have hit upon the whole truth at once, and left nothing untouched that wanted reforming; and alfo, that it is very unlikely that even to this day, the Religion of Jefus, among any one denomination of christians, should be perfectly stript of that garb in which popish fuperftition had cloathed it; or at least that it fhould be entirely free from every error in doctrine, difcipline or worship. It is unwife and unfafe for any man to take it for granted that this or the other doctrine is the truth as it is in Jefus', merely because the reformers from popery thought fo, or because it has been long held fuch by proteftants I am far from thinking that even the Diffenters, whofe principles are the most favourable to the caufe of liberty, and therefore to the cause of truth, have in every refpect acted strictly upon those principles, or as yet entirely purged themselves from the old leaven.' It is therefore to be hoped that the reformation will yet proceed: and, in order hereto, that the friends of truth, as it is taught in the Bible, will yet enquire, will yet speak, and will yet be heard. But, having freely expreffed my hearty agreement with you thus far, I must observe, that our enquiries after truth ought to be conducted with reverence to the divine word as the only proper Rule, and with a modeft fense of our own weakness and liablenefs to err: And that it is by no means fafe implicitly to follow the decifions of those who call themfelves free enquirers, who profefs the greatest impartiality, and who appear to be poffeffed of it, any more than thofe of our first reformers; fince it muit be allowed, all men are not fo impartial in their researches as they profefs to be, and even the most upright enquirer after truth may fall into mistakes concerning it, by reason of fuch prejudices as imperceptibly pervert the judgment, and thro' a variety of circumstances, infeparable from humanity, in confequence of which the truth pretended to be discovered is often only a new error in

the

着

the room of an old one; fometimes lefs dangerous, but fometimes more; or at best, but a partial difcovery. And not unfrequent is it for men, in profeffing to reform abuses, to run out of one extream into the oppofite, equally abfurd and dangerous. I need not offer the proof of these affertions, fince you yourself, Sir, in effect allow the truth of them when you fay, that "as on the one hand it has been common for "reformers to stop too foon, fo on the other, that the "ardour of reformation may juftly be supposed to carry men too far, and that mankind do frequently pass from one extream to the opposite. (Pref. p. v.) You cannot therefore be offended, nor can you greatly wonder, if fome among your readers fhould not implicitly acquiefce in the refult of your enquiries, or fhould think they were not conducted with all that candour and impartiality which you profefs; and that in your ACCOUNT of the LORD'S SUPPER, you have gone juft as far beyond what you call "the one juft medium," as fome other reformers have ftopt fhort of it.

66

Of this number, I, Sir, profess myself to be one. As a Proteftant, and especially as a Diffenter, I claim the fame right to be heard that you do, and perfuade myself that from you I need afk no indulgence. While you treat with fo great a freedom the opinions and writings of others, it may be prefumed you will candidly attend to what may be offered against your

own.

Before I take any notice of your account of the matter in debate, I find it neceflary particularly to confider the Rule by which we are to be determined in our enquiries concerning it. I take it for granted that you are willing to reft the whole iffue upon fcripture teftimony, as you profefs (p. 49.) to approve this proteftant principle, and to act upon it in your quotations from the New Teftament writers, notwithstanding what you have occafionally infinuated, (p.

P. 28.) which may be thought by many to invalidate their teftimony. Upon this principle I am heartily willing to reft the whole controverfy. But I find myself obliged to differ from you with regard to the manner of explaining scripture. You have not indeed directly told us in what manner you propofe to explain it ; tho' this might naturally have been expected in a PLAIN Account of the Lord's Supper; but you have evidently built your whole ftructure (after the manner of BISHOP HOADLY whom you profefs to follow) upon this maxim as the grand foundation, "That we "are to form our notions concerning the Lord's Supper merely by what the fcripture expressly fays "in immediate relation to the fubject."

