'ceiving the Lord's Supper.' I really believe they have, Doctor; every whit as lively. But what amazes me, is, to find a writer who exclaims against those who talk of experience in religion as enthusiasts, should himself talk of experience' and 'devotional 'feelings,' as if the Rational Dissenters had obtained the exclusive right of all devotional feelings to themselves. What some people call experience, and others call enthusiasm, can hardly be better expressed than by your phrase, devotional feelings.' To represent this important subject in a stronger light, let us suppose for instance that the Rev. Dr. Priestley approaches God in prayer, under a lively sense of the vast revolution he has undergone in his religious sentiments, and of the goodness of his heart and cle rness of his head consequent upon it; would not every devotional feeling exert itself in thankfulness to God, that he is not absurd like the Orthodox Dissenters, bigotted and angry like the Rev. Mr. Venn; unjust and unfair like the Protestant Dissenter, and ignorant and weak like myself. This, you know, Sir, must be felt and experienced by you in a Rational way, and why may not the people, whom you call Orthodox, i. e. irrational, have devotional feelings and experience in their own way, though different from yours? I cannot help thinking that the poor publican in the parable had as real and lively an experience of his own wretchedness and sin, as the gentleman pharisee had of his devotional feelings, and of the goodness of his heart and clearness of his head. Each was experimental, in his own way; and the one had as good a right to lament his own sinfulness, as the other had to proclaim his personal goodness.

This brings to my mind a saying of yours, Additional Observations on the Lord's Supper, page 28, If the righteous disclaim their good works at the day of judgment, can it be supposed that they will plead and proclaim them here?' Really, Sir, I should think not; and that makes me the more surprised to hear from you any thing at all about the goodness of heart and the clearness of head which you have experienced. To make use of your own words, 'It would be rather more decent 'for others to have persuaded you to think so well of yourself, than that you should first pay yourself that compliment.'

I will inform you, Doctor, what kind of experiences the Independents require in order to admission into their communion, and then we shall see whether there be any shadow of ground for it or not in the New Testament. They require that the candidate for communion should experimentally know himself to be a lost, undone, and perishing sinner; one who stands in need of an all-sufficient and every way complete Saviour, to redeem him from the wrath to come and to save him to the uttermost. That he should have such a sense of his own helplessness as to know that he can do nothing, unless God is pleased to work in him both to will and to do. That he believe in Jesus as the only,

6

the all-sufficient Saviour of lost sinners and desire to be found in him, washed in his blood and clothed with his righteousness and salvation. Such and only such is the experience which Independent churches require, and which Dr. Priestley says has not a shadow of ground in the New Testament. You must have forgotten yourself strangely here, Sir, on supposition that you have ever read the 2d of the Acts of the Apostles. The apostle preached the sufferings and death of Christ to the multitude; under his sermon the three thousand were pricked in their hearts with a sense of their sin and danger, as is apparent from their pathetic exclamation, Men and brethren what must we do?' Peter preached the Saviour of sinners to be believed in as the only way of life and salvation; they received the word gladly. It would seem that on believing in Jesus their sorrow was turned into joy; and all this was antecedent to their being admitted into the Christian church. This is rather more than a bare shadow of a ground for the experiences which you say the Independents require. Your words, page 118, on Discipline, are very applicable to those primitive Christians who were taught wisdom and 'virtue by these their feelings and experience,' for they continued stedfast in the apostles' doctrine without any revolution in their religious sentiments; in their fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayer, without losing all manner of church order and discipline, as the Rational Dissenters have done, according to your testimony. That same church at Jerusalem, I remember, would not receive the apostle Paul into their communion till they had an account of his experience, how far, and by what means he had learned Christ. Paul was no way backward to relate his experience on different occasions, and yet I do not recollect that, at any time by so doing he proclaimed his own goodness, however much the goodness of God was made manifest in him. Of all the people that ever heard this apostle preach, little was said by him about the goodness of his heart, or the clearness of his head; but he could talk very feelingly of the law in his members, which warred against the law in his mind; the flesh that lusted against the spirit; the body of death which was still upon him even after his conversion. I would advise you, Doctor, to make a close comparison between your experience and that of the apostle Paul, for his was certainly of the right kind, whatever yours or mine may be; and it is a matter of no small importance whether we are right or wrong in this case, seeing death will cast the dye and unalterably fix our state for ever in weal or woe unspeakable. I might refer you to Lydia whose heart the Lord opened, to Jairus, the jailor, and many others, whose experience was much a-kin to what the Independents require of those whom they choose to admit into their communion; but I think what has been said sufficient for the present, especially if you will consider it dispassionately and without prejudice.

One thing more I must take notice of before I conclude, and that is a very odd phrase of yours in page 36, of your Ess. on Disc. It has pleased the Divine Being for good and obvious reasons not to make the terms of salvation so very determinate,

as that a man shall be able to pronounce with absolute certainty concerning the future state of himself or others while we are in this life.' The obvious intent of this is to insinuate, that the Independents take upon them to determine with absolute certainty on the eternal state of those whom they admit into communion. Which just before you represent as a judging of the heart, and of a person's actual fitness for heaven. This misrepresentation of the conduct of the Independents must unavoidably bear somewhat hard against, either the goodness of your heart, or the clearness of your head; goodness of heart will not permit us wrongfully to accuse, but from certain causes we may have mistaken views of the conduct of our neighbours. However, our publication of those mistaken views will never be deemed by the public an incontestible proof of the deepest penetration and intelligence. A little to purge them from this scandal, give me leave to observe that you tell us, the Independents require an account of the experience of the candidate. This account which the candidate gives is the subject of their examination, and upon it they determine whether or not it be consistent with the scripture; but as to the sincerity of the person, and the reality of his experience, they pretend to be no further judges of, than what appears in the outward propriety and regularity of his behaviour.' Will you upon cool reflection call this a taking upon them to determine with absolute certainty on the future state of the candidate? Seeing they do not even take upon them to determine on his present state, but on the profession which he makes, and of his conduct consequent upon it.

