Clerical and Church Communion

“The communion of saints” is a high and holy privilege, without which the body of Christ — if it exists — cannot thrive. The extension therefore of the spirit by which it is maintained, is a

‘In this view the Bishop of Winchester has recommended them. Charge, pp. 42, 43. Short and illustrations of the Communion sertice, will give the most intelligent view, both of the ordinance, and of its mode of administration, the want of which is often found a serious hindrance to edification. The grand subject of Christ crucified naturally leads us to explain the nature of the ordinance, the qualifications of worthy participants, both to awaken conviction upon the sin of unworthy receiving, and to grapple with the various perplexing scrupulosities of the young Christian. See 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 32. More generally the great doctrines connected with the knowledge of Christ; such as — union with nim, the free offer of his salvation, the blessings and practical obligations flowing from it — these are in the spirit of our Lord’s discourses and prayer connected with the ordinanr e (John xiv — xvi.) and will draw forth the sacramental graces of faith and love, for the comviction of the professor, and the excitement of the beUever to more habitual and elevated devotedness. Matthew Henry’s well-known and excellent work on the Sacrament will suggest a considerable variety of subject for these edifying meetings. An interesting account of them, and of a general system of instruction relative to the Lord’s supper, is given in Rev. Dr. Bedell’s Life, pp. 98 — 106.

grand means of spiritual prosperity to the Church. As it consists, and becomes effectual, by that which every joint supplieth’”’ — by the links which connect every Member and Minister with his own society, the same means and materials are at hand for all circumstances. Shall we not find, that, a close union with our great Head, and a more connected harmony among the several members, would produce a larger supply of spiritual gifts and grace: and effect the salvation of the Church in God’s own way, by uniting the several members as one body, and making each a medium for the communication of Divine life to the rest?

We shall consider this subject in reference to ourselves and our people.

I. — CLERICAL COMMUNION.

Doctrinal differences have greatly marred our brotherly communion. Even the grand uniting doctrine of the expectancy of our Lord’s coming has set brother against brother, when uncertain speculations have diverted the mind from the heavenly glory of the event.’* Great indeed are the advantages of Ministerial fellowship — such as elucidation of practical difficulties — instruction in the different cases of Christian experience — the correctings of the errors of our own inexperience — obtaining more enlarged views of Scriptural doctrine — communication of Ministerial plans and successful experiments — encouragement of brotherly sympathy, and general interchange of kindly intercourse — mutual excitement to increased exertion — directing a combined effort to any weak or threatened quarter of the church, or to any newly-formed object for the promotion of our Master’s kingdom. Yet we must in this fellowship carefully consider the best means for profit — such as meeting in the spirit of prayer, and under a sense of our responsibihty — avoiding doubtful disputations — drawing with most interest to these subjects, that more directly lead to Christ — and keeping our main object in view in our social intercourse. Stated Clerical Meetings upon these principles are most edifying. The routine however generally needs to be wisely regulated; disciplined, not fettered. They should embrace the two grand divisions of our work — the Pulpit and the Pastoral Ministry — treaicl in separate 2 Had all the discussions on this subject been conducted in the spirit of iVIr. Stewart’i Sermons on the Advent, what a glow of Christian love and heavenly anticipation would have pervaded the church! But would ’ brethren arudge one against another’ on account of the time and circumstantials of the event, did tney reallj, believe — “Behold the judge Btandeth before the door 1” James v. 9.

exercises — the former generally filling up the more regular discussions — the other drawing out supplemental and more free communication. Each member shall be expected to give in rotation the result of matured consideration of the proposed subject — extempore 171 f 07’ m {if he pleases), hut deliberate in substance. Collateral points, naturally arising out of the treatment of the subject, had better be reserved under the direction of the chairman for the close of the meeting, in order to restrain desultory discussion, and to give each member the full opportunity of delivering his own sentiments. Meetings of a holy and pastoral character — thus prudently conducted, would naturally both open and close in the spiiit of Eliot’s suggestion to his brethren on a similar occasion — ‘The Lord Jesus takes much notice of what is done and said among his Mnisters, when they are together. Come, let us pray before we part.’i Massillon characterizes such meetings as ’ those holy assemblies, so calculated to maintain a sacerdotal union among the Ministers, a sacred harmony, in order to animate us individually to the uniform observance of the duties of the Ministry of the Church, and a support in order to clear up, or remove the doubts, or obviate the difficulties of it.2 Such were Archbishop Grindal’s ’ preaching exercises,’ which Lord Bacon pronounced ’ to be the best way to frame and train up preachers to handle the word of God as it ought to be handled, that hath been practised.^ Upon the whole — we may

1 Mather’s Life of Eliot.

2 Charges, pp. 224, 225. The meetings to which he alludes were held in some relicrious house, called the Retreat, and the time devoted to meditation, prayer, exposition of Scripture, and mutual conference. In taking his leave of Massillon, the Writer has been much affected to observe his impressive and awakening truths often connected with most erroneous statements, or with a total deficiency of Christian doctrine.

