriptures refer the existence of such a confession, when not hypocritical, to a much higher cause, and attribute to the confession itself much stronger effects than are even thought of by those who at this day would establish it as the all-comprehending term of Christian fellowship. ‘I give you to understand,’ says Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 3, that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost.’ And John, 1 Ep. i. 5, ‘whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.’ ‘Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?’ It is evident, upon the very face of these passages, that nothing was further from the mind and the practice of the Apostles, than the recognising as Christians, and the admitting into Christian fellowship, all or any who barely assented to the general proposition, that Jesus is the Christ.’ Much less can such an admission be jus-

196

“Another fact occurs in the case of the Ethiopian eunuch. The story is told in the eighth “chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.”—Plea, p. 29. After a brief narrative of the fact itself, we are told that here is another precedent “of a “minister of the gospel acting under the immediate injunction of the Holy Spirit, administering one of the sealing ordinances to a new disciple, upon no other terms than a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”—Plea, p. 30. But the objection to this assertion is again, in the undefined and unmeaning expression, “a credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” in this, as in the former instance, left unexplained, and capable of any extension.

“A third fact occurs in the history of Saul, Acts ix.” And here Dr. M. discovers “the nakedness” of his whole system. The Apostle, he says, having “undergone such discipline and in-

_____

[continued from the previous page] tifiable now, when millions learn, from mere habit, to repeat that “proposition, without weighing its sense, or even comprehending its terms. Christianity is not a thing of rote. And there can be no doubt that multitudes would flock to the church.” [Note—There was a time when Dr. M. thought that a creed which would sanction the access of ignorant multitudes, or enemies to the truth, to the sacraments of the Lord Jesus, dangerous and unscriptural,] “reiterating, as often as you would wish, their belief, that ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ who should, nevertheless, be found, upon strict examination, to be either ignorant or enemies of every truth comprehended in their own creed. This cannot be. Christianity is not chargeable with the madness of cherishing in her own bosom, and that designedly, the seeds of her own destruction.” Christian’s Magazine, vol. 1. p. 274.

197

struction from the Lord Jesus himself, as both changed his heart and qualified him for the apostleship, was admitted forthwith to the sacrament of baptism. Upon what ground?” the Author inquires. “Simply,” he replies, “on the ground of his belonging to Christ. For,” he adds, “on this ground Christ himself placed it. He is a chosen vessel unto me, saith the Redeemer. That the knowledge of this fact was communicated, by revelation, to Ananias, is of no weight in the present argument; for the question is not how we are to ascertain a man’s Christianity.” It is difficult to suppress the indignation such an assertion inspires. Here we behold the Son of God appearing, in a supernatural manner, to establish the claims of a believer to his own ordinances—appearing in this manner expressly to overcome the scruples of a faithful servant—manifesting most plainly the caution and circumspection with which such a step is to be taken—and that it is of material consequence to be assured of the existence of a lawful claim to the ordinances of his house; and yet we are told that this is of no weight; and in a work going to overturn all established order in admitting applicants to sealing ordinances, “it is not a question how we are to ascertain a man’s Christianity!” Did Ananias think this was no question? Did our Lord Jesus allow him to think so? Did he not overcome the difficulties and scruples of his servant, by a most satisfactory testimony, showing that sealing ordi-

198

nances in reality belong only to those who belong to him, and that of this relation it is lawful and necessary to seek for very satisfactory testimony? It is asserted that this passage discovers the “nakedness” of Dr. M.’s system; for here all the garb of eloquence and argument is cast aside, the true character of his work is disclosed, and we are plainly told, “the question is not, how we are to ascertain a man’s Christianity.” And what, then, shall we think of such a confession! in a work expressly designed to set aside all limitations to communion in the sacraments;—in addition, to cast aside all inquiry into the amount of even a decent substitute? Be assured, reader, that the day is coming, in which the importance of this question will be more highly esteemed than it evidently is with Dr. M. I ask, if the question, how to ascertain a man’s Christianity, is not the very one on which the whole revealed order of the church, and all the duties of church officers, have an immediate bearing; if it is not the very one to which all the exhortations warnings, doctrines and promises of the Scripture point, as to an almost common centre? Is it not a question which must be uppermost in the soul of every true believer, and one which must deeply agitate the mind of every faithful steward of the mysteries of God?—It will not avail to reply, that Dr. M., in the following sentence, refers to the admission of Christian character in other churches—the profane consequences to which that admission is used, have been already

199

pointed out: but here it is carried to a greater length; and, under the covering of a provision for those whose Christianity is allowed, every distinction is not tacitly but expressly laid aside, and every qualification for sealing ordinances done away, by the declaration, in Dr. M.’s Plea for Sacramental Communion on Catholic Principles, that “it is no question, how a man’s Christianity is to be ascertained.”

