that he has formed his own fentiments impartially, and upon just views of things, must have some different hypothesis to account for the falfe judgments of others. In my cafe, you think that pique and refentment had the chief influence. But let us judge nothing before the time, for we must all stand before the judgment seat of Chrift, when the fecrets of all hearts shall be revealed. I hope that I fhall endeavour fo to judge, and fo to act, as not to be ashamed before him at his coming.

That there is much real difference of opinion among chriftian minifters is evident; and I have no doubt, but that this, as well as all other feeming evils, will appear to have answered a good purpofe; in many cafes, I am convinced, that there is much less difference than is imagined, from the different phrafeology we adopt. Many diffenting minifters, availing themselves of mere verbal distinctions, especially with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, not only fecure the reputation, and other advantages, of orthodoxy; but ftudiously throw

H 4

throw an odium upon others, as heterodox, whose sentiments they know to be, in reality, not at all different from their own.

There are circumflances, in which it will, doubtlefs, be prudent and right for a man to conceal his fentiments, if he can do it without diffimulation; but I have always chofen to lean rather to the other extreme; and had all, who think as I do in matters of religion, acted with scrupulous integrity and honefty, I am convinced it would have been much better for the intereft of truth and of virtue too; though I am far from thinking that thofe who have acted on different maxims have not had the best intentions.

I do not think, as you infinuate with refpect to me, that you have defignedly mifrepresented the fentiments of the Diffenters concerning the Lord's fupper; but I fuppose that you, thinking pretty rationally on this fubject yourself, imagine that others do fo too, and alfo, that the phrafeology you have been accustomed to is expreffive

of

of fuch rational fentiments. Whereas I think that the phrafeology in use among us, with respect to this fubject, is not confiftent with rational or fcriptural principles, but took its rife from notions that are irrational, unfcriptural, and fuperftitious; no, tions which you and I equally disclaim, but which we take very different methods to exterminate. You deny the existence of the fuperftition, and would accommodate the phraseology to reafon. I would combat the fuperftitious principle itself, and discontinue the phraseology that is grounded upon it. I would even difuse a fcriptural phrafe, if I had no hope of making it generally underftood, in a sense agreeable to reafon, and the true meaning of the facred writers.

As you seem defirous of entering into a fair difcuffion of the merits of the question, concerning the nature and use of the Lord's Supper, and to undertake what Mr. Venn entered upon, under great disadvantage, and what he would pursue under much greater; you can have no objection to my requesting

requesting your attention to what I have advanced in the Additions, and also to the following queries, calculated, as I think, to bring the dispute to a fair issue ; and I beg you would not think yourself obliged to accommodate what you may write for the future to any thing you have already written. Of this I have fet you an example myself.

1. When we are commanded to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Chrift, is it not the fame thing as if we were enjoined to take that opportunity of recollecting what Christ has done and suffered for us, that is, what we believe that he has done and suffered for us?

2. Is not a command of this nature a call upon every person who is convinced that Chrift deferves to be thus remembered and obeyed, to remember him in this manner?

3. Are not all perfons included in this defcription, who, if they were interrogated, would fay they were christians?

4. Is not every thing that can be advanced, concerning the proper qualifications of communicants, to be deduced by way of inference, from the confideration of what is implied in the declaration of a man's being a christian?

5. Is it poffible that this declaration fhould contain more than a present resolution to live as becomes a christian?

6. Doth not all the guilt, and confequently all the danger, of communicating unworthily, arife from this declaration not being fincere? i. e, from a person not really intending to live as becomes a chriftian at the time that he makes it?

7. Is it not customary to make declarations fimilar to this in prayer?

8. If the declarations be made with the fame seriousness, are not the guilt and danger of infincerity the fame in both cases?

9. If there be any difference, is not the guilt of acting in an unchristian manner,

after