3 Full particulars are given in Strype and Fuller. They seem to have consisted of meetings of Clergy within large districts, under the presidency of some experienced ]Minister, to discuss seriatim passages of .Scripture previously proposed — always commencing and ending with prayer. Lord Bacon (Treatise concerning the Church) recommends their adoption in the Universities. Queen Elizabeth, influenced by her favourite, the Earl of Leicester, put them down by an arbitrary enactment, and in opposition to a most noble and Christian protest from Archbishop Grindal. They were, however, partially revived in the next reign by the connivance or encouragement of Archbishop Matthew. Archbishop Tenison enlarged and improved the design. His circular letter, April 6, 1G99, (quoted by Dr. Woodward — account of Religious Societies, ch. iv.) gives the following excellent advice. ‘It were to be wished, that the Clergy of every neighbourhood would agree upon frequent meetings to consult for the good of religion in general, and to advise with one another about any difficulties that may happen in theirparticular cures — as, ‘By what methods any evil custom may most readily be broken 1 How a sinner may most effectually be reclaimed 1 And in general, how each of them in their several circumstances may contribute most to the advancement of religion”? ‘Such consultations as these, besides the mutual benefit of advice and instruction, will be a mutual means to excite the zeal of some, and reduce the over-eagerness of others to a due temper, and to provoke all to ;i religious emulation in the improvement of piety and order within their respective

Earishes.’^ Bishop Burnet (Past. Care, ch. viii and in our own time Bishop Burgess ave sanctioned these meetings. Herman of Cologne had combined Archbishops Grindal’s .nnd Teiiison’s plans in his system of Reformation. See his work, ut supra, fol.273. Would not periodical or occasional meetings of Christian Ministers for social prayer &xconclude, that Ministerial union in confidence, counsel, prayer, and service, by every practicable means, will always operate with most beneficial energy upon our work.

n. — CHURCH COMMUNION.

The Scriptural idea of the Church is that of one body animated by one soul in the fellowship of the Gospel.’ Its strength lies in the union of its members. This union naturally embraces the whole body of Christ with affectionate interest and constant prayer. Its more definite sphere will be the distinct community, of which the Christian is a member. The means of promoting it among our people, are of diversified, though sometimes of difficult, application.

One point of great delicacy and importance is to set forth the unscriptural principles of separation. No supposition is more harassing to the conscience, than that of a complete Ecclesiastical model given in the New Testament. A Christian finds a want of precise Scriptural authority for certain canons of his Church. He joins therefore some other body, on the first aspect more exactly conformable to the sacred rule. He soon discovers a similar defect in his new system. He looks in vain for a pure and perfect model among the different communities of the visible body; and, after wearying himself with fruitless labour, he is driven at last to form a Church after his own mind — to become a Church to himself. The New Testament gives indeed the general principles of a Church; but nowhere (as in the case of the tabernacle) its minute points of detail. No communion therefore can be formed upon the exclusive basis of the letter of Scripture; because no Church can produce Divine authority for every precept. In fact, we leave the print of our fingers upon every thing we touch — upon those institutions, which are essentially founded upon a sound basis. The “Jerusalem which is above — the Mother of us all” — is the only “Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.”^ It is therefore the mark of a restless theorist, rather than of sober practical wisdom, to insist upon a perfection, unwarranted by Scripture, and manifestly inconsistent with the character of the present disdusirehj, and with a special reference to the outpouring of the Spirit, command a blessing upon their workl Matt, xviii. 19, 20.

1 See Acts ii. 41 — 17; iv. 32. It was one of Pastor Obcrlin’s questions to his parishioners. ‘Do you so love and reverence our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as to feel united in the bonds of Christian fellowship with that flock, of which he is the Pastorl Sec his Life.

