Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

5. As to Judas's communicating, fee Gillespie, and what he fays against Judas's being a partaker in the Lord's supper. Yet let us fuppofe, that Judas "did eat of that bread, and "drink of that cup;" was not Judas then fuch a person, in the eyes of the difciples, that when the Lord told them, "one "of them fhould betray him," they fufpected every one himfelf rather than Judas? And though the Lord had told them before, that one of them was a devil; yet none of them, for ought we hear, suspected Judas, or could know, from any thing that our Lord faid, that it was he, till fuch time as he had received the fop, and immediately he went forth; fo that the dilciples were called to no further communion with him, after he was thus difcovered to the beloved difciple. Our Lord, who alone knew their hearts, knew from the beginning who should betray him." Notwithstanding this, he made him an apoftle. No man would by this justify our fetting apart of one to the miniftry, whom we know certainly. to be a devil and a traitor: neither will his admitting him to the fupper, (which it can never be shown that he did), who, before his all-feeing eye, was a devil, give ground to his difciples to admit thofe, or to communicate with thofe, whom they know to be fuch, judging by what appears to man's eye.

[ocr errors]

Our Lord, in giving the fupper, acted as the prime minifter of the New Teftament, giving a pattern to his mi nifters to follow in that matter; and none of them can copy after him in his omniscience. He hath not given them the key to mens hearts, but referved it to himself, and left them to judge by what appears to them, according to his word.

The net, containing good and bad fish'together, may some way answer unto the cafe of Judas's being among the difciples. That parable speaks of people gathered out of all nations into fellowship together, by the influence of the go. fpel; and not by fuch influence as has made many pass under the Chriftian name, that never felt any thing of the power of the gofpel gathering them with the people of Chrift, unto the great reproach and dishonour of that name, which at first belonged to none but difciples, made fo by the hand of the Lord with the gofpel, and gathered together by means of the gofpel, upon an appearance of the grace of God in them. See Acts xi. 19.-26. But there is another thing intended in the parable of the tares and the wheat; as is to be seen in the letter published by Walker.

As to what is faid of the words of the inftitution: 1. I can. not approve of the ftyle, fpeaking as if Chrift's blood had been

D d 2

fhed

fhed conditionally for the remiffion of fins, and the condition repentance, with its fruits, and fincerity; and as if Chrift's blood, while faid to be fhed for men conditionally, became abfolute to them that fulfill the condition of repentance and fincerity. Neither can I think, that those who are pleased with fuch a flyle will be able to maintain, that all ought to partake in the Lord's fupper, to whom they think that may be faid conditionally, "This blood was fhed for you, for "the remiffion of fins;" for that, they think, may be faid to all mankind, without exception. 2. Neither am I fatisfied in what he says of the apoftles fpeaking of the major part in the churches: for I cannot be certain, that the major part in these churches were true believers and fincere penitents; or, if he will have it, that the major part in these churches were real believers. What manner of churches, then, were they? It is not easy to fuppofe, that a church made up ac cording to the scope of this paper, will confift, for the most part, of real believers. I have better ground to think, that the apoftles fpeak not of them, as feeing their hearts, and finding the major part real believers; but in the judgment of charity, upon the outward evidence they all gave "of faith "in the Lord Jefus, love to all the faints," and the Chri ftian hope. Sure the Apostle speaks not of the major part of the church of the Theffalonians, 2d Epift. i. 3. If we look to the two prime Chriftian churches, Jerufalem, the first of the Jews, and Antioch, the first of the Gentiles, we shall fee of what fort of perfons they were made up, and that there was no fearching of hearts in the cafe, but a pofitive judgment of charity upon what appeared. And certainly the firft of a kind is a very good rule for all that follows of the fame kind. See Acts ii. 37. 40. 41. 42. and Acts xi. from

19. to the end. According to this judgment of charity, this could have been faid of Judas, and the difciples could all have held communion with him upon that footing. As for what appeared about him to the omniscient eye, the difciples had nothing to do with that; and our Lord gave not his ordinance after the rule of his omnifcience, and his judg ment thereby, but in such a manner as might be imitated by his fervants in all ages. Yet, for my part, I fee nothing that should move me to think, that Judas was a partaker in that ordinance. There appears to me no ground for fuch a thought in the evangelifts. And by what is above faid, you may perceive how little ground there is for all this noise a bout Judas, even fuppofing him to have been a partaker.

After

1

After all that the author of this paper has faid to the contrary, he is ftill for a feparation in this matter of communion in the Lord's fupper; but he leaves the marks in the dark, as a fecret to be kept among the clergy, to whom he commits the whole affair: fo that we are to forbear communion with none in the Lord's fupper but fuch perfons as have a public mark fet upon them by them, authorifing us not to eat with them; and if they neglect to do their duty, in separating from that holy table such as ought to be separated from it, there is nothing left to the people in that cafe, but to follow them, and hold communion in that ordinance with as many as they think fit to admit. But feeing the author of this paper is against the admiffion of all to that holy table, I would defire to know, if he hold this only as a com. mon prevailing opinion, which he thinks reasonable, or if he himself be fatisfied in the truth of it, upon fcripture evidence? And if he confider the fcripture-evidence for it, I am mistaken if he do not find, that the people, the communicants, have a concern in it, and a duty incumbent on them about it, as to which they must be anfwerable to the head of the church, as well as their officers, and that they fhall bear their own burden with refpect to this, as well as they. I fhall freely own to the author of this paper, that if the overfeers of the communion of Chrift's difciples would do their duty in this matter, the people would have no just ground of offence, and would be "tranfgreffors of the law "of Chrift" if they gave their overfeers any disturbance in that matter, and fo ought to be marked: "For God is not "the author of confusion," in the churches of the faints. And, on the other hand, if the overseers of the church openly neglect their duty in this matter, I reckon he must also agree with me, that the difciples of Christ have a judgment of discretion with respect to those with whom he commands them to "walk in brotherly love" and Chriftian communion, and those from whom he commands them to turn away, and withdraw themselves; and that it is in the power of none to oblige them to hold communion in the Lord's fupper with any from whom he obliges them to withdraw.

