was fuch, that all who knew him, or had any Deal"ings with him ever commended it. In a word, he "lived with the perfect Temperance which ought to "be in a Chriftian and a Divine, whereby he prefer"ved the Vigor of his Mind, and the Health of his "Body to an advanced Age; and finally, with per"fect Understanding and Fulness of Hope, refigned "his Soul into the Hands of God his Creator. With respect to profane Learning, Tho' he never propofed the understanding of Languages as the End of his Studies, yet he had made large Advances this

66

way, and read over many of the ancient and modern "Writers. And had he pleafed to have applied him"fellf to the Mathematicks, he would undoubtedly "have fucceeded very well, for he was absolute Ma❝fter of Arithmetick. And, he was fo perfectly ac"quainted with the Hiftory of his own Country, e"fpecially for a Century and a half, that he even re"tained the minuteft Circumftances, and the very "Times of each Action, as if they had been imprint❝ed in his Mind; fo that scarcely any one could de"ceive him in this Particular."

ARTICLE XV.

The Plain Account of the Nature and End of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, not drawn from, or founded on Scripture. In a Letter to the Author. Part I. London: Printed for W. Innys and R. Manby, at the West End of St. Paul's. 1737. Octavo. Pages 110.

TH

HE anonymous Author of this Tract declares his Motive to write it was a Defire after the Happiness of Mankind. He tells the Perfon he addreffes, That by endeavouring in his late Piece, entitled, A plain Account, &c. to remove a few troubleK

fome

fome Scruples from the Confciences of fome of the best and most fincere Chriftians, occafioned by their not duly understanding the Nature and End of this Inftitution (which Scruples could be no worse than a temporal Evil, being in the Breafts of People of fuch Character) he had taken away a great Security of Virtue, and confequently a Means of everlafting Happinefs; and fo, to pluck up a few Tares had plucked up the Wheat alfo. He is perfuaded, that if he fhould make this appear to him, he would not only forgive, but approve of this Undertaking.

After this Preamble, he draws up a Summary of the Doctrine of the Plain Account, digefted into three Propofitions; which he afterwards proves, by feveral Paffages from that Book itself, to contain it. He then proceeds to fhew the Errors of it. I fhall here fet down the Propofitions which are faid to comprehend his Antagonist's Principles, and fubjoin the Heads of his Confutation of them. The Propofitions are:

1. That no Article of Faith, with regard to the Perfon or Authority of our bleffed Saviour, is neceffary to be believed by the Receiver of this Sacrament, in order to his receiving it acceptably to God, &c. but this only, That Jefus is a Teacher fent by God.

II. That no antecedent moral or religious Difpofitions or Behaviour are required as Qualifications in the Receiver of this Sacrament, in order to his receiving it acceptably to God, &c.

III. That no antecedent Bleffings, Prayers or Thanksgivings to God over the Bread and Wine, before we eat the Bread, and drink the Wine, are neceffary in order to our receiving the bleffed Sacrament acceptably to God, &c.

For a compleat Refutation of thefe heterodox Tenets, our Author, in the Course of his Werk, proposes to prove,

I. That the Affertor of them has not drawn them from the Holy Scriptures; even allowing his own Paraphrafes upon, and Interpretations of Scripture; and that it does not follow from any of the Texts which

he

he has paraphrased or expounded, nor from all of them together, neither by exprefs Words nor Deduction, nor by any juft Reasoning whatfoever, that whoever fhall at the Time of receiving this Sacrament, receive it in the Manner and with the Difpofitions he has defcribed, fhall receive it acceptably to God, &c. or, that antecedent moral Difpofitions or Behaviour are not required as Qualifications in the Receiver, in order to this End.

2. He intends farther to fhew, that the Scriptures require antecedent moral Difpofitions or Behaviour, as Qualifications in the Receiver of the Sacrament, in order to his receiving it acceptably to God; and he hopes particularly to evince, that St. Paul requires fuch Qualifications in that very Paffage to the Corinthians, from which his Antagonist has laboured to reject all antecedent Preparation.

3. He fhall make it evident, that if fuch a Remembrance of Chrift, as includes in it a Profeffion and Acknowledgment, that Chrift is our Mafter, and that we are his Difciples and Followers, &c. is really neceffary in order to our receiving the Sacrament acceptably to God, that then moral Qualifications are alfo neceffary.