2 Heb. lm. 5. Gal. iv. 29. Eph. v. 27.

pensation. To separate therefore from a Church, t?i the main Scriptural, on account of adhering corruptions — is true schis?n — contrary to the example and inculcations of Christ’ — a rent in his mystical body; connected — if at all with conscience — yet with a scrupulous, rather than with an enlightened conscience: and grounded upon self-wiU and self-conceit, rather than upon forbearance, humility, and love.^ Equally wrong is it to make a movement on the ground of expediency, or some problematic theory of usefulness. If it be lawful to remain, it must be sinful to depart. Scripture insists upon the necessity of union. Schisms are justly numbered among the works of the flesh ]^ obedience to ministers is strongly inculcated,* together with the awful guilt of shghting or neglecting them ;» and a solemn mark is set upon those, who, in the indulgence of the flesh, seek a name and party for themselves, instead of “forbearing one another in love” to win souls to Christ.^ And yet the vague apprehensions upon the question of church-membership and union, give a strong advantage to the separatist, and makes it important to compact the spiritual body, as well as to instruct the several members. 1 Cor. xii. clearly marks the fixed oflSce of every member of the body, and their connexion and dependence, both with each other, and with their common Head. The subsequent chapter shews ‘•’ the more excellent way of the bond

1 John X. 23, with Matt, xxiii. 1 — 3. Our Lord never sanctioned, much less directed, separation from the Apocalyptic ‘Churches, though defaced with serious, and even tolerated, corruption. Rev. ii. 13 — 15, 20.

2 Admitting that conscience is concerned — is no regard due to the consciences (possibly equally intelligent) of our brethren, and to the unity of the Church 1 If every point of diflerence remotely connected with conscience must be made a ground of separation, what room exists for the exercise of Christian forbearance? Besides, ’ it is far from sufficient in all cases to act upon conscience — having protessed to commit the matter to God. Has the individual who professes to be following his conscience, taken due care to clear it from morbid scrupulosity, and to inform it upon the full and practical pruiciples of the word of God 1 Has he improved all the resources within his reach of obtaining satisfactory light upon his perplexities 1 Has he been conversant with those — whether the living or the dead — who have pondered over these difficulties with greater advantages than kimself, and who have communicated, or are ready to communicate, their results for the benefit of their sensitive and exercised brethren”? Has he duly considered the responsibility of secession — an influence reaching far beyond himself, in the rending of the body of Christ, and the unsettlement of many sincere and godly minds 1 Without much preparatory painful exercise, this course carries with it the mark of impulse — morbid temperament — precipitation — sometimes we fear of disappointment, self-will, seJf-conceit, with but a small portion of mental furniture, self-discipline, or forbearance. Hence, what eeemed at the crisis to be obedience “to the heavenly vision,” ultimately proves, when repentance comes too late for amendment, to have been an evil moment of the tempter’s aa’antage to contract or paralyze ministerial efficiency, and to canker the principles of Christian peace, consistency, and establishment. It would be well to remember that as much care and responsibility is due to give intelligence to the conscience, as to preserve its tenderness: else its very tenderness will degenerate into scrupulosity, and become the source of serious evil both to the individual and to the church.’ Author’s Preface to Life of M. Boos, pp. XV. xvi.

3 Gal. V. 20. Gr. with i Cor. iii. 1 — 3. Jude 19. * 1 Thess. v. 13. Heb. liiL 17. 5 Luke X. 16. 6 Rom. xvi. 17, 18.

of perfectness.” The connexion of the two chapters teaches us to combine decision in fundamentals, with forbearance in non-essentials — the true spirit of that Church union, which is a grand subject of our Lord’s intercession, and a chief means of conviction to the world.’

Faith and love are the two primary principles of Church communion and Christian stedfastness — the one drawing us all to a common centre — the other uniting us with each other — like the magnet, bringing the several particles to each other, by attracting them to itself. With more definite bearing upon present circumstances — we would recommend the inculcation of practical religion in meekness, humility, and self-denial. This will silently operate, if not in active opposition, yet in impeding the progress of the evil. It is the practical exercise of our principles, which “maketh increase of the body to the edifying of itself in love.”^

Popular expositions of our services may be suggested — ’ not with a view to extol them immoderately, much less to provoke wrath against those who dissent from us; but mildly to answer unjust imputations upon our Liturgy: and chiefly to show the meaning, the reasons, the uses of each part, that the congregation may, as the Apostle expresses it, “pray with the understanding.”* The unmeaning cry — “The temple of the Lord are we”* — excites the ridicule of enemies, without bringing conviction to our friends; but illustrations of the spiritual character, ordinances, and worship of the Establishment, furnish a sound warrant for enforcing a steady adherence to her communion. Such a course of hturgical exposition would produce a style of religion clothed in the beautiful costume of the Church — an exquisite pattern of Scriptural simplicity, holiness and consistency. It may be doubted, whether the obligations to instruct our people in and through our Church ordinances is sufficiently considered. Yet how much might be effected for their settled unity, by expounding their admirablead aptation for their respecU ve ends, by marking the identity of their language with the Bible, thus framing Churchmen and Christians by the same process in the same mould! A more full recognition of our fasts, festivals, and commemorative seasons, would be an edifying means of grace. For this or some collateral purpose, the weekly lecture might often be made available. Such a Ministry would disqualify our people for Dissent, and make the attempt to force it upon them an act of

