1ng to his feveral characters and offices that they gratefully recollect what he did and fuffered for their fakes, and that love of his which was the fpring of all: That they profefs their faith in the efficacy of his death to put away fin, their cordial approbation of that method of falvation which God has appointed thro' the blood of his crofs, and (as finful miferable creatures) their thankful acceptance of divine mercy thro' this bleffed mediator. And whereas Chrift fpeaks of the wine as the new covenant in his blood, or the emblem of that blood by which the covenant of grace was confirmed, and as fuch, a fign, token, or pledge of the bleffings of that covenant imparted to all the faithful; I infer, that thofe who receive this cup aright, thankfully acknowledge their obligations to divine mercy for those covenant bleffings, exprefs their own cordial acceptance of them upon the terms on which they are offered, and as parties in this covenant, folemnly declare their hearty compliance with the requirements of it; that is to fay, that they repent of fin, that they believe in Chrift, that they obey his gospel, and devote themfelves to God thro' him, with an hearty refolution to be for ever his; to be and do and bear whatsoever he would have them. These are the requirements of the gofpel covenant from all who partake of the bleffings of it. The Lord's Supper is the fign or feal of this covenant in both thefe views. God, by giving bread and wine, declares his free donations of these bleffingsupon faith and repentance. We, by receiving it, declare our acceptance of them upon thefe terms: that' is to fay, that we believe and repent; for without this, they cannot be received.To this I must add, that by partaking of this ordinance in a focial manner, with the members of Chrift's church, we profefs our relation to them as brethren, our esteem for them as fuch, and our confent to all the duties of this relation: that we will perform any offices of kindness for them

as

as they fhall have need and we opportunity; will readily give or receive friendly exhortations and reproofs as there fhall be occafion, and peaceably fubmit to that discipline which Chrift has wifely appoint ed in his church. That fuch a relation to the church of Chrift is implied in attending the Lord's Supper is evident from what Paul exprefsly afferts on this head (1 Cor. x. 17.) We being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.' As to the particular duties of this relation which I have mentioned, they fo naturally refult from it, and are fo plainly laid down in fcripture, that it is unneceffary to attempt the proof of them.

Now from this account of the nature of the ordinance and the consequent profeffion implied in it, we may judge who are they that eat this bread and ⚫ drink this cup unworthily;' and fo we shall be led to the next enquiry, which is indeed intimately connected with this,-By whom this Rite is to be celebrated.

You tell us in effect, that in the prefent day, no perfons can receive this ordinance unworthily for having quoted Paul's reproof of the Corinthians for their indecent behaviour at the Lord's table, you fubjoin the following remark: "All the cenfure that St. "Paul paffes upon unworthy communicants, Í "would obferve by the way, relates wholly to fuch a

manner of receiving this ordinance as is no where "practifed at this day in any chriftian country. His "cenfures therefore are evidently fuch as no Chrifti

ans at this day can apply to themfelves." Let us fee what thofe cenfures are. He fays this is not to eat the Lord's Supper'-infinuates that they eat and ⚫ drank unworthily-that they did not difcern the Lord's body-and that they were guilty of the bodand blood of the Lord.' He therefore fpeaks of them as eating and drinking judgement to themfelves and as coming together unto condemna• tion."

