provided for in the faid act, but only in general terms, we fhould judge it fufficient for fuch questions, that they were fully provided for in fome previous acts, or that general rules were laid down in other laws which might be applied to the particulars in question; and in many cafes the common ufages of the country alone would determine. This inftance I apprehend will ferve in fome meafure to illuftrate the cafe of thofe pofitive inftitutions which the gospel enjoins upon us Chriftians. The fcripture is not fo full and explicit with regard to any of them, in thofe paffages which enjoin them, as would be fufficient to give an utter ftranger to christianity any clear ideas at all about them. With regard to the obfervation of the firft day of the week as the christian Sabbath; tho' it fo generally obtains in the christian world, we are fo far from having all circumftances with respect to it fully determined for us in the New Teftament, that there is no express precept for the change from the feventh day, or for obferving a Sabbath at all. In vindication of the ufage therefore we are obliged to adopt a rule for interpreting scripture different from that which you have prescribed, which allows of more room for the exercise of our reafoning powers. The cafe is much the fame with regard to Baptifm. There is fo little determinate in fcripture concerning the Mode of it, that it has been the matter of long and warm contention in the church. Nor are we more expressly acquainted who are the proper Subjects of baptifm. There is nothing in the words of the inftitution, nor in any after accounts of the administration of this rite, refpecting the baptifm of Infants there is not a fingle precept for, nor example of, this practice thro' the whole New Teftament. By the rule therefore on which you have proceeded in interpreting fcripture, we must be obliged to give up the caufe of Infant-baptifm: I fhould be glad to know, Sir, how you, confiftently with B 4 this, this, can maintain it. * To plead the liberty of reasoning from the nature of the Ordinance, or from certain data laid down in other parts of fcripture, or (with Dr. Taylor) to build the whole argument on the Abrahamic covenant, is in fact giving up the point in debate between us; it is faying, "that in order to understand the nature &c. of a pofitive inftitution, we are not obliged to confine our enquiries to thofe particular paffages of fcripture which immediately relate to it," which is granting all that I am pleading for, and from which conceffion it will be eafy to prove that your account of the Lord's Supper is a very partial one; unless you will affert that this ordinance fo effentially differs from the other two which I have mentioned, as to require a different rule for interpreting fcripture in order to understand it. But I cannot fuppofe you will be unreafonable enough to make fuch an affertion. This and the other pofitive institutions most evidently appear to be, in this respect, exactly upon the fame footing. With regard to this as well as the others, there are many circumstances left undetermined in thofe fcriptures which immediately relate to the fubject, which are indeed abfolutely neceffary to be determined fome way or other, by every communicant for himself at least, in order to render the ordinance a reasonable service, or indeed, to its being celebrated at all. In the paffages you have quoted as containing all that the New Tefta. ment fays concerning the Lord's Supper, we have no account of the Perfon whom we are to remember in this ordinance (excepting that his name is barely mentioned) we are not told what was his character, 'what were his pretenfions, and in what N. B. The reader may fee the force of this reafoning, by perufing a Series of Letters on the fubject of Baptifm, written by a fenfible and candid Anti-pædo-baptift, addreffed to Bishop Hoadly on the plan of his Plain Account; which, if that plan be allowed juft, must be owned unanswerable. view view we are to remember him; nor are we here acquainted with those important facts relating to him, the knowledge of which lies at the very foundation of christianity. How then can these paffages, 'of themselves, be fuppofed to give us a compleat knowledge of this inftitution? In order to obtain it therefore it is plain, we are to confider these paffages in their connection with the other parts of the New Teftament where these interesting facts, reprefented by this ordinance, are fully related. Further; in thofe texts which you fay are the only ones from whence our ideas of the Lord's Supper are to be derived, there is nothing faid concerning the perfons by whom this rite is to be celebrated, whether they are to be both male and female (and men only were prefent at the first inftitution) nor at what age they are to come to it, nor how often. Nor are we told at what time of the day it is to be adminiftered, nor by whom; nor what quantity of bread and wine are to be received, nor in what posture. Tho' it be allowed fome of thefe queftions are but trivial, they must be determined one way or another in order to celebrate the ordinance at all. But how fhall we determine upon them? The answer is obvious. Common fenfe is fufficient to decide with regard to many of them, and reasoning from analogy, from the nature of christianity in general, and of this ordinance in particular, will enable us to judge with regard to others. It does not appear to me, any reflection upon the wife author of this inftitution, that he has left fome particulars of it fo indeterminate, and that he has hereby left fo much room for us to exercise our reafoning powers: it is rather a proof of his wifdom in his conduct towards reasonable creatures. In other cafes I apprehend, Sir, I fhould have your hearty fuffrage for fpeaking in this manner, and why not in the prefent? But I have often had occafion to ob ferve ferve a frange inconfiftency in fome of you very rational gentlemen in your decifions with regard to the authority of fcripture, and the use of Reafon : In fome inftances we must be tied down to the very letter of fcripture and denied the liberty of reafoning upon it, while in others, Reafon is all in all, and even the exprefs declarations of fcripture must be forced to fubmit to it. The like conduct in other perfons would be accounted for, only upon the fuppofition, that they were determined at any rate to ferve their own particular purposes. Having thus attempted to thew the weakness of your foundation, I might now proceed to examine the fuperftructure which you have built upon it. But I cannot do juftice to the fubject without just hinting here at an argument in my favour, which will appear more conclufive than any other (tho' I fhall have occafion hereafter frequently to refer to it) and that is one with which you yourself have furnished me, viz. In the course of your work, Sir, I find that you have in many inftances forgotten, or departed from your own rule of interpreting fcripture, and adopted that which I have been endeavouring to establish. Your general account of the nature and defign of the Lord's Supper and of the advantages arifing from attending upon it, is fuch as neither the words of the inftitution, nor the difcourfe of Paul exprefs, and fuch as I am perfuaded you would not have given, had you not reafoned upon those paffages in connection with other parts of the New Teftament. Nay, more than this, when you come to tell us what is profeffed in the celebration of this rite, you expressly infer your account from the nature of the ordinance, (p. 30.) and argue against the admiffion of scandalous perfons from the Apoftle's warrant for excommunicating fuch. What is this, Sir, but fairly acknowledging, that, contrary to your main principle, the paffages which you had quoted as the only ones from whence whence our ideas of the Lord's Supper fhould be derived, are of themselves infufficient for the purpose without reasoning upon them as they ftand connected with the chriftian plan in general. I would fain know what boundaries are fixed to our reafonings upon the fubject, or what greater right you have to reason from any thing in those paffages in favour of your own notions of the ordinance, than those perfons whom you are oppofing have in favour of their's. If you allow us the fame liberty it is all we afk, and we think fome of thofe ideas which we have connected with the Lord's Supper, which you set aside as having nothing to do with it, and reprefent as enthufiaftical and fuperftitious, do as truly belong to it as any that you have affixed, and are equally rational. The proof of this I will endeavour to give you in fome fubfequent Letters. In the mean time I am, Rev. Sir, Yours, &c. A PROTESTANT DISSENTER. LET |