1 See John xvii. 21. 2 See Col. ii. 1, 2. 3 Eph. iv. 16.

* Seeker’s Charges, pp. 293, 294. For most exquisite specimeus of this expositionsee Life of Geo. Herbert. Life of Rev. S. Walker, ch. v. vi. 5 Jer. vii. 4.

unsuccessful violence. Whereas a course of instruction, equally ap» propriate to the Meeting as to the Church — though not necessarily unsound — is yet defective. Our fold — having no church-barrier, is exposed to the inroads of all kinds of separatists. Our sheep, having no private mark, are easily withdrawn from” the footsteps of the flock.’-i

Let our mode of administration also he dignified tcith the co7isciousness of our high employ 7nent. Let it be marked by a solemn, intelhgent, devotional reading of our services; fixing on them all the interests of our mind, and throwing into them all the exercise of our hearts. Who does not feel the difference between reading, and praying, the prayers? Often from organic deficiencies, or from moral causes, we see the Liturgy of our church lying under the feet of one, who is unconsciously treading upon pearls. A good understanding, correct taste, and most of all a prayerful spirit, is needed to do it justice. The form then, enlivened by heavenly unction, ceases to be mere form; our congregations not only hear, but with edification; they are enabled not only to attend to the service, but also to unite in it.

Frequent communion at the Lords table tends much to unite our people together in the constant remembrance, that they,” being many, are one body and one bread, and partakers of that one bread f and therefore are bound to each other by the most endearing engagements. Sacramental meetings strengthen this bond; embracing (as in all intelligent Christian congregations they ought to do) the main objects of Church communion; uniting in prayer for our personal progress in the Divine life — for our families, unconverted friends, or Christian friends in affliction — for om- congregations, in their different states of ignorance, indifference, or of awakening interest, and consistent profession and enjoyment of the gospel — for our immediate neighbourhoods — for the general spread of the kingdom of Christ throughout the world — and for a holy and joyful anticipation of his second coming. These social meetings embody the exercise of church unity, in its most spiritual, enlivening, and practical operations. As an appendage, stated meetings for united, though separate, prayer for the f)rosperity of the

‘The result of Church principles being kept out of the view of our congregations is — that many members of our church have no distinct consciousness of the church to which they belong. They lose all the benefit of church-union, church-spmpathy, church-disci-Eline. They are isolated and independent beings, instead of parts of a body, linked in a oly partnership with fellow-pilgrims, “every one members one of another.” Their hearts are not “comforted, being knit together in love.’” Bishop of Winchester’s Charge, 1837. Robert’s Call to the Church, p. 52. Some admirable remarks from Bishops Spratt and Bull on this subject, may be found in the Clergyman’s Instructor, pp. 246, o09. 2 I Cor. X. 17.

cliurcli, and special remembrance of afflicted members, have a stron::^ cementing influence.’

he full preaching of the Gospel is however the grand cementing bond. Many dissent, not from choice, hut from what appears to the?n to be necessity. It is a sharp trial to the sincere but unintelligent Churchman, should he mark more holiness of doctrine or life in dissenting communities than in his own sphere. Nor wil the strongest arguments against separation have any force aga nst his appetite for Christian instruction, or convince him that lie is wrong in seeking out of his church what he sometimes may fail to find within. Efficiency and purity of Ministry are therefore a main barrier against schism. ‘Feed your people better, and they will not stray’ — was a Nonconformist’s reply to the complaint of a neighbouring Minister, that he had drawn away his people. The enemy indeed is too successful, even in the most Scriptural churches, in “beguiling unstable souls from the simplicity that is in Christ;” yet the standard of the Gospel is a wall of defence against any material injury.

We may say of our candid and orthodox Dissenters, — “Give them of the fruit of their hands, and let their own works praise them in the gates.”’ Admitting them however to be conscientious, Ave are not bound to hold them to be right; nor must we compromise with them important differences, because they are not fundamental. We would not deny the work of God among them. But we do not by this admission accredit their authority. “Send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.”< Our Lord did not forbid the man who was casting out devils, but he evidently had not given to him — as he had to his apostles — a commission for this work.* And thus, though as a Sovereign he may emp’oy his own instruments according to his own will, yet this does not deteriorate the weight or value of that transmitted commission, which, as the Head of his Church, lie has ordained and delegated with his special authority and promise.^ We would not therefore

‘See Author’s Pastoral Address upon united prayer. (Secleys.)

