and useful for them (as I have endeavoured to fhew it is) to take fome pains in their retirements, to pre pare themselves for celebrating the Lord's Supper, where is the impropriety of uniting together, to receive the affistance of their minifters with the fame view?

But it was impoffible (vou fay) that there should "have been any fuch thing in primitive times, "when the Lord's Supper was received every Lord's "day, as part of their public worship." Is it cer tain, Sir, that this was the cafe? I do not remember this was mentioned in any of the paffages which you read to us out of the New Teftament; and you faid "you had read to us every thing therein contained "relating to this ordinance." But, if there be any paffage in which this fact is afferted, give me leave to afk, How is it confiftent with that regard which you profefs to the exprefs words of the New Teftament, as the rule of your conduct in relation to the Lord's Supper, to depart from what therein appears to have been the primitive practice? to feparate this ordinance from the other parts of public worship, and administer it, inftead of every Lord's day, only one in four? Surely this conduct must have contributed to incréafe that undue veneration for this inftitution of which you fo much complain, and is as much an abuse of it as fome others which you have pointed out It is to be hoped that in the next edition of your Free Addrefs you will be confiftent oenough to cremonftrate against it. But, admitting that the Lord's Supper was received by the primitive. Chriftians every Lord's day, as part of their public worship, it does not follow that it was impoffible for them to have spent any time in focial exercifes preparatory to it. If they had any preparation for the tated fervice of the fabbath, they might have a particular view to the Lord's Supper as a principal part of it, as they esteemed it to be. That they did ufual

ly spend some time, by way of preparation for the fabbath, I think is highly probable, as this was cuftomary among the Jews: fo that, inftead of afferting, as you have done," that these days of pre"paration for the Sacrament are nothing more than "the relicts of popery," it would have been more candid and natural to have fupposed, that they had their origin in the preparation for the Jewish fabbath, which began three hours before the fabbath itself. Indeed GODWIN tells us the whole day preceding was a kind of preparation; for they were allowed to travel no more than three parfas, of which a man might in ordinary go ten, in a day; judges might not fit in judgment upon life and death; and artificers were forbidden to work. Now it is not unnatural to fuppofe that the first Christians might imitate the Jews in their preparation for the fabbath, and even carry it farther than they did; and that when they came to leave off the cuftom of celebrating the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, as great part of the folemnity of it was thereby abated, they left off their preparation for their ordinary fabbaths, and confined it to those wherein the Lord's Supper was to be administered.*

But fuppofing it could be proved that the primitive Chriftians had no public fervices preparatory to the Sacrament, it does by no means follow that they ought to be difcouraged among us; for if we are at liberty to depart from their practice, of celebrating the ordinance every Lord's day, to do it only once in a month, why fhould we not have equal liberty to differ from them in preparing for it? And let it be confidered, that the frequency of their celebration of it rendered particular preparation the lefs neceffary; fo that, in proportion as we attend this rite feldomer than they did, there feems to be reason why we should prepare for it

More especially at the time of the Paffaver, See Mark xv. John xix. 14. 31, 42, &c.

7.42.

more.

You allow that "thefe days may be spent "to good purpofe;" but fince they are "the re"mains of popery," you remark, "care fhould be "taken that they be not made an handle for fuper"ftition." True. But give me leave to obferve to you, Sir, that the prefent race of Diffenters are not remarkably prone to fuperftition, fo as to be in any great danger of making a handle of thefe dévotional exercises for promoting it. There is much greater danger of the oppofite extream, of lukewarmnefs; and I cannot help thinking that there is need of much greater care, in crying down thefe fervices, left we promote that levity, and indifference, which are far more fatal to their intereft as Diffenters, and even as Christians, than that formidable thing fuperftition; and which, I am forry to fay it, have but too generally accompanied thofe rational views of things which fome free enquirers among us have employed the greatest part of their zeal in propagating.

Thus have I attended you, Sir, in your feveral enquiries, in the manner propofed at the beginning of the work. I defigned to have concluded it with a few remarks upon fome detached pallages in your Free Addrefs, which appear to me very exceptionable; but I defift, as I have already by far exceeded the bounds which I at first prescribed to myself. I cannot however forbear taking fome notice of an affer tion of your's (intimately connected with the subject laft touched upon) which contains a fevere and un pleafing reflection upon the body of the Diffenters.

