of the Corinthian church, where he accounts all the members faithful, and would have any one forthwith put away, upon his appearing fo as to be accounted otherwife among them. There is no fuch thing appearing in the apoftolic churches, as a faithful remnant wrestling aga.ft a prevailing party of faithlefs men, lying as a burden upon them: far lefs can we perceive in the communion of any of thefe churches, one part looking on another as ungodly, and. that other part looking on them again as hypocrites. In the 2d epiftle, it appears, that the church in Corinth was far from being incapable of the difcipline, and far from being incurable of the evils complained of in the ft. They did not haften to the fupper, delaying to purge out the old leaven. Their diligence in coming together to eat, was not attended with negligence of the called-for repentance, or with putting off the reformation of difcipline till afterwards for the apoftle acknowledges they had obeyed his directions with great carefulness and zeal. But, in that fecond epiftle, (chap. xii. 20. 21.), he again fears, now when he is about to come to them, left he find divifions amongst them, and left he find many impenitent ftill, who had finned before in the way of fleshly lufts. And he had reafon to fear this, from the ear he found them now giving to the Judaizers against him. But does he propofe, that fuch impenitents, if they were found, fhould be tolerated in the communion? See what he fays, compared with what he had faid about the inceftuous perfon in the former epiftle. There he faid, Ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, evours that he that hath done this deed, might be taken away from among you. And here he fays, Left, when I come, my God will humble me among you, and that I fhall bewail, venow, many which have finned before, and have not repented. For that he intends putting away from among them by the exercise of difcipline, is manifeft from the context, chap. xiii. 1. 2. 10. where he tells them, that what he now writes, is to prevent his behaving, when he comes, in the way of cutting of, αποτόμως. Is not this then to fay, that if he thall find fuch as he fears to find when he comes, he will certainly have them cut off? And what were they to be cut off from, if not the communion? Does he then allow the Corinthians to go on in communion with fuch impenitents, if fuch fhould be found among them? When I obferve the churches in Afia, to which the letter alfo also refers for inftances of facts directly in point, furer than reafonings; I am not able to fee any fact to this point at all, either directly or indirectly. It cannot appear to me, that the Lord allows any of thefe churches to go on in communion without repentance, and reformation from those evils among them that he reproves; because he threatens, if they repent not, to unchurch them. And when he finds fault with any of thefe churches, for Juffering the open tranfgreffors he defcribes, or for having them there; I cannot take it otherwife, than that he is difpleafed at their having them in their communion. And they who are thus blamed, are not thofe tranfgreffors whom he would not have there. Shall I then think, that he allows them to go on in communion with fuch tranfgreffors? For what is he blaming them for, if it be not for this very thing? And furely he is not angry with them for the fame thing that he allows. The letter has thefe remarkable words: "Yet it is not made a charge against the fo much commended "faithful, who, though fometimes very few, had to their power withstood, but it feems had not prevailed to caft thefe grofs offenders out, that they had not abstained from "obeying the command in the fupper, even when thofe <evil perfons were there; though it doubtless had been burden to them." Here is a fact made out of a great fuppofitions, fupported by no manner of evidence, but that it feems; and is faid to be doubtlefs, without the leaft foundation in the fcripture referred to, and in direct oppofition to the true fact. And is this to bring inftances in fcripture directly in point, inftances of facts more fure than the reafonings of men, that are endless? In place of bringing inftances against feparation in the ftated cafe, the letter demands inftances of feparation, upon caufes of complaint and charges against churches. from him whofe eyes are as a flame of fire; as if men could either exercife difcipline, or feparate, according to the fight of his eyes who fearches the hearts and tries the reins in the churches. And when thefe causes of complaint and charges ftand in the fight of the churches, we have feen before what he fays of going on in communion, continuing in them, and bearing with them there. It will not be eafy to find a foundation in the New Teftament for a fociety partaking of the Lord's fupper, wherein his rule of difcipline, Matth. chap. xviii. and I Cor. chap. v. cannot be obferved. We fhall not fee any thing like like fuch a fociety in that fcripture, except we turn to the