Eloquence may dazzle, and argument may compel the homage of its intellectual admirers; but it is only, if armed with the panoply of Scriptural truth, that there gather and adhere to the preacher a people, who hunger for the bread of Life, and make a business of their eternity. To Jill the church uell, we must Jill the jndpil well.’ Chalmers’ Sennons at St. John’s Church, Glasgow, p. 392.

3 I’rov. xxxi. 31. Some admirable views maybe found in Burnet’s Preface to Pastoral Care. ‘Recollect that it is possible to defend your own fort, without storming another’s battery. Maintain by Scriptural argument your own principles and practices with modest confidence — but rail not; insinuate no rellection on your opponents; name them not, unless with respect.’ Such was the wise advice of a truly Christian Non-conformist to his pupil. Jay’s Life of Winter. * Ex. iv. 13.

5 Mark ix. 38 — 10, with Matt. x. 5 — 8. Matt, ixviii 16 — 20. 2 Tim. ii. 3.

lower the just claims of an accredited Ministry in comparison of one, whose credentials do not appear — to our perception at least — equally warranted. Yet we would be careful to combine the decision of our own standard, with a forbearing consideration of others. And should we be constrained to ojypose them as Dissenters, we would cease not to love and fray for those among them whom (whatever be their prejudices or misconceptions) we cordially believe to be true servants of Christ. It is best to combine with hearty good-will to other communions a strict adherence to our own pale, and a diligent and thankful improvement of its privileges. Some indeed, as a proof of their expansive love, or rather latitudinarian indifference, would follow all. But this was not the rule of Christ,^ or of his Apostles ]^ nor is it recommended by the experience of its own disciples, who are usually found at the extreme point from Christian stedfastness, and distinguished rather by “itching ears,” than by teachable hearts :^ hearing all, and learning from none: driven forward with zeal, but wnth no judgment to direct their course; pretending to “prove all things,” yet wholly neglecting to “hold fast that which is good.“”

But the rise and progress of the evil should be a matter of self-inquiry. Baxter exclaims — ‘O that the Ministry had been more guiltless of those errors and schisms that they talk against! But it is easier to chide a sectary in the pulpit, and to subscribe a testimony against them, than to play the skilful physician for their cure, and do the tenth part of the duty that lieth upon us, to prevent and heal such calamitous distempers.* The tares were sown, while men sleptJ’^’’ And might we not ask for our own conviction, whether these victims of delusion had been invited, encouraged and cherished with parental confidence; and (while we were jealous of our Ministerial prerogative) whether we laid ourselves out to conciliate their affections, and to condescend to their infirmities? Some indeed, after all, in the heat of their zeal, and the infancy of their understanding, “will turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned unto fables.” Concession to their conceits would bring woeful confusion among us. The most forward would become the governors of the church. One step, yielded for peace

1 Eph. vi. 24.

2 See Mark ix. 38 — 40, ut supra. Though our Lord would not have his disciples/orftid the man, he did not intimate, that they should leave their ovfn master, and follow him. Comp. Prov. xxvii. 8.

3 “Order” combined with “stedfastness,” formed the beauty of the Church of Colosse, and the Apostle’s joy on their account. Col. ii. 5.

2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 5 1 Thess. v. 21.

e Reformed Pastor. Comp. Hos. ix. 8. “> 3Iatt. xiii. 25.

would constrain us to advance, to the grievous discredit of our Miu” istry, the wounding- of our conscience, and the dishonour of our Master’s name. Baxter well remarks — ‘A sinful humouring of rash professors is as great a temptation to godly Ministers, as a sinful compliance with the great ones of the world.’’ Redoubled watchful diligence is the Scriptural rule for these trying circumstances.’

But apart from this sectarian spirit — there is often a want of that ’ mutual society, help and comfort, that Christians ought to have of each other,’ as members of one body; and which would promote the general interests of the Church, as well as the estabfislmient, consistency, and “joyfulness” of her individual members.* Each, in this spirit, would impart to the other the support of brotherly help, counsel, and prayer; “looking not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others;” “bearing one another’s burdens;” “the strong bearing the infirmities of the weak,” and all in their several relations “receiving one another, as Christ also received them, to the glory of God.”*

The Old Testament saints, as well as the Primitive Christians,*’ diligently improved this fellowship for mutual edification.* Thedistribution of gifts and graces was for this purpose.’’ This uuitual commerce (as between different countries) would enable Christians to enrich each other. Seduction and error would be liioresuccessfully resisted. If the enemy’s watch-word is — ‘Divide and conquer,’ — ours should be — ‘Union is invincible.’ The church is ’ terrible’ — not in its single members, but “as an army with banners.”* Brotherly love would be much increased in this system of reciprocal inspection and provocations,^ by a better knowledge of each other’s state, progress, trials, and consolations. The matm-ity of the experienced would confirm the weak; each individual would enjoy the advantage of union to the whole body; and the Minister would have his warmest sympathies awakened, cherished, and enlarged by this fresh medium of acquainting himself with the spiritual state of the members.