The Diffenters (fay you, p. 53.) have gone deeper "into this fuperftition than the divines of the

church of England. Retaining fewer ceremonies, "they have made fo much the more of them. For "this I may appeal to almoft every thing the Dif "fenters have written on this fubject. If this

be

In this connection you particularly mention Mr. Henry's Treatife, (which you fay you believe is more read than any other,

and

be fact, it is exceedingly ftrange, and difficult to be reconciled with the peculiar advantages (of which you boast so much) which we have, over our conforming brethren, for freedom of enquiry. But I deny the fact. Not to mention how many rational divines among us have written on the fubject before yourfelf, almost as freely as you have done, I must infift upon it that very few treatises, if any, have been publifhed by the most rigid among them, that have a tendency to promote near fo much fuperftition as many written by clergymen have, and as the common language and conduct of church-men refpecting the Sacrament difcover. Who among the Diffenters have ever confidered, the receiving of the Lord's Supper, as abfolutely neceffary to falvation;

and of which you think you have feen the eleventh edition,) particularly that chapter in it intitled, Sights to be feen at the Lord's Table. I shall not now enquire into the merits of that book, tho' I cannot but fay I efteem it as, in the main, a judicious and ufeful work, and rejoice to think it has gone thro' fo many editions, and is ftill fo much read. As to the chapter in question, I am aftonished to find you select that as containing a remarkable fpecimen of the fuperftition of Diffenters. The title is, indeed, fomewhat fanciful, tho' not very extravagant, confidering the time when the book was written, and the author's peculiar turn for allegory; but the chapter only treats of the objects prefented to the mind at the facramental table; such as -the evil of fin, the juftice of God, the love of Chrift, the conqueft of Satan, and the worth of fouls. Let any impartial perfon fay what there is fuperftitious or ridiculous in all this. You tell Mr. Venn, indeed, that you did not ridicule the chapter itself, but barely mentioned the title of it. I can only reply by quoting your own words, which are thefe:-particularly THAT CHAPTER in it intitled, &c. The truth evidently is, you had not lately read that chapter, but formed your ideas of it merely by what you recollected of the title; which, after all, is not as you have quoted it. This fuppofition is confirmed, by your faying you think you have feen the cleventh edition, (which by the way was printed fo early as the year 1731) a pretty plain proof that you had not the book by you. How would the like conduct have been treated in an orthodox divine?

as

b:.

as that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, without which he has faid, there can be no life in us? Who among us have infifted upon kneeling (the pofture of adoration) at receiving the elements? Who among us exclude all perfons from being prefent while the ordinance is adminiftered, but those that partake of it? What books have we of Weekly Preparation for the Sacrament, confifting of Prayers, &c. for every Day in the Week, previous to the receiving of it, particularly adapted to the holy Festivals of Christmas, Eafter, &c. And finally, I afk, What Diffenters have encouraged the private administration of it, to dying perfons, to abandoned finners, and even to condemned criminals, as a kind of viaticum, or a paffport to heaven. Thefe are things (as you must know) not uncommon in the church of England, and if they are not the very effence of fuperftition, I am at a lofs to fay what is. In fhort, church-men have very commonly fallen little fhort of the Papifts in their notion of the efficacy of the Lord's Supper, making it a fort of opus operatum; whereas the Diffenters in general, confider it only as having a moral influence on the mind, like that of other inftitutions; tho' many of them look upon it as belonging only to real Chriftians; and fome of them may think the danger of unworthy receiving greater than it really is.

It might naturally have been expected, that in thefe Letters, I fhould have examined into the justice of the account you give concerning the gradual introduction of errors and abufes with refpect to the Lord's Supper; as that makes a confiderable part of your work. But this I am not inclined to, (had I left myself more room for it) from a consciousness of my not having a fufficient acquaintance with the writings of the FATHERS, which you fo often quote; and I was the lefs difpofed to attempt it, as any of your readers may fatisfy themselves concerning the

fairness