But it is difficult to tell whether the impiety of the use made of this occurrence, or its absurdity, is the greatest. Here is one of the most memorable circumstances of conversion to the faith—attended by the most striking and overwhelming evidences of the sincerity of that conversion, occasioned by a miraculous manifestation of the Son of God in his glory, witnessed to the scrupulous disciple by the Redeemer himself—used to make it an easy matter to obtain admission to the sacraments, and connected with an assertion which goes to lay aside the importance of all clear and discriminating titles to those sacraments whatever!

“A fourth fact occurs in the case of Cornelius, the first Gentile admitted into the Christian church.” Plea, p. 31. “Our concern,” the Author observes, “is with the concluding scene;” which he then quotes, as follows: “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was

200

poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost: For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord.” Acts x. 44—48. This is followed by a paraphrase of the consequences of this event, in the church at Jerusalem, (related in the following chapter of the Acts,) in which it is not very difficult to discover Dr. Mason’s wish to represent his brethren, in the Associate Reformed Church, in the character of the Jewish brethren, and himself as sustaining that of the holy Apostle, “against whom a complaint is tabled as soon as he appears at Jerusalem.” This complaint is commented on, together with Peter’s defence, and the several principles it comprehends very correctly stated. But, unhappily for Dr. M.’s defence in the Associate Reformed Synod, and his argument in the Plea, there is such a difference between his conduct and circumstances and those of Peter, as renders it a matter of astonishment how he could have possibly mistaken and confounded them.

1. Peter was directed to go to Cornelius, (who had been warned by a messenger from heaven to send for the Apostle,) by a miracle illustrating his duty, and the immediate, evident and infallible suggestion of the Holy Ghost to his mind. Acts x. 3—5. 11—16. 19, 20.

2. Commissioned and directed, as he was, from on

202

high, with a special command in this present case, he still thinks it not unmeet to consider the peace of the church, the feelings of his brethren, and the sacredness of the business in which he was engaged; and therefore he was accompanied by certain brethren of the circumcision, whose testimony would afterwards demonstrate the religious circumspection of his conduct, as well as divine sanction, with which it had been attended. Verses 23, 45.

3. To remove every doubt from the minds of the Apostle and his brethren, the exhibition of the glory of Christ, the Saviour and Judge of the world, was immediately attended by the miraculous operations of the Holy Ghost on the hearers, audible in the “tongues” with which they spoke; perhaps, also, visible in the fiery emblem of his presence—for the Apostle says, “the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.” Acts, xi. 15, with ii, 3, 4.

But will Dr. Mason say that he had the like sanction, that he acted with like circumspection, or that he had like testimony, with the Apostle Peter? I trust he has too great a regard for truth, and too great a horror of blasphemy, to venture upon the assertion. Yet there is an awful approach to it in the hasty application of this great and solemn event to his own argument; an application which, it is to be hoped, in a cooler review, he will relinquish. “Why,” he asks, (page 35,) after concluding the examination of the Apostle’s conduct, stating the acquiescence of his Jewish brethren in the step which he had taken—“Why should it not be so still? Why

202

should not such proof of Christian character in others, no matter whom, as we deem sufficient among ourselves, be at this hour, as it was then, the rule of Christian fellowship on the broadest scale?” There is something that makes the flesh tremble in this sentence. The Apostles received the Holy Ghost, sent down from heaven in his miraculous energies, communicating the gift of tongues, and signifying his presence by created fire resting on their heads. In receiving members into the church they are directed by the power of God—by the same miraculous tokens signifying the divine acceptance of the parties who apply; therefore, we, believing on some grounds that we are ourselves accepted of God, venture on the same grounds, not merely to declare our judgment of the Christian character of others, but, in the name of God, to communicate heaven’s seal of his acceptance to them! This is a bold step. But suppose we should be wrong in our judgment of ourselves? And here lies the fallacy of Dr. Mason’s inference. The Apostle was certain, both with respect to the nature of the evidence, and with respect to the fact it testified. It was impossible to mistake the evidence—it was of the Holy Ghost. The fact it testified, i.e. the divine acceptance, could not be made more plain or more sure: but Dr. Mason dare not rush upon the assertion that his case is of a like nature.

