The 133d psalm beginning, Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! has been applied, time immemorial, to the harmony and love of Christians in their churchcommunion. It is so at the present day; and in several churches, particularly in those which most strenuously support the distinction I am combatting, is sung at the conclusion of Presbyterial and Synodical meetings. Now the Translators of the Bible have marked the contents of this psalm as displaying "the benefits of the COMMUNION OF SAINTS." Whether the application is correct or incorrect, makes no difference in the argument. For as it was current in the Christian world, the Translators, by their designation of the psalm, have shewn that, in their eyes, "church-communion," and "communion of saints," mean the same thing. They were forty-seven of the most learned Divines in England; and can hardly be supposed to have mistaken the publick sense of an expression so habitually repeated in the church service. They performed their work between 1606 and 1611.

Dr. JOHN DAVENANT, one of the English Divines at the Synod of Dordt, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, in a letter written about 1634, to JOHN DUREUS, a Scotsman, celebrated for his endeavours to unite the Protestant churches,

thus expresses himself.

"The church of Rome alone has gone to such a high pitch of pride and madness as to thrust out from the " communion of saints," and devote to hell, all the churches which refuse submission to the antichristian yoke of absolute and blind obedience."*

The most reverend and learned JAMES USHER, afterwards archbishop of Armagh, and one of the original members of the Westminster Assembly, preached a sacramental sermon in 1620, before the House of Commons, from 1 Cor. x. 17. We, being many, are one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. In this sermon, he observes, "the Apostle maketh our partaking of the Lord's table to be a testimony not only of the union and communion which we have betwixt ourselves and with our Head, (which he doth in the express words which I have read,) but also of our disunion and separation from all idolatrous worship.

"The effect, therefore, of that which St. Paul in express terms here delivereth, is the communion of saints; which consisteth of two parts, the fellowship which they have with the Body, laid down in the beginning; and the fellowship which they have with the Head, laid down in the end

* SENTENIA D. DAVENANTII, p. 6. Cant. 1640. 18mo.

of the verse." In expounding the first part, he not only mentions explicitly "both our baptism and our drinking of the Lord's cup," as belonging to the communion of saints, but handles the sin of schism, or "making a rent in the church of God," as a breach of this communion; and he exhorts Christians to "remember that as oft as we come unto the Lord's table, so oft do we enter into new bonds of peace, and tye ourselves with firmer knots of love together: this blessed communion being a sacred seal not only of the union which we have with our Head by faith; but also of our conjunction with the other members of the body" (the body of Christ,) by love."*

RICHARD BAXTER, a holy man of God, of merited celebrity in the church, and contemporary with the Westminster assembly, has, in his treatise entitled A Christian Directory, a long chapter on the nature of church union and communion, which is thus headed, "Directions for the union AND COMMUNION of SAINTS; and the avoiding unpeaceableness and SCHISM."+ His 6th direction is, "Make nothing necessary to the unity of the church, or the COMMUNION OF CHRISTIANS, which God hath not made necessary, or directed

you

to

*P. 2-9. Lond. 1631. 4to.

+ Chap. viii, of said Treatise, Works, Vol. i. p. 590-608.

make so."* Here "church-communion,"

com

munion of saints," and "communion of Christians," are evidently used by Mr. BAXTER as convertible terms; and it is equally evident that in using them thus indifferently, the one for the other, he speaks the language of the church in his day.

Furthermore. The Westminster confession of faith was substantially adopted by the churches of Connecticut assembled, by delegation, at Saybrook, September 9th, 1708. Under this very head, viz. the communion of saints, they have introduced the section we are now considering, with the following variation: "which communion, though especially to be exercised by them in the relations wherein they stand, whether in families or CHURCHES, yet, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus." Note, this "communion" is to be exercised by "saints" in their church-capacity; it is therefore church

communion.

The very same sense continued to be affixed to it long after, and that in the church of Scotland; from which all the parties embarked in this

* IB. p. 601. § 83.

+ A CONFESSION OF FAITH, &c. chap. xxvii. p. 80. New London,

1710. 12mo.

*

part of the discussion are derived. The great and good THOMAS BOSTON, who died in 1732, preached several sermons from 1 Cor. x. 17, which he afterwards reduced into a tract, entitled, "The unity of the body of Christ, and the duty the members owe one to one another." His text is the same with USHER's, quoted above, and so is his general mode of treating it; only he is much more minute and ample than the Irish prelate. The broad doctrinal proposition which he developes and applies, is this;

"DOCT. There is a COMMUNION OF SAINTS among themselves, as being conjoined into one mystical body of Christ declared and avouched by PARTAKERS OF THE SACRAMENTS, especially that of the Lord's Supper, every one for themselves."* And again, he says that "the sacraments are the external bond of this communion." But sacramental communion is "church-communion ;" therefore "church-communion" is "the communion of saints."

Nay, so firmly was this sense fixed in the church, that the excellent JOHN BROWN, of Haddington, even after he had been accustomed to the distinction both in theory and practice, (being, according to his worthy son and biographer, "strict,

* WORKS, p. 291. Edin. 1767. fol.

+ IB.

p. 294: