was right or wrong. Nay, that a principle of practical religion which involves a serious question of duty and sin, should be overlooked by the very Apostles under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and by Christ Jesus himself! If the reader can credit all this, it is time to lay aside this pamphlet. It is in vain to contend with prejudice impenetrable to every thing but Omnipotence.

3. The force of the plea we are examining, lies in afsuming, that the Lord's supper is one of those special occasions to which the above principles trictly applies. But this is taking for granted the very thing in dispute. That the Lord's supper is such an occasion, is peremptorily denied; and the proof of the affirmative lies upon the affirmers. However, not to take the advantage of so material an error, it may be remarked, that special occasions of duty, being such as are out of the line of God's or◄ dinary providence, the special duties adapted to them must be such as depart from the line of his ordinary worship. As we cannot determine beforehand the period of their arrival, so we cannot beforehand determine the season of the duties attached to them. With regard to societies, they may not occur perhaps once in two or three years, and the larger the society, and the more complex the social relations, the

longer, in all probability, will be their intervals; yet they may occur half a dozen times in one year. It is plain, then, that none of the ordinary institutions of the gospel can furnish any such special occasions, and so cannot obligate to any such special duties. Now the Lord's supper is one of the most important of these ordinary* institutions: It equally belongs to times of prosperity and of adversity, of joy and of sorrow.

Farther, as it is not in itself an extraordinary duty, so the blessings which we are to seek in performing it, do not come under the description of special blefsings; i. e. blessings appropriated to special occasions, as already defined. If, in controverting this sentiment, any use the term "special" more vaguely, he will only destroy his own argument, since its very existence depends on the supper being in a restricted sense, a special occasion of duty. I would, therefore, beg the Christian to point out a single blefsing to be supplicated or expected at the holy communion, which he does not, or at least ought not, to supplicate and expect in every approach to God through the faith of Jesus. Till this be done, all that has been, and all that can be said about the spe

Confess. of Faith, ch. xxi. 5.

cialty of the blefsings connected with the sacrament of the supper, is mere illusion. It is not, no, it is not, a just regard for that precious ordinance, which, both in opinion and practice, hath put the prodigious difference between it and others; but these are not duly improved; these are under-valued, and men seek to compensate their fault by idolizing the other.

+

On the whole, it appears, that our sacramental fast and thanksgiving days, are destitute of Christ's authority *. The utmost that can be alleged for them; amounting, with the most liberal indulgence, to no more than a presumption from analogy; a presumption opposed by a thousand contrary presumptionsa presumption which violates every law of analogical inference; which cuts, instead of untying, the knot of difficulty-attempts to browbeat facts; and flies in the face of apostolical precedent.

* Even the soberer papists confess, "that it does not appear, by his own practice, or any commands which he gave to his disciples, that he instituted any particular fasts; or enjoined any to be kept out of pure devotion." CALMET'S Dic tionary of the Bible, vol. I, p. 556. Art. FASTING,

LETTER VI.

The Subject continued.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,D

My second proposition relative to days of public fasting and thanksgiving at the celebration of the Lord's supper, is, that they are contrary to the judgment of almost the whole Christian church.

By the Christian church, I understand the body of visible believers, from the resurrection of Christ until now.

The only way of ascertaining their judgment on this point, is to enquire into their practice, compared with their known and established principles. It would be idle to demand any other kind of proof: For no man in his senses will look for exprefs and formal condemnation of what was never heard nor thought of. The argument, therefore, is this; that if days of public fasting and thanksgiving at the sacrament of the supper, as now in use among us, were unknown in the church for a long series of ages; then, for a long series of ages, it was not her judgment that they should be observed. And this, if duly considered, will demonstrate

that they never were appointed by Christ, and have no claim on our regard. For although the existence of a custom in the church is no proof that it was instituted by Christ, yet the nonexistence of it in the times of primitive purity, is proof decisive that he did not institute it. Men have added to his worship, many uncommanded and superstitious rites; but it cannot be pretended, that the church has lost any part of her testimony; because she has not lost the Bible. A custom, then, affecting; in any manner, the vitals of duty and of worship, and of which no traces are to be discovered in the apostolic church, nor in any part of the church at all, for a great number of centuries, is both unscriptural and anti-scriptural, and ought to be laid aside.

As to the apostolic church, viz. that which was founded by the ministry of the apostles, and is described in their writings, every man by ́ reading his Bible may decide for himself. Here all is plain and simple: not the most distant hint of our numerous observances.

When we descend to the succeeding ages, we see the inventions of men obtruded upon every department of the church's worship: her beauty disfigured by meretricious embellishment; and her appointments buried under a load of carnal rubbish. Fasts, feasts, and a

H