nations treading under foot the holy city, and the court which is without the temple. But as to that fociety, it is faid from heaven, Gome out of her, my people. Such a fociety is no more a church, but a fynagogue of Satan. And you know it is an article of your faith, That fome churches of Christ have fo far degenerated, as to become fynagogues of Satan, Westminster Confeffion, chap. 25. Sect. 5. The churches to which the apoftles delivered the ordinance of the Lord's fupper, could not become fuch focieties till they became incapable of Chrift's difcipline; and then they were no more churches of Chrift, as they were in or near the time of the apoftles. But the argument of the letter proves, if it prove any thing, that Chrift's people ought to partake of his fupper in fuch focieties, and that fre quently. : While the Chriftian churches continued ftedfaftly in the Lord's fupper once-a-week at leaft, the Chriftian difcipline -continued with it as its fence. And there was no occafion for feparation while that difcipline remained, according to the inftitution, receiving the faithful, forgiving the penitent, and rejecting the unfaithful and impenitent, with the confent of the whole church, unanimoufly obeying the law of Chrift in difcipline, as well as in the breaking of that bread. The first thing that ferved to fet afide the primitive frequency of communion, was, the admission of fuch men into the communion as could not be influenced by Christ's command to eat his fupper often for the keeping of fuch as members of the churches, or having them there, muft have been at the rate of tolerating more feldom communicating. The fuperftitious fear of feparation gave way to the prevalency of this corruption. And without this fame dread of feparation (while there was no fear of feparating Chriff's commands) the churches could not be corrupted, as they were by degrees, till they became quite antichriftian, especially in the Lord's fupper and the difcipline. From this corruption of Christianity there never was, nor ever can be, any ftep of true reformation, but in the way of obeying that command of the apostle, From fuch turn away. And what is that but feparation? Yet they cannot well pretend to be obeying this command of Chrift, who are not, as the captives returning from Babylon, Separating themfelves from all ftrangers, to the law of their God, and fo returning to the primitive VOL. IV. 3 A inftitution inftitution of the Lord's fupper, and the difcipline, as they find it written in the fcriptures of the apostles, teaching Chriftians to obferve all things whatsoever Chrift com. manded them, in all times, to the end of the world. You fee, Sir, I have confidered the letter, of which you was pleafed to fend me a copy, cfpecially the both and 61st pages of it; where finding fome things faid, in my view, repugnant to God's holy word, I have, according to the earneft request in the Latin fentence on the title-page, no. tified it by writing to you. And as I fuppofe you not igno rant of the excufe for one perfon, and the reproof to an other, intended in those pages, I reckon you cannot be furprised at my giving myfelf and you the trouble of this I am, Dundee, April 11. 174 9. SIR, Your old friend, &c. 371 A LETTER on the Scripture-distinction between the LAW and the PROMISE. [Never before printed.] i TIM. i. 6. From which some having fwerved, have turned afide unto vain jangling. IN SIR, January 29. 1751. N the paper you left with me I find fome doctrine called new, concerning the Lord Jefus his being the heir of the promise, drawn from the oppofition ftated in the New Teftament between the law and the promife, between works and faith, and between grace and debt; and this without afcertaining the precife meaning of thefe as they ftand in the oppofition. This gives me fome difficulty in apprehending clearly what this new doctrine is: only with refpect to fomething I fee faid of introducing Chrift to the inheritance, not by his fulfilling the law, or redeeming from the curfe of the law, but, in oppofition to that, by a promife to him, and by a faith of his that ftands in the fame connection with that promife, as works do ftand in with the law. It is faid at laft, that the apoftle, in ftating the above doctrine, was aware of the grand objection that would be made unto it, and ftated that objection in these queftions, "Wherefore then ferveth the law? Is the law then against the promises of God? Do we make void the law through faith?" Perhaps I might have received some more light to the understanding of the new doctrine, by the illuftration of the apostle's anfwers to that grand objection in thefe queftions. But, in order to that illuftration, it is faid to be neceffary determinately to eftablish what is meant by the law in revelation, yet this is not done in fetting forth the new doctrine, which arifes from the oppofition between the law and the promise. If the meaning of thefe had been fixed as they stand in the oppofition, we would have eafily underftood 3 A-2 |