4. He fhall fhew, that if the Sacrament is fo conftituted, that antecedent moral Difpofitions or Behaviour are required as Qualifications in the Receiver, in order to his receiving it acceptably, that then it is a Means to that End for which it was inftituted, viz. The Happiness of Mankind, above what it can be, if it is not thus conftituted.

5. He fhall demonftrate, that if the Sacrament is fo conftituted, as his Adverfary maintains, it is fo conftituted, as not to coincide with other Means to that End for which it was inftituted; and hence draw an Argument, that it is not thus conftituted.

6. He will make it appear, that if the Receiver of the Sacrament believes that the fame moral Qualifications are required in him, in order to his worthy receiving, as are required to make him Chrift's Difciple according to the Terms of his Gofpel, then he cannot

fo mistake this Sacrament, as to make it a Means to any other End than that for which it was inftituted. But,

7. If the Receiver believes he may at the fame time he is a wilful habitual Sinner receive the Sacrament acceptably, then he may fo mistake it, as to make it a Means to fome other End than that for which it was inftituted.

Laftly, He is to conclude with an Application to Chriftians as diftinguished by the Writer he oppofes. And then, in an Appendix, he will make out,

That the faid Writer has mistaken the Sense of another remarkable Paffage of St. Paul to the Corinthians; namely, 1 Cor. x. 16—21.

This is the Plan of a Work, the Extent of which cannot yet be determined. We have here only a Part of it, and it is folely the firft of the foregoing Particulars that is handled therein: with refpect to which, the Author proceeds in the following Method; viz. He lays before the Reader,

ift, Our Saviour's Expreffions concerning the Inftitution, which are quoted in the Plain Account, to which he fubjoins that Writer's Paraphrafes on them.

2dly, That Paffage of St. Paul's to the Corinthians concerning eating and drinking unworthily, which the Plain Account paraphrases, together with that Author's Paraphrafe and Reasonings upon it. And,

3dly, He takes into Confideration that Writer's preliminary Propofitions, which are the Bafis of his Argument, and proves that That will no more conclude from Reason, than it does from Scripture.

We should be too precipitate in giving a Character of this Undertaking which is fo far from being finished. The Specimen now before us is all argumentative, and we may fuppofe the Sequel will be in the fame Strain. Our Author in this Performance is not barely oppofing Sentiment to Sentiment; nor is he merely proving the Plain Account an erroneous one, upon a Set of Principles which he looks upon as true; but he profeffes to demonftrate the Falfity of it, al

lowing the Writer's own Explication of the Texts on which he founds it: However, he alfo evinces the Nullity of them; fo that the whole muft neceffarily fink before him into a Heap of Ruins. But the Reader will form a better Idea of this by the following Specimen, than by any general Obfervation of mine; and I would defire him to regard it, not barely as a Sample of this Gentleman's Ability in arguing, or of the Strength of his Caufe, much lefs as an incoherent Fragment; but as it really is, A regular, entire, and (in the Judgment of many) convincing Refolution of an important Query, from which the Determination of another, of yet greater Confequence, perhaps, may be inferr'd: and upon that score worthy of his Attention,

The Author of the Plain Account affirms, That there is no Text in the New Teftament befide those he has produc'd, as fo doing, that will lead us to the Nature and Extent of the Duty of receiving this Sacrament. To this our Author fays,

"Is it an uncontefted Point, that there is no fuch "Text? Far from it; there are feveral Places in the "New Testament, befide thofe already produced, "which many Perfons contend, will lead us to the "Will of God, as it relates to this Sacrament. By "what Evidence then are all other Texts of the New "Teftament excluded from doing this?

"Why, you interpret As ii. 42. 1 Cor. v. "8. Heb. xiii. 10, and according to these Interpretations, these Texts do not relate to the Lord's Supper, or lead us to any Knowledge of the Nature and "Extent of this religious Duty.

"We will then, as we at firft propofed in this Argument, fuppofe that all thefe Interpretations of "Scripture are juft and right; and that, even that "remarkable plain Text, in which we are required

to keep the Feast, not with the old Leaven, neither "with the Leaven of Malice nor Wickedness, but with "the unleavened Bread of Sincerity and Truth, does "not relate to the Lord's Supper; (which is a great

K 3

ແ deal