Most important is the cultivation of suitable graces for this mutual fellowship; such as sobriety of judgment; lowliness of mind; readiness to acknowledge each other’s gifts and graces; forbearance and encouragement to the young; godly plainness and sincerity;

Cure of Church Divisions, p. 394. Some valuable remarks will bo found on this subject in Cecil’s Life of Cadogon. 2 2 Tim. iv. 4, 5.

3 Union of spirit was the apostle’s great desire for the church of Colosse, as the means of their spiritual consolation. Col. ii. 1, 2.

* Phil. ii. 4. Rom. xv. 1, 7. 5 See Psalm xxxiv. 2, 3. Psalm lxvi. 16. Mai. iii. 16. See Acts ii. 42, 45. See 1 Pet. iv. 10. 1 Cor. xii. 7.

Cant. vi. 10. See Heb. x. 24.

a careful guard against a censorious or controversial spirit: and anxiety to impart only what will advance true knowledge, holiness, and love.

Yet even in the age of primitive simplicity, a harvest of tares sprung up, where better seed had been sown. “Spots there were in their feasts of charity,“’ which made it too evident, that they” came together, not for the better, but for the worse.” The recollection of this abuse even in the best limes, recommends the balance of Ministerial superintendence, to maintain godliness in connexion with due order, and to preserve brotherly love and unity on the solid basis of genuine humility. Mr. Robinson decidedly discountenanced the principle of unrestrained communion in his extensive sphere; and ultimately reUnquished the plan of mutual conference, as being under his circiunstances unnecessary and injudicious.”^

But after all, our want of Church communion operates as unfavourably upon the mass, as the want of Christian communion upon individuals. It affords also plausible ground for separation. The social stimulus of pastoral and fraternal meetings in Dissenting bodies is a strong principle of excitement. An awakened enquirer is too timid to apply to his Minister. Here he is taken by the hand, as if to be “instructed in the way of God more perfectly.*’ He joins their communion, and is lost to the Church. In our body there is too often a want of what Dr. Owen justly calls ’ charitativeepiscopacy’* — that kindly oversight, which obtained among the Primitive Christians. There is nothing to compact the several parts together; to give strength to the weaker joints, to gather out the spiritual from the visible Church; and to unite the spiritual members together, so that they might (like Jonathan and David in the wood) “strengthen each other’s hands in God’”* And therefore the entrance of any irregular or unscriptural excitement proves a sifting time, drawing away the weak and unstable from us. To the system of dissenting communion, we feel decided — though not uncharitable — objections. It seems to forget — that the Minister — not some officer of the church — “is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts,’* — that hi? lips must keep knowledge, and at his mouth they should seek the law.”*’ As “the communion of saints” is the reciprocal intercourse of the body under the influence of their Great Head: so is Church communion the interchange of sympathy

Jude 12.

8 Vaughan’s Life of Robinson, pp. 85 — 88. Compare also Scott’s Life, pp. 494 — 498,

vtioKOKovvTCf. Heb. xii. 15. Hence t1raKoroi.

I Sam. xxiij. 16. s Mai. ii. 7.

among the several members, under the direction, more or less immediate, of him, who stands to them in the place of their head. But why should we not gather, under our affectionate superintendence, assemblies of our people, ready and willing to learn of one another, to exhort one another, and to lift up one another’s hands in humility and love? The test of admission should be — not dec trinai knowledge, gifteJ or sounding profession, or fervid zeal — but (so far as they can be ascertained) •’ simplicity and godly sincerity” of heart and conduct. Circumstances would regulate these meetings within due restraint, yet so as to encourage unreserved communication. The members might propose any subject for consideration, or ask any question concerning Scriptural difficulties, the worship of God, their own experience, their family trials, their duties to their relations and neighbours, books to read — and in short how they may best advance the work of God in their own souls, and in those around them. In small parties, the plan might profitably combine the formality of a religious service with somewhat of a conversational mould.’ Perhaps however the discussion will be best directed rather to Scriptural subjects than personal experience. Experience may be delusive. Scripture is solid substance. The one belongs to us — the other more generally to God and his Church. While therefore conversation on the latter will always be profitable — discussions on the former — unless wisely introduced and cont raided — may be injurious alike to speakers and hearers. Generally speaking-, such matters belong rather to Christian confidence, or secret communion with God, than to meetings of a larger and diversified temperament.

