are to be finally settled in the presence of the Church. This appears from Matth. xviii. 17, 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 2 Cor. ii. 6-8, 1 Tim. v. 20. (2) Such matters are to be finally settled as the act of the whole body, Matth. xviii. 17, 18. In this passage the act of exclusion is spoken of as the act of the whole body. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5, 7, 12, 13. In this passage Paul gives the direction, respecting the exercise of discipline, in such a way as to render the whole body responsible: verse 7, "Purge out the old leaven, that ye maybe a new lump;" and verse 13, "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." From 2 Cor. ii. 6-8, we learn that the act of exclusion was not the act of the Elders only, but of the Church. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (rather, public censure) which was inflicted of many." From verse 8 we learn that the act of restoration was to be a public act of the brethren: "Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm (rather ratify by a public act) your love towards him."
As to the reception of brethren into fellowship, this is an act of simple obedience to the Lord, both on the part of the Elders and the whole Church. We are bound and privileged to receive all those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ, according to that Scripture, "Receive ye one another, as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." Rom. xv. 7.
III.—When should Church acts (such as acts of reception, restoration, exclusion, &c.) be attended to?
Ans. It cannot be expressly proved from Scripture, whether such acts were attended to at the meeting for the breaking of bread, or at any other meeting; therefore this is a point on which, if different churches differ, mutual forbearance ought to be exercised. The way in which such matters have hitherto been managed amongst us has been by the Church coming together on a week-evening. Before we came to Bristol we had been accustomed to this mode, and, finding nothing in Scripture against it, we continued the practice. But, after prayer, and more careful consideration of this point, it has appeared well to us that such acts should be attended to on the Lords days, when the saints meet together for the breaking of bread. We have been induced to make this alteration by the following reasons:—
(1) This latter mode prevents matters from being delayed. There not being a sufficiency of matter for a meeting on purpose every week, it has sometimes happened, that, what would better have been stated to the Church at once, has been kept back from the body for some weeks. Now, it is important that what concerns the whole Church, should be made known as soon as possible to those who are in fellowship, that they may act accordingly. Delay, moreover, seems inconsistent with the pilgrim-character of the people of God.
(2) More believers can be present on the Lords days than can attend on week evenings. The importance of this reason will appear from considering how everything which concerns the Church should be known to as many as possible. For how can the saints pray for those who may have to be excluded,—how can they sympathize in cases of peculiar trial,—and how can they rejoice and give thanks on account of those who may be received or restored, unless they are made acquainted with the facts connected with such cases?
(3) A testimony is thus given that all who break bread are Church members. By attending to Church acts in the meeting for breaking of bread, we show that we make no difference between receiving into fellowship at the Lords supper, and into Church membership; but that the individual who is admitted to the Lords table is therewith also received to all the privileges, trials, and responsibilities of Church membership.
(4) There is a peculiar propriety in acts of reception, restoration and exclusion being attended to when the saints meet together for the breaking of bread, as, in that ordinance especially, we show forth our fellowship with each other.
Objections answered.
(1) This alteration has the appearance of changeableness.
Reply. Such an objection would apply to any case in which increased light led to any improvement, and is, therefore, not to be regarded. It would be an evil thing if there were any change respecting the foundation truths of the Gospel; but the point in question is only a matter of Church order.
(2) More time may thus be required than it would be well to give to such a purpose on the Lords day.
Reply. As, according to this plan, Church business will be attended to every Lords day, it is more than probable that the meetings will be thereby prolonged for a few minutes only; but should circumstance required it, a special meeting may still be appointed during the week, for all who break bread with us. This, however, would only be needful, provided the matters to be brought before the brethren were to require more time than could be given to them at the breaking of bread.
N.B. (1) Should any persons be present who do not break bread with us, they may be requested to withdraw, whenever such points require to be stated, as it would not be well to speak of in the presence of unbelievers.
(2) As there are two places in which the saints meet for the breaking of bread, the matters connected with Church acts must be brought out at each place.
IV.—QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE LORDS SUPPER.
(1) How frequently ought the breaking of bread to be attended to?
Ans. Although we have no express command respecting the frequency of its observance, yet the example of the apostles and of the first disciples would lead us to observe this ordinance every Lords day. Acts xx. 7.
(2) What ought to be the character of the meeting at which the saints are assembled for the breaking of bread?
Ans. As in this ordinance we show forth our common participation in all the benefits of our Lords death, and our union to Him and to each other (1 Cor. x. 16, 17,) opportunity ought to be given for the exercise of the gifts of teaching or exhortation, and communion in prayer and praise. Rom. xii. 48, Eph. iv. 1116. The manifestation of our common participation in each others gifts cannot be fully given at such meetings, if the whole meeting is, necessarily, conducted by one individual. This mode of meeting does not however take off from those, who have the gifts of teaching or exhortation, the responsibility of edifying the church, as opportunity may be offered.
(3) Is it desirable that the bread should be broken at the Lords Supper by one of the Elders, or should each individual of the body break it for himself?
Ans. Neither way can be so decidedly proved from Scripture, that we are warranted in objecting to the other as positively unscriptural, yet—
(1) The letter of Scripture seems rather in favour of its being done by each brother and sister, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. "The bread which we break."
(2) Its being done by each of the disciples, is more fitted to express that we all, by our sins, have broken the body of our Lord.
(3) By attending to the ordinance in this way, we manifest our freedom from the common error that the Lords supper must be administered by some particular individual, possessed of what is called a ministerial character, instead of being an act of social worship and obedience.
[Before brother Craik and I left Bristol for the consideration of the above points, things wore a gloomy appearance. A separation in the church seemed to be unavoidable. But God had mercy, and pitied us. He was pleased to give us not merely increased light, but showed us also how to act, and gave us a measure of wisdom, grace and spiritual courage for acting. The clouds were dispelled, and peace was restored in the church.]
While