We have had fome confiderations, on the one hand, tend. ing to make us eafy with whom we communicate, and to encourage us to continue in promifcuous communion in the Lord's fupper; and there are alfo fome confiderations, on the other hand, that serve to fatisfy us, that it is our duty to forbear communion in the Lord's fupper with them that have

no

no appearance of being difciples of Chrift, believers in him, and are not objects of that brotherly love required in the new commandment; and to withdraw, in that ordinance, from every brother walking in open notour difobedience to the commands of Chrift, and to feek after fuch communion in that ordinance as the Lord requires in his word, and in his new commandment.

1. They that believe there is fuch a thing as Christian communion, and a visible communion of faints by profeffion, must acknowledge, that the Lord's fupper is the highest instance of that communion. It is peculiarly defigned for this beyond any other ordinance of worship in a vifible church: for in our eating of that bread and drinking of that cup toge ther, we have the clearest and most evident outward reprefentation made to us of the glorious myftical union and commu. nion in the body of Chrift myftical. Our myftical union and communion with Chrift is evidently fet forth to the believer in this ordinance; fo that the believer, in eating of that bread, and drinking that cup, may know the riches of that glorious mystery, John vi. 56. 57." He that eateth my flesh, and "drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." And, at the fame time, the myftical union and communion of the members of Chrift, in him crucified, is evidently set forth to the believer in our partaking all of that one bread and cup. I Cor. x. 16. 17. "The cup of bleffing which we bless, is "it not the communion of the blood of Chrift? The bread "which we break, is it not the communion of the body of "Chrift? For we being many are one bread, and one body: "for we are all partakers of that one bread." If it were not fo, why might not the Lord's fupper be given where there is but one to receive it, as well as baptifm? Now, if it be so, that there is, in that ordinance, an outward reprefentation made of the glorious myftical union and communion of the members of the body of Chrift, how is that reprefentation made to the believer, if it be not in the apparent members of Chrift their partaking together in that one bread and cup of bleffing? Thus they that partake together in the " cup of "bleffing which we blefs," and in that "bread which we "break," must look upon themselves, if they would difcern what is fet before them in the ordinance, as very nearly re lated to one another, even as one bread and one body; and this by their being all partakers of that bread and cup which is the communion of the body and blood of Jefus Chrift. Now, in a mixed communion of apparent members of the

body

body of Chrift, with them that have no appearance of being members of that body, this bleffed representation of the glorious union and communion in the myftical body of Christ is deftroyed; and further, we become as much one body and bread with them that appear not be members of Christ, as with them that do, as far as our partaking in that one bread can make us fo: and how much this is confiftent with the nature of the ordinance, and the graces that ought suitably thereto to be exercised toward Chrift, and toward one another, in it, we may fee by what has been said. This was the doctrine of the reformers. See the Palatine catechifm, qu. 76. and 77.

"What is it to eat the body of Christ, and to drink his "blood that was shed?

"Anf. It is not only with certain affiance of mind to lay "hold on the whole paffion and death of Chrift, and thereby "to obtain forgiveness of fins, and life everlafting *; but "alfo by the spirit of Chrift, which dwelleth at one time both "in Chrift and us, in fuch fort more and more to be united "unto his holy body+; that although he be in heaven and we upon earth, yet, notwithstanding, we are flesh of his "flesh and bone of his bone; and as all the members of "the body are quickened and governed by one foul, so are we all by one and the fame spirit ||.

[ocr errors]

"Quest. 77. Where hath Chrift promised, that he will as "certainly give unto the believer his body and his blood in "this manner to be eaten and drunk, as they do eat this "bread being broken, and drink this cup?

"

"Anf. In the institution of the supper, the words whereof " are these,-1 Cor. xi. 23. 24. 25. 26. Matth. xxvi. 26. 27. 28. Mark xiv. 22. 23. 24. Luke xxii. 19. 20. This "promife is repeated by Paul, when he faith, I Cor. x. 16. 17."

2. We are folemnly called and encouraged by great promises, not to be "unequally yoked together, believers with "unbelievers, and to come out from among them, and be "separated," 2 Cor. vi. from y 11. to the end. Whatever wrong ufe has been made of this place by them that have,

* John vi. 35. 40. 47. 48. 50. 51. 52. 54. 58.

+ John vi. 55. 56. 57. Acts i. 3. 21. 1 Cor. xi. 26. Col. iii. 1. Eph. v. 30. 1 Cor. xvi. 15.

John vi. 57, & xv. 1.-6. Eph. iii. 16. & iv. 15. 16. 1 John iii. 24. & iv. 13.

upon

« EdellinenJatka »