Selection, however, in these meetings is of much importance. It elevates the tone of reUgion in our parishes, by exhibiting the broad

‘When the Writer first offered this surrgestion, he was not aware, that it was a Puritan practice. According to their plan — The question was given out, and answers were required; from whence arose a free and unreserved conversation; in the course of which the Minister would help, as he saw occasion; restraining the parties in the path of the discussion from encroaching upon his office. At the conclusion of the conference, he gathered in their scattered sentiments, confirmed and applied thcni liy suitable Scriptures and remarks. See Life of Mr. T. Wilson in Clark’s Lives, Vol. iii. p. 3;{. His own Life, prefixed, states the advantages of these meetinffs. Prrf t. 5. Interesting specimens may also be seen in Philip Henry’s Life, pp. 41, 42, 349 — 351. His excellent son introduced them also into his congregation, for the use of his young people, himself always presiding. He appears to have had a similar hut less restricted meeting among the older membe”rs of his Church. One of his prayers before the sacrament proved his interest in these meetings — ‘That which I desire particularly to receive from the Lord at his table to-morrow, is wisdom for personal conference about matters of religion.’ Life, pp. 134, 135. Mather also gives an interesting sketch — Essays to do Good, pp. 87-91-. Baxter remarks the necessity of social meetings to preserve unity among our jieoplc; but seems to insist on the necessity of Ministerial controul. Reformed Pastor. Where, however, these meetings cannot be systematically held, occasional gatherings of ourChurch, as circumstances might suggest, for special prayer and exhortation, would strengthen the mutual bond.

‘120 VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRV:

line of separation between the Church and the world. The exclusion also of unworthy members shuts out a large mass of in cor sistency, which would be readily transferred to the collective body; while the union with those, whom in judgment as well as in charity we acknowledge as brethren, spreads a truly dehghtful atmosphere of love and sacredness over the assemblies. Such Societies are well calculated to enlarge our interest in the sympathiea and prayers of our people. Nor will they be less profitable to the several members, as a bond of union and wholesome restraint: exciting them to watch over each other with brotherly love, and over themselves “with godly jealousy,” recollecting the responsibility of their character before the Church and the world, as men)bers of a Christian body. Yet if a society, so fenced in, be thought to endanger the humility of its luembers on one side, and their charity on the other; the same system might substantially, and less offensively, be formed upon the principles of more open communion. A general invitation to our communicants would exclude no credible professor. Yet the spiritual character of these meetings will generally preclude the attendance of unspiritual professors; while their non-attendance will be self-exclusion, and consequently without any plausible ground of offence. And even the few, who might intrude to preserve their name in the church, though they will partially interrupt harmony and confidence, yet may hear much for their personal conviction, their forwardness being repressed by firm and judicious restraint. The more spiritual and practical, however the tone of these meetings, the less will they accord with their taste, and the more speedily will it hasten their retirement.

Mr. Walker of Truro organized Societies for Church communion, after Dr. Woodward’s pattern, upon this principle of fostering controul, with admirable wisdom and effectiveness.’ The objects however

1 Mr. Walker’s object was, to excite among the serious members of his congregation a particular interest in each other’s spiritual welfare; that they should watch over each other, exhort, reprove, encourage, as brethren and sisters in the faith of the Gospel. He formed a weekly meeting of communicants, of tried religious profession; separated into two classes; one of unmarried men; another of married men with their wives, and other females of the Society. They met alternately every other week. — The whole society was under his own superintendence as Director — regulating all their business (such as the admission and exclusion of members; making new rules, t&c.) presiding in the meetings or prescribing for them a form of proceeding, when unavoidably absent. They began their meeting with a form of prayer, exhortation, and singing. Connected with this, were smaller assemblies at their own houses in rotation, for more free communion with the same separation of unmarried and married members. For the direction of these meetings Mr. Walker drew up most admirable regulations. He described the general objects of these Soi-ieties in his first address to be — 1. To glorify God. 2. To be quickened and confirmed themselves. 3. To render them more useful among their neighbours. The members were pledged to faithful mutual superintendence; each to consider himself as •’his brother’s keeper;” to be bound not to “suffer sin upon each othjer,” nor to allow it of these associations (details of which are given below) being distinctly spiritual, it was evident that they could be preserved only by the spirituality of the members under the prompt vigilance of

‘Ji themselves; to be strictly circumspect in their lives; separate from worldly custtiiii and practices; walkinjT in humility, meekness, heavenly-mindedness, and love; and ot’ten considering it as a motive to holiness, that they belonged to a society, whose avowed object was the promotion of the glory of God.

