We are glad to find he does not speak in a peremptory tone on this fubject, as we cannot difcover fcriptural evidence for the fupport of his opinion. He mentions "Feasts of love" amongst the ordinances of the firft Chriftians, in a manner which fhews that he does not ufe the term to denote the Lord's fupper; and accordingly we anfwer, that we know of no feafts of love, which either were peculiar to the Lord's day, or formed a part of their religious worship: but we are fure that any feafts, given upon any day of the week, whether by ancient or by modern Christians, ought to be feafts of love; for every feaft is entitled to that name, which is given according to the commandment of Chrift, Call not thy friends, &c. nor thy rich neighbours, left they alfo bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee: but when thou makeft a feaft, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind. Such a feaft is a feaft of love, and resembles a grander feast, of which our Lord spoke in connection with the above precept, even the GREAT SUPPER which the King of kings hath provided for finners, the invitation to which runs thus: Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind. And thofe who neglect an habitual obedience to this injunction, and would fubftitute in its room their miferable ftated ordinance, may expect that awful rebuke, Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which 1 fay? But to proceed: Fidus mentions "Distribution of property;" by which if he mean any thing more than the chearful contributing of each, according to his ability, to the wants of the indigent brethren, and the necef

fary

As

fary expences of the church, he means fomething which we cannot recognize as an ordinance of the apoftolic congregations. That chearful contributing we fhall presently acknowledge as a Gofpel ordinance, under the name of fellowShip; a name applied to it in the fecond chapter of Acts, where the original word is the fame which in other paffages is juftly tranflated, contribution, and diftribution, and communication. to "washing of feet," it was certainly practifed and enjoined as a manifeftation of tenderness to journeying faints; but as a fabbath day's ceremony, or as a religious ceremony at all, we are confident it does not make its appearance in the New Teftament. The laft of Fidus's ordinances is expreffed by the words "Mutual vows." We are puzzled to know in what part or parts of Scripture he has difcovered this ordinance, nor has he furnished us with any reference which might remove our perplexity. Quite at a lofs, we have fearched the common-place book, but fearched in vain; we have examined the concordance, but with as little fuccefs; so,

"Loft and bewildered in the fruitless fearch,"

we must withhold our reception of this ordinance, till fomething from the Scriptures, or something beyond affertion from Fidus, engage us to alter our opinion.

Perhaps Fidus may defire to know what ordinances we alluded to as held facred by Charity, and regarded on the Lord's day; and to fhew Fidus that we had a definite object in view when we penned that affertion, we shall enumerate them in one fentence: viz. Continuance in the apostles'

apostles' doctrine-Fellowship-Breaking of bred Prayers-Praises. Thefe are all laid down in the book of Acts, and every requisite explanation may be found throughout the Epiftles. Upon the whole then, we are not difposed to unfay or to qualify what we have declared in our former effay. On the contrary, the more fuch a declaration is difputed by thofe who call themselves Chriftians, the more are we convinced of the importance of calling fuch profeffors from the traditions of men to the commandment of God; and under this. impreffion we repeat at large the paffage which contains that difallowed fentiment: "Charity has a fa

cred regard for all the Inftitutions of wor"fhip delivered in the New Teftament, as "baptifm, the Lord's day, and the several "ordinances wherein the firft Chriftians con"tinued ftedfaft on that day; as all these

have the truth evidently stamped upon them, "and ferve to bring it to remembrance, and "fo promote the happiness refulting from " it."

[To be concluded.]

N.

REVIEW

REVIEW

OF A

SERMON, preached before the Members of the ASSOCIATION for discountenancing Vice, &c. in St. PETER'S CHURCH, on Thursday, 27th January, 1803, by the Rev. JOHN JEBB, A. M.

IF

F an eftimate of the state of religion in thefe countries were to be formed merely from the number of their religious productions, we fhould imagine Christianity to be indeed in a very flourifhing condition, and we would naturally conclude the bulk of mankind to be affected toIwards the gofpel very differently from what we find them to have been at its firft promulgation. To be a defender of Chriftianity, was at that time fufficient to blaft for ever the reputation; it is now a fure road to honor or emolument. Then the kings of the earth food up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Chrift; but now it feems they have coalefced for the advancement of the Lord's glory, and the good of his church.

But as we can discern no remarkable improvement in the human character, we must believe that that gofpel, which was then despised, would now, if preached in its purity, meet with the fame cold reception. We are therefore led to fufpect, that the fyftem of religion now embraced by the nations, agreeing indeed with Christianity in name, differs from it in its effential

charac→

characteristics. Accordingly upon examination, we find our fufpicions to have been too wellfounded, and are compelled to conclude, that the Chrift whom the world now reveres, is not that Nazarene whom they ignominiously crucified.

Many are the defences of Christianity which learning and talents are daily producing, in oppofition to the affaults of open infidelity, nor can we wonder that they have in general been fuccessful. For, as infidels are made but little acquainted with the genuine doctrines of the gofpel, they have directed their attacks chiefly against those points which all the different fects of profeffors are capable of maintaining; and CHRISTIANS have reafon to triumph in the victory, for thus do the learned in the christian world, contribute, like the Jews of old, to bear testimony to those writings, which yet at the fame time form their own ftrongest condemnation. It fometimes however happens that the objections of the deift arife from his difaffection to the fcriptural view of the divine character, and here it is curious to observe how the vindication of his orthodox opponents manifefts the fame evil temper, nor will it be too bold an affertion that they are compelled to yield the victory and thus Chriftianity fuffers more from the misconduct of such friends, than from the virulence of her enemies-for example, it is well known that few objections have given more trouble to anti-deistical writers, than that which is drawn from the want of an univerfal promulgation of the gofpel. "If (fays the infidel) Chrif"tianity be of that tranfcendant importance which "Chriftians fuppofe, why was mankind left fo long "without this revelation, or, why was the petty