D

-

tion.' In the former of these claufes he represents their fault; in the latter the bad confequences of it, But neither of these appear to me of fuch a nature as to be applicable to none but thofe Corinthians. As to the cenfure which the Apostle paffes upon them, he does not fo much as infinuate that they were guilty of fuch a manner of receiving the Lord's Supper as was the only poffible abuse of it; fo far from this, that he does not directly apply the charge of receiving this rite unworthily to them; but after he had mentioned their indecent manner of celebrating it, gives them a true account of the inftitution, and concludes with a general admonition concerning the fin and danger of abufing it, and a general exhortation with refpect to a due approach to it. I have received of the Lord Jefus, &c. Wherefore whosoever fhall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, fhall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man (i. e. every man) examine himself and fo let him eat &c. for he that (i. e. whofoever) eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himself.' By the word unwerthily is univerfally understood, a manner of receiving the ordinance that is unfuitable to its nature and defign. The the term is general, and may be applied to every poffible abuse of this inftitution. And as general is that other part of the cenfure, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper.' By the phrase not difcern• ing the Lord's body,' the Apoftle indeed particularly refers to the abule of the Corinthians; but it is eafy to conceive of others to which it might as fitly be applied. As to thofe claufes which relate to the bad confequences of receiving the ordinance unworthily, they may as eafily be applied to every particular manner of doing fo. Do you ask me for any inftances of this kind which can be fuppofed to happen in the present day? Would to God we were at a lofs for any as grofs as the Corinthian irregularity! You

yourself

66

66

yourself, Sir, have furnished me with several, which you call abufes of this rite; a word which to me conveys much the fame idea with receiving it unworthily. You tell us "making the Lord's Supper a qualifica"tion for a civil office (p. 33.) is fuch a base proftitu"tion of it, that it becomes every perfon who has a just "regard for the honour of religion to bear his testi"mony against it." I would ask whether a base proftitution of this rite, be not an expreffion at least equally strong with that of the Apostle, eating and drinking unworthily? The doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, and the adoration of the elements, you justly ftile a corruption of this inftitution to a degree "which would have exceeded the bounds of credibility, had it not remained in the church of Rome 66 at this day as a monument of the utmost extravagance of the human imagination." (p. 42.) And (p. 48.) you ascribe to this "abfurd doctrine, horrid "confequences." I ask you, Sir, whether this is to receive the Lord's Supper? whether those who thus conceive of this ordinance can be faid to difcern the Lord's body? or whether they are unjustly charged with eating unworthily? You cannot surely answer in the negative; but if in the affirmative, you allow what you had before denied, that the Apoftle's cenfure may be applied to others as well as to the Corinthians. With as much reafon may these feveral expreffions be applied to all who entertain unworthy fentiments of the ordinance, or attend upon it with bafe defigns, or difpofitions unsuitable to it.

66

1

To the fame effect Mr. Venn had expreffed himself in relation to your remark concerning the Apoftle's cenfure of the Corinthians (p. 47.) But you tell him "you really did not expect that a remark, which you still think extreamly juft and obvious, would "have been called in queftion." (p. 49.) And in the next page you add "I appeal to common fenfe, "and notwithstanding your peculiar method of reafoning about the matter (which I think not worth

my while to examine,) I abide by my firft affertion." Not to fay any thing of the candour and humility which this laft paffage expreffes, give me leave, Sir, to obferve, that juft and obvious as your remark may appear to yourself, Mr. Venn was not quite fo fingular in his general application of the Apoftle's cenfure of the Corinthians as you imagine, for Bifhop Hoadly himself, whofe plan you have profeffedly adopted, has expressly contradicted the fentiment which you fo confidently maintain, tho' Mr. Venn was fo much miftaken as to fuppofe you borrowed it from him : A circumftance which may poffibly have made you the more tenacious of it. The Bishop's words are thefe: "I do not confine the guilt of eating and drink❝ing unworthily to the ftrict imitation of the Corin"thian finners in the one particular inftance of their

indecency; but think it ought to be extended to "all cafes, to which the Apostle's argument drawn "from the inftitution itself, by parity of reason, can "reach. Whatever temper or behaviour at the time "of eating and drinking is utterly unfuitable to the "defign of the duty, muft, in its degree, come under "the cenfure of this paffage." If you fhould "think it worth your while to examine this reafon

ing," I fhall hope to efcape, in fome degree, that contempt with which you have loaded Mr. Venn, and which I might otherwise have expected for attempting his defence.

That the cenfure of the paffage under confideration is applicable to communicants in general who are deftitute of true piety, I fhall be led to prove under the next head of enquiry, which I referve as the fubject of my next Letter.

I am, &c.

Hoadly's plain Account, p. 80.