This maxim you do in effect adopt as the ground of your whole argument, tho' you do not directly mention it; as appears from the general tenor of your work, and especially from fuch paffages as the following: "I fhall lay before you an account of the

66

*

nature and defign of the Lord's Supper, as it • may be collected from the Evangelifts, and from St. Paul.-To give you the more entire fatisfac❝tion upon this fubject, I fhall fairly recite to you every thing that I find in the New Teftament relating to it, even with the repetitions of the differ"ent

ent evangelifts. By this means you will fee that "nothing is overlooked or concealed from you." You then relate the words of the Inftitution as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, together with part of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, concerning their abuse of the ordinance, and then make the following remark: "You have now, my brethren, "feen all that the fcriptures fay concerning this rite "of the Lord's Supper. How little is it, in com"parison of what men have made of it!" (p. 26.)

Query, whether the application of the term Saint to any of the Apostles, be entirely confiftent with Dr. Priestley's utter antipathy to every thing that favours of popifh original?

Little

Little indeed! if these are the only fcriptures by which our notions of it are to be determined, and if we are to attend only to the Letter of them and yet much more than you have made of it in your Free Addrefs, as I purpose hereafter to fhew. But as it is a matter of great importance in the prefent controversy whether the maxim you have adopted be just or not, I will here examine it, and give you my reafons for pronouncing in the negative, and for maintaining the following fentiment, viz.

That in order to understand the sense of scripture concerning any point in debate, we are not confined to the mere Letter, but are at liberty to judge of what is exprefsly afferted concerning that point (and especially if it be afferted in a concife and obfcure manner) in its connection with others, and by other paffages which may give light to the fubject by a remote relation to it; as alfo by fuch inferences as may fairly. be deduced from what is exprefsly afferted upon the point in queftion: That if any question fhall arise concerning it which the fcripture has not determined, we muft judge of it, as far as we can, from analogy: and by the application of general rules elsewhere laid down : And that if in any particular, fcripture thus interpreted should not determine, we are to use our own reafon, and judge according to the rules of common fenfe. In this manner, Sir, I apprehend we are to form our notions with regard to the pofitive institutions, as well as any other of the doctrines of the gospel and, amongst the rest, of the Lord's Supper.

We are no where told that the mere letter of fcripture is to be our only guide, nor is it rational to think it fhould; and in our controversy with the papists on the fubject before us, we are obliged to affert, and can easily prove, the contrary. Upon a close attention to the paffages now under confideration we shall find them infufficient of themselves to refolve our enquiries.

B 3

*

enquiries. Examine thofe texts which you have quoted as containing the whole account of the Lord's Supper, independent of all other fcriptures, and you will be unable to put any rational meaning to them. Let a Turk or an Heathen, who knows nothing of the New Teftament, be afked what his fenfe of them is, and I am perfuaded they would appear to him utterly unintelligible. The truth is, they are addreffed to Chriftians who are fuppofed to be acquainted with certain things therein referred to, which it was no more neceffary to exprefs, than it would be in any new act of parliament made for Diffenters in Great Britain, to fhew at large who the Diffenters are, what laws are already in force with refpect to them, or any other particulars refpecting them which were neceffary to be known in order to understand the meaning of the faid act; but which were univerfally understood by them already. In fuch a cafe a Foreigner, quite a ftranger to our country, to the feveral denominations of chriftians amongst us, and the laws relating to them, would be quite at a lofs to underftand fuch an act as I am fpeaking of, tho' expreffed in the plaineft words. In that cafe we should not be for confining the ftranger to the mere words of the act, in order to understand it, but should acquaint him with the character of the perfons to whom it related, and the other laws refpecting them with which it was connected. And if any questions fhould arise concerning any particular circumstances not expressly

*On this head the late Mr. Law (much as he decried reason) has argued very rationally in his anfwer to Bishop Hoadly's plain account. N. B. It is from this book that Mr. Venn had brought a quotation about which Dr. Priestley is pleafed to make himself merry, but which he had better have anfwered. I cannot help thinking with Mr. Vennt, that before the Dr. had written a book on the principle of the faid Bishop's, he ought to have read what had been written against it. But it is not peculiar to any one class of people to read only on one fide the question.

5

† Letter to Mr. V. p. 45.

+ P. 42,

pro