This passage also injuriously insinuates, that the Independents expect that candidates for communion should be able to determine upon their own future state, by being delivered from all doubts of their sincerity and fears of final miscarriage; which Dr. Priestley himself must needs know to be groundless, if he is in the least acquainted with Independent church discipline. And one would suppose that he is perfectly informed in its nature, when he can so positively declare that it is better to be without discipline altogether, than to embrace the discipline of the Independents, page 40.

The TERMS of salvation are not so determinate you say,' &c. ̈ What! Doctor, is salvation to be sold, that we must talk of terms?' I should have taken the terms to be sufficiently determinate, when the comprehensive blessing is expressly said to be without money and without price yet if we must talk of buying and selling of salvation, let us keep to Bible language. But

supposing that we must come up to terms in order to obtain salvation, are not those terms as yet determined? Not so determinate as to be the ground of a sure and certain hope of a blessed immortality for those who believe in Jesus in a scripture sense? So then Rational Religion supposeth, that, the terms of salvation are as yet undetermined; and irrational or scriptural religion supposeth that he that believeth on the Son hath life, and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. Of these two commend me to the latter.

I am,

Reverend Sir,

Your humble Servant.

Reverend Sir,

LETTER VIII.

AM entirely of your opinion that knowingly to conceal the 'truth, is a crime of so heinous a nature, that I should be very unwilling to impute it to any person whatever,'* and am ready to believe that you must have been witness to a great deal of dissimulation, to the great grief of your own open and ingenuous spirit, before your candour would have suffered you to impute such a grievous crime to the Rational Dissenting ministers, who you tell us, Essay on Discipline, page 55, entertaining sentiments in religion different from those of their people, and such as their people would not have borne with, they endeavoured to keep them (i. e. their sentiments) as much as possible out ' of view.' This is doubtless a crime of so heinous a nature, that your thus publicly charging them with it, naturally supposeth your provocation has been great. Moreover your familiar acquaintance with them is attended with peculiar advantages, such as no Orthodox writer can pretend to; being thereby led to the very spring of this their dissimulation, which we now find to be a fear of losing their subscribers.'t 'In this situation of the generality of dissenting ministers they will neces'sarily feel themselves restrained from doing their duty by the fear of giving offence, and of losing the affections and contri'butions of their more considerable hearers. Are not your ministers, men, and men of like passions and interests with

* Differences of Opinion, page 9.

+ Ess. on Disc. page 47.

'yourselves?' A very candid and honest confession indeed: of the greatest use in leading us into the scope and ultimate aim of the Rational Dissenting ministers, with whom it is apparen that the contribution of a considerable hearer, is of more weight than the most Rational sentiment, seeing rather than lose the one they will disguise the other. Do not you think, Sir, that people of less penetration than yourself may in some measure be justified in preferring an honest enthusiast, who preaches to the extent of his knowledge and belief, to a Rational Dissenter, who for fear of losing the contributions of his hearers, keeps his own sentiments as much as possible out of view? I really wonder that a gentleman of your known integrity and philosophic turn of mind should be persuaded to associate with such an herd of dissemblers; whom you and I have convicted of the most heinous crime of concealing the truth from their hearers for fear of losing their subscriptions.

This leads us to account for that contempt in which they are held by the people, who as you tell us, page 41, Ess. on Disc. have in some societies expressly forbidden the ministers their 'houses except they come by special invitation.'* If this be your own particular case, indeed I pity you, Doctor; and I think your people are very much obliged to your ingenuity, in so gently covering their shame even when you rebuke their folly. This prohibition laid upon the Rational ministers by their hearers, would naturally lead us to suppose that the conversation of the ministers was too grave and serious for the taste of their people, if you had not all along discovered such disgust at grave and serious religion; for which they can by no means be blamed. We have therefore but one way left to account for it, and that is, by supposing that the people received but very little profit by the company of their ministers; otherwise they never would have forbidden them their houses. This seems very likely to be the case, as certainly a man who can conceal the truth in the pulpit, will make but little scruple of doing it in private. We have quite the advantage of you here, for it would be thought a very strange thing among the Orthodox, if a minister was denied the liberty of eating a bit of pudding with any of his hearers whenever he was in the humour so to do. Yea more, Doctor, one of the principal complaints that you shall hear from the Orthodox against their ministers, is, that they do not visit their 'people often enough;' which at least shews that they are not tired of their company.

6

It would require uncommon talents indeed for a minister, how cautious soever he may be, so absolutely to keep his real sentiments out of view, but that they will peep from behind the curtain sometimes; the devil himself, as some people say, is not

The passage is thus, I am informed there are societies among us in which the ministers are expressly forbidden to visit their hearers except by particular 'invitation.'