The rules of these Societies were formed upon the trae principles of the Gospel. Their strict separation from worldly amusements was inculcated upon the ground of their being disciples of a crucified Saviour. Their watchfulness over each other was directed to spring from watchfulness over their own hearts, lest there should be ‘the least decay of love to Christ, or of zeal lor his honour and the good of souls there. The obligation and privilege of mutual intercession were inculcated. They were warned amiinst “disgust at those, who exercised towards them the duty of Christiiui faithfulness and love. And the remembrance, that their very fellowship with a Society professedly Gliristian would tend to foster spiritual pride, suggested strong and repeated exhortations to humility and self abasement.’ See the valuable Life of Mr. Walker, prefixed to his Lectures on the Catechism, pp. XXV. — xlviii. Sidney’s Life, chap. iii. Comp. also his excellent Collection of Tracts entitled ‘Practical Christianity.’ To give this work a practical character, we add a digest of JMr. Walker’s rules, simplified for more general application. I. That these meetings be under the direction and superintendence of the Minister present. H. That all the members pray especially for their Minister, and for the Divine blessinir on his preaching, and on all the means of grace, as well as on these meetino-s. IH. That, besides these meetings, the members endeavour to meet in smaller numbers as early as possible on Sunday morning, to pray for the special outpouring of the Holy Spirit. IV. That the heads of families adopt tiunily prayer in their own houses; without which no Church unity or Christian love can be expected. V. That they depend solelv on the Holy Spirit through the mediation of Christ, to excite, advance, and perfect all good within themselves and others. VL That they be particularly kind to each other, as fellow-members of the same family, and united to the same Divine head; and that they cultivate the spirit of wisdom, forbearance, and love to Christians, who dilfer from them in smaller matters; as also to those, who may oppose the Gospel or themselves. VH. That all prying curiosity into their neighbour’s aflairs be avoided; but that all be encouraged to mention any hopeful sign they may see in them. VHL That in the spirit of meekness and humility,” each esteeming other better than themselves,” they do tVeely and affectionately warn each other of their faults; and that they be ready also to ’ confess their faults one to another.” IX. That all do consider the solemn responsibility of being communicants at the Lord’s table, and earnestly endeavour to “adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things” — in life, temper, and conversation. X. That no conversation passing at these meetixigs be disclosed elsewhere, except to the members of the Society, who may have been unavoidably absent. XI. That these meetings may answer the intended purpose of Christian fellowship, each member should attend constantly, and be present precisely at the hour of meeting. From the Rules of a religious Society, (which appears to have worked well upon more exclusive principles), we extract the ibllowing — chiefly relating to its administration — ‘That the object of this meeting is to promote a spirit of decided piety in its members, and to unite them closely to eacTi other in Christian affection and fellowship — That the principal means i)roposed be the singing of a Psalm or Hymn, offering up prayer, and expounding the Scriptures; which two last exercises shall be conducted solely by the Minister. The members shall however severally be at liberty in succession to select the Scripture for exposition at the next meetinir — That the member, whose turn it may be to

name the subject for the next exposition, shall also be at liberty to put any question for advice in any case, or for information on any subject, whether connected with the individual soul, or with the general cause of God, which question shall be answered after the exposition at the next meeting; and at the close of the meeting, any member may request through the medium of the Mini.ster a special interest in the prayers of the other members, when particular circumstances seeni to require it — That in case a member should wish the subject not to be made a topic of conversation elsewhere, it must be introduced as confidential, and the members will be exptrted not to betray the confidence so reposed in them — That any member wishing to propose a candidate for admission, shall make such ])roposition privately to the Minister after the meeting is over; when any of the members may also stay for the purpose of consulting him on any private matter, which could not have been introduced with propriety in the presence of the neetinij — That, should a member be guilty ot’ any scandalous ollence, his Game shall .-e erased from the Register book of the Society at the time of meeting; the the Director. Without this constant security the form only would remain. Yet under Mr, Walker’s wise and efficient care, their influence was maintained with much edification in a large sphere, and for many years after his Scriptural doctrines had, unhappily for the people, ceased to be delivered from the pulpit.’ While the importance of mutual confidence and help cannot be denied; yet to secure the advantages without the attendant temptations and inlets to evil, is a matter often of most perplexing exercise. Sound judgment is indeed greatly needed for the management and effective application of this social system. The junction of Ministerial controul with confidence offers, upon the whole, the best promise of attaining that “Christian communion,” which (as a Puritan Minister justly remarked) “keeps our religion in breathy and without which it will he ready to die.”