Besides, this most dangerous and irreverent (to say no worse) reduction of the highest external testima-

203

ny heaven can give, to an equality with human judgment, there are two fatal circumstances against it. 1. It puts the evidence of Christian character, and the claims to sealing ordinances, on a par with those which “we deem sufficient in ourselves.” And thus every man who imagines himself a Christian, and believes he has good claims to sealing ordinances, has only to consider the grounds on which he rests this belief in himself, and finding them in another, is at liberty and is bound to consider him in the sight of God as also a Christian, and entitled to sealing ordinances. This is the way Socinians judge—this is the way Arminians judge.* But the only true ground is the Scriptural representation of this character, and these claims—a representation fatal to the judgment of both. No Socinian or Arminian, in principle and at heart, can be saved. 2. Dr. M., in the case adverted to, and in all his reasonings in the Plea, has evidently renounced that proof of Christian character which the members of the Associate Reformed Synod and Church “deemed sufficient among themselves,”—and, therefore, his vindication, on the very principle he has adopted, falls to the ground. That synod and church, in their most solemn ecclesiastical act, declare a primary qualification to Christian character among themselves to be an “approbation of

_____

* If this principle were generally adopted and acted upon, its effects must be a rapid reduction of true religion, and, in a short time, its entire extinction in the world. The most of mankind, even under the light of the gospel, are satisfied with “no proof whatever of Christian character” in themselves.

204

the Westminster Confession of Faith;”* a qualification, however it may be despised or undervalued by secret or open enemies of the truth, of no indecisive nature—it is an evidence that the person who possesses it, is an intelligent lover of the pure doctrines of God’s holy word. Now, it is from this proof of Christian character he has wholly departed.† Is it because he does not find it in himself? This may be—it may be that Dr. M. does not in his heart bear any affection or entertain any esteem for the doctrines of the Westminster Confession, and therefore he may not consider such affection and esteem as any material evidence of Christian character in another. But he was acting as a member of that synod, and was not at liberty to substitute his judgment of Christian character for theirs, and then to plead their sanction for what he had done; his conduct, therefore, has no justification, even from his own principle, and was, besides, a very criminal violation of engagements to God and to the church.

_____

* See Act of Associate Reformed Synod at Greencastle, May, 1799, and form for administration of Baptism, Const. and Standards of that church, page 551.

† Not only in the act adverted to—not only in the Plea for Catholic Communion—but, also, repeatedly in his administration of the Sacrament of Baptism. The form for the administration of this ordinance, in the Associate Ref. Church, prescribes that the minister require of the parents “an approbation of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” &c. This Dr. M., on his own authority, ventured, as is well known to his own people, to change into “an approbation of so much as the parties knew or understood of the same.”

205

And in addition to the total failure of all countenance to his principles and conduct from this memorable event—in addition to the profane and other dangerous consequences of his application of it to his own case and argument—all its counsels, I conclude by observing, are directly the reverse. If it is possible for any instructions to be elicited from facts in the conduct of God’s servants, and from the ways of God’s providence in the church, the following are elicited from this history. 1. That the servants of God are to proceed with the greatest caution and circumspection in all the concerns of his church. 2. That the movements of every individual, however high his rank and great his trust, are to be regarded with the greatest vigilance. 3. That God himself esteems the communication of his ordinances a matter of the greatest solemnity. 4. That he will certainly honour those, by protecting their reputation, who proceed in this matter with care and reverence, while others have only to look for confusion and disgrace, here or hereafter, in the exposure of their prevarication and infidelity.

“A fifth fact,” proceeds the Author of the Plea, “occurs in the history of the reference from Antioch, and of the proceedings thereon by the Synod of Jerusalem. Acts, xv.”

It appears that an attempt to force the observation of the Mosaic law on the church at Antioch, had occasioned very great disputes. To settle the matter, it was determined to refer it to the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. “They,” says Dr. M.,

206

“accepted the reference—took the subject into consideration—condemned the doctrine which had raised the ferment in Antioch—prohibited the preaching of it in future—and, with regard to remaining differences, advised both parties to forbearance and love. Ver. 22—29.” This is spoken like a man accustomed to the phraseology and business of modern ecclesiastical courts, and to very summary methods of disposing of difficult cases. But whoever will take the trouble to read the chapter referred to, will find something of a different complexion.

“Certain men”—ministers of the word, Dr. Mason calls them—“which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised, after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”* Now, it by no means appears that they were “ministers of the word,” but, rather, Jews and strangers to the church, who had falsely assumed the sanction of the Jewish believers at Jerusalem, in order to disturb the church at Antioch. Instead, therefore, of “prohibiting the preaching of this doctrine in future,” these certain men are merely, but formally, disowned, and the church at Antioch assured that no such commission had been given them, verse 24; and, instead of being “advised to mutual forbearance and love, with regard to remaining differences,” not a hint of any remaining differences is to be found, but a prescription to the church

_____

* Acts, xv. 1.

