LETTER V.

Of the Customary Appendages to the Lord's Supper; particularly public Fasts and Thanksgivings.

CHRISTIAN BRETHREN,

A FEAR is entertained, that a frequency of communion, much greater than ordinary, would involve the abolition of the previous fast-day, and the subsequent day of thanksgiving; and this forms, with many conscientious people, a IV. and very formidable objection.

The consequence is not difsembled. These observances cannot consist with a proper regard to the command of the Lord Jesus. And if we mean to obey it "in simplicity and godly sincerity," they must be laid aside.

The writer of these letters is very sensible that he here enters on the most delicate and difficult part of his undetaking; that, on this subject, the prejudices even of the truly pious, are both strong and irritable; and that, if a wellmeant attempt to promote a scriptural commemoration of the love of Jesus Christ, should fail, this is the rock on which it will perish. B

being fully afsured that the general attachment to these observances results lefs from conviction than from habit; and that a fair representation, candidly weighed, will remove every scruple, he deems it his duty to discufs them with openness and freedom. Let no upright man be alarmed for the ifsue. Truth cannot lose by inquiry. Error only shrinks back from the light, lest her " deeds should be reproved.”

Bear with me then, Christian brethren, while, in reviewing our sacramental fast and thanksgiving days, I endeavour to shew,

First, That they have no warrant in the book of God.

Secondly, That they are contrary to the judgment of almost the whole Christian church. Thirdly, That they are attended with great

and serious evils.

To prevent mistake, the reader is admonished that a day of fasting before, and of thanksgiving after the communion, are not condemned as in themselves unlawful, or in every connection improper. The object of animadversion is that system which either inculcates their necefsity, or perpetuates their observance. With this explanation, then, I say,

FIRST, That they have no warrant in the book of God.

That the scripture is a perfect revelation,

containing every thing necefsary for the instruction and edification of the church; that nothing which it does not exprefsly appoint, or fairly imply, can be admitted into her doctrine, discipline, or worship; and that all opinions and practices; fathers, canons, and coun cils, are to be tried at its bar; are fundamental principles of protestantism. Whatever cannot abide the furnace of "the law and the testimony," though recommended by numbers, tradition, antiquity, or ought else, must be rejected as "reprobate silver." This maxim was the two edged sword which hewed down the legions of Antichrist before the victorious reformers. It is stated, with equal strength and precision, in our confefsion of faith, and is received as an axiom in religious controversy, by all whom the subject in hand more immediately interests.

In applying this maxim to the case of the fast and thanksgiving days attached to the Lord's supper, it will readily occur, that this part of Christian worship, if any, requires, in all its circumstances, to be distinctly marked. Is it, therefore, credible, that God should couple it with a day of fasting and thanksgiving, and not even mention this in his word? And yet the scripture is silent. When Jesus Christ in

* Ch. i. 10.

G

stituted the supper, he simply said, Take, eat; this is my body-This cup is the New Testament in my blood: Drink ye all of it. When Paul interposed, with his apostolical authority, to correct the abuses which had crept into the church at Corinth, he detailed the nature, ends, and manner of communicating. He even speaks, most pointedly, of preparation for it. Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup*. But not a syllable of fast-days. Now, can any judicious Christian imagine, that neither Christ himself, in the institution of the supper, nor his Apostle, in restoring its decayed purity, should hint at observances which both knew to be connected with it? Could such an omifsion have been suffered, when the Lord foresaw that, for a series of ages, his church would, in this very, particular, go universally and uniformly astray?

It is not indeed, as far as I know, maintained by any, that he has explicitly enjoined these days; but many plead that they are neverthelefs, deducible from scriptural declarations and appointments.

They find, that on the great day of expiation a solemn fast was kept in Israel: and hence infer, that as a public fast preceded the offer

* 1 Cor. xi. 28.

ing up of the symbolical sacrifice for sin, so it ought to precede the commemoration of the real sacrifice, which is already offered. "Is not sin as evil and as bitter now as it was then, and humiliation for it as prefsing a duty? Should not the memorial of Emanuel's suffering, excite as much compunction as the prospect of it?" No doubt. Believers will never disagree in this. It is perfectly just: and yet the argument drawn from it utterly inconclusive. In tracing the analogy of the two cases, it overlooks an efsential difference, viz. the divine precept in the one which is wanting in the other: and in labouring to bring the Jewish example to bear, it presents no point of attack where it is not mortally vulnerable.

1. The Jewish fast was peculiar to the old dispensation, and so cannot establish a precedent for the new.

2. It ceased with the law of Moses; and it is certainly singular reasoning, that an ordinance which God himself hath abolished, in 'fers his will, that a similar one should b perpetuated.

It

3. Our fast-days are preparative to the supper: but the Jewish fast bore no such relation to the sacrifice on the day of atonement. was not a preparative, but an accompanying exercise.