of indifference in the minds of thofe who were un acquainted with what had been written against the Doctor's plan; which on the firft view appears extreamly plaufible, as the exprefs words of Chrift and his apoftles are propofed as the only rule of judgment. And he imagined that many readers would be prejudiced in favour of the work by the Doctor's diftinguished reputation in the literary world. In thefe apprehenfions he was confirmed by hearing, that this Free Addrefs was much read, fo as quickly to pass through a fecond edition; that it was made the common topic of converfation, not only in the moft confiderable towns in York. fhire, but in many other parts of the kingdom and that it was highly extolled, not only by the Doctor's friends among the Diffenters, but also by fome learned clergymen in the church of England. These circumftances induced the author to think of venturing abroad a few remarks upon the performance.

*

Some readers will, probably, wonder that they fhould have been delayed fo long after the Doctor's publication, and others, that they should appear at all, after the anfwer written by the Rev. Mr. Vènn. The true account of the matter is as follows: The enfuing work was begun foon after the Free Addrefs came out; but the author entirely laid afide his defign of engaging in the controverfy, without finishing the firft Letter, from an apprehenfion that it would be executed by fome abler hand. Nor did he refume his design (nor ever think of doing it) till Mr. Venn's work appeared: which, he muft Itake the liberty to fay, he thought was fo far from fuperfeding an anfwer by a Diffenter, as to render

* N. B. The references in the following Letters are conRantly made to the first edition. Though the fecond edition is faid to be with improvements, the author, upon look.ng it ever, finds no occafion to alter any of his remarks.

one the more neceffary; not only as it revived the attention of the public to Dr. Priestley's book, but feemed to imply that no Diffenter had ability or zeal enough to defend the fentiments and practices which it fo freely condemned.

The Diffenters are indeed much obliged to that worthy gentleman for the good-will he has expreffed towards them, in pleading their cause. But he muft excuse those of them who are of opinion, that his piece is not adapted to answer the end propofed. It doubtless contains many good remarks, and difcovers a seriousnefs of fpirit, and a zeal for evangelical religion, which are truly commendable. But fome of his friends have thought that he has entered too largely into a debate about points of faith, and too little into the main fubject of difpute: that he has written with too much heat, and difcovered too great a diflike to that freedom of enquiry which truth need never fhun, but rather demands, as most favourable to its caufe. Befides, it could not be expected from him, as a clergyman of the church of England, fo fully to vindicate the conduct of the Diffenters, in certain particulars to which the Doctor had objected, as one of their own body would be difpofed to do, and would be capable of doing with advantage. Through thefe and the like circumftances, Mr. Venn has defeated his own defign, as those who before had efpoufed Dr. Priestley's notions, it is faid, triumph in this anfwer as a confirmation of them, and as a remarkable proof that the orthodox caufe is incapable of a rational and feriptural defence. Dr. Priestley himself feems to be greatly offended with Mr. Venn, as "having obtruded him"felf into a bufinefs in which he had no concern," and wishes to have had a Diffenter for his antagonift *. As he was now unlikely to be gratified in this refpect by any one elfe, the author of the follow

*

See Letter to Mr. Fenn, P. 35.

ing

ing Letters was refolved to communicate to the Doctor and to the public fome remarks which had occurred to him on his firft reading the Free Address, brief hints of which he had preferved in the margin. In this refolution he was confirmed after perusing the Doctor's reply to Mr. Venn, which he thought was very far from being a full vindication of his former account of the Lord's Supper, but at the fame time calculated to propagate his notions, and bring great contempt upon the oppofite fentiments, among fuch readers as might have formed their judgment principally from Mr. Venn's vindication

of them.

The Author, as a confiftent Diffenter, is an advocate for the right of private judgment, and a freedom of enquiry in matters of religion as well as other fubjects; and at the fame time that he confiders the Word of God as the only and infallible rule of divine truth, he pleads for the use of our reafon in judging what is the fense of it; and thinks that every man has an unalienable right to speak what he thinks, and to publish to the world the refult of his enquiries, whatsoever it may be. He moreover looks upon it as incumbent on Chriftians to exercise candour and charity towards thofe that differ from them, even in matters of confiderable moment, without fufpecting their fincerity, or condemning them as heretics, while they write with decency, and profefs themselves the difciples of our common Lord, though, after a fair examination, they cannot but judge their opinions erroneous ; making allowance for men's different education, prejudices, and natural tempers; at the fame time remembering they themselves are not infallible. Dr. Prieftiey has fuggefted fome hints on this head in his Confiderations on the differences among Chriftians, which the author read with pleasure, and which he has endeavoured to keep in view in the following

pages.

pages. Though he cannot but think that many of the Doctor's fentiments, and particularly those relating to the Lord's Supper, have a very dangerous tendency in a practical view, he would by no means be thought to charge him with maintaining the confequences of them, or with acting in strict conformity to them; but is willing to hope that his conduct is more conformable to the purity of the gospel than his views of its doctrines feem to require.

The author is fenfible of his unfitnefs, in many views, to contend with an adverfary of Dr.Priestley's learning and abilities; but is encouraged by the approbation of fome friends, to whofe judgment he cannot but pay great deference; and by a consciousness that his view in writing is not to cenfure Dr. Priestley, but to promote the cause of truth and practical religion. He acknowledges the work is not compofed with fo much accuracy as he could wifh, and in particular that the ftile is too diffufe; but he hopes the candid reader will overlook blemishes of this fort, or any inadvertencies he may obferve, when he confiders, that the length of time, fince the Doctor's piece appeared, rendered it neceffary to publish these remarks upon it in a more hafty manner than the author would otherwise have chofen. And he wishes, moreover, to have it remembered, that he not merely writes to the Doctor, but for the benefit of common people, to whom he imagines fome circumftances in his manner of writing may be particularly adapted, which men of learning may cenfure as faults.

To convince Dr. Prieftly that he has erred in the grand points of debate between us, is what the author does not prefume to expect: If he fhould make it appear to him and his friends, that the notions he has oppofed are not quite fo irrational or unfcriptural as he has represented them, he fhall not think his time wholly loft; and if he should anfwer the

I.

expecta

expectation which the Doctor fays he had raised from Mr. Venn's performance, fo that he may "de"rive some advantage from it, to correct fome mif- "takes, or to amend fome obnoxious expreffions, "which through inadvertence might have efcaped "him, whenever his book comes to a third edition," it is the utmost he can hope for. If any common readers fhould be eftablifhed in, or recovered to, thofe views of the Lord's Supper, and of other doctrines nearly related to it, which appear to the author to be fupported both by fcripture and reafon, his grand view in writing will be answered.

But fhould the Doctor, or any one else, be able plainly to prove that the enfuing work is founded on mistaken principles; more especially if it should: prove the occafion of a thorough investigation of the. fubject; and be productive of a truly rational and fcriptural account of the Lord's Supper, how different foever from his own, he hopes he fhall be so far from being mortified thereat, that he fhould cordially rejoice, and think his prefent time and pains amply rewarded. For (to clofe with the fentiment of the philofophic emperor, which he has chofen for his motto) "If any one be able to fhew him that "he is mistaken, whether it be in relation to any "point of fentiment or of conduct, he will very rea"dily correct it; for he feeks after truth, and that can do no body any harm,"

April 18, 1770.

LET