207

of certain things, against which they were to be on their guard. It is truly difficult, therefore, to tell what bearing this narrative has on the question. Dr. Mason follows it by telling us, indeed, “The value of their decision, as a precedent for posterity, lies in its principle. On the one hand, that venerable council would not endure, ‘no, not for an hour,’ the least infringement upon that prime essential of Christianity, the justification of a sinner by faith alone; nor, on the other, would they countenance the spirit of schism and separation, even for the sake of important differences, which left both sides in possession of the substantial truth. On these matters, they enjoined respect to each other’s feelings; they enjoined bearing and forbearing; they enjoined ‘endeavours to keep the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace,’”—and more remarks to the same purpose. But on what he founds them, it is impossible to tell, or where the passage is in the chapter to which he refers, which expresses, or even hints any thing on the subject of remaining differences which required “mutual forbearance,” which exposed them to the danger of “schism and separation”—not one word about “important differences” to be tolerated for the sake of unity in “the substantial truth.” This is all unmeaning, useless parade. The heresy itself was declared to be destitute of their sanction, and its authors were disowned. Will it be said that in the verse forbidding “fornication,” &c.* there is implied this

_____

* Acts xv. 20 and 28, 29. “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, “and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these neces-

208

counsel to mutual forbearance? Such an idea is absurd and profane in the highest degree. Fellowship in the sacrifices to idols was imperatively and uniformly prohibited, as a sin.* Fornication can be considered in no other light—and the prohibition of blood or strangled animals as food, although it has been variously understood, was a precept evidently designed to prevent, at all times, cruelty in the use of God’s creatures.† Sins of this nature, forbidden in the law of Moses—sins of this nature, to all of which, as Gentiles, they had peculiar temptations, they were to guard against, with especial care. But what relation has this to forbearance and love?—to respect for each other’s feelings? Did the holy synod of Jerusalem teach the church at Jerusalem that idolatry, uncleanness and cruelty were to be covered with forbearance, love, respect for each other’s feelings? Miserable thought! Yet, either this must be charged on them, or this argu-

_____

[continued from the previous page] sary things: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and “from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”

* 1 Cor. x. 20, 21. The using, merely as food, what had been offered in sacrifice to idols, was a different thing from that contemplated by the apostles on this occasion.

† It is admitted, indeed, that formerly it had a reference to the sacrifice of the Mediator, whose blood was to be shed in the suffering of death. Yet, as it was given primarily to Noah, it does not belong exclusively to the ceremonial law, but contains a moral principle of perpetual obligation. This sentiment is confirmed by the respectable commentator, Dr. Scott, on Gen. ix. 4. “The eating of blood,” he says, “seems principally to have been prohibited, because blood typified the great Atonement. Yet this restriction might be intended as a check to cruelty.”

209

ment for a toleration of a false religion, pretended to be drawn from the Holy Scriptures, falls to the ground. “The principle,” therefore, which constitutes “the value of this decision,” is one of a nature exactly the reverse of that assumed by Dr. M. So far from establishing the communion of the church on the toleration of “important differences,” the apostles and elders plainly expose the false teachers, as deceivers, “to whom we gave no such commandment”—and point out the legitimate use, and the perpetual obligation, of the law of Moses, in every principle of a moral nature; giving a very seasonable and happy illustration of this great principle, and the importance of a constant adherence to it in every difficulty—that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”*

These are all the arguments which Dr. Mason derives directly from the Holy Scripture. There are others incidentally brought in, of no weight in themselves, and undeserving of a particular consideration, with one exception, which is that contained in the obligation to “Christian love.” The writer of these pages is unwilling to believe himself insensible to the authority and influence of so exalted an obligation. But he apprehends the Author of the Plea has overlooked one of a still higher nature—love to God. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with

_____

* Eph. ii. 20.

210

all thy strength, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment,” said the Prophet of the church.* Whilst “the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” it is always to be held subordinate to the former. It was on this principle that the Eternal son of God himself acted—it was on this principle his apostles and prophets and servants in all ages have acted—choosing to inherit, rather than present comfort or social joys, “the blessings that descend on the head of him that was separated from his brethren,”† whenever the glory of God required the sacrifice. A Christian love which leads to the dishonour of God’s truth, and to the corruption of his church, cannot be a grace of the Holy Spirit, nor can it, however it may deceive for a time, impose any obligations on the followers of Jesus Christ.

_____

* Math. xxii. 37—39.

† Deut. xxxiii. 16.

FINIS.