pay it, we will make up the deficiency by our superior qualification. It is the most perverse of all perversions to displace a duty by prepar ing for it. But why must so much time be consumed in extraordinary preparation for the Lord's supper, as to hinder its frequent celebration? It is said, that " we therein make a nearer approach to God than in other duties, and therefore need more cautious and thorough preparation." This mode of arguing is common but is it just? Is it scriptural? Let us examine it. Briefly, it amounts to this, that the Lord requires more holinefs from us in sacramental, than in other services; i. e. allow us to be lefs holy in the latter, than in the former. I might excuse myself from saying another word about it: a simple statement is a refutation. But to sift it a little more-Is God more holy on sacramental than on other occasions? Is an irreverent mind, or a polluted heart, lefs offensive to him on these, than on those? Does communicating pofsefs either more inhèrent, or more accidental sanctity, than any other act of spiritual worship? Let the living God plead his own cause. He hath said, I will be sanctified in them that COME NIGH me*. Again; Having boldness, saith his apostle, to enter into the holiest by the blood of * Lev. x. 3, Jesus-let us DRAW NIGH*. It will not be disputed that these embrace every act of worship. God has therefore, imprinted the same character upon them all; and as he has not discriminated between them on account of their greater or lefs degree of sacrednefs, let us beware how we do it. He is as jealous of his honour in prayer, in praise, &c. as in communicating. Were we rightly affected, as deep solemnity would rest on our spirits, in asking a blefsing at our meals, as in breaking the sacramental bread. And it betrays either much ignorance or much carnality, if a communion-season fill us with awe, while the other offices of piety find us, and leave us cold or unconcerned. I am so far from questioning a believer's sweet and joyous communion with his God in the sacramental feast, that this is one of my principal arguments for its frequent celebration. But that it is, in itself, a nearer approach to him than others; or that equal nearness is not attainable in others, can never be admitted. Such an opinion is neither founded in the scripture, nor supported by fact. What is communion with God, in the usual acceptation of that phrase? Is it not the reciprocation of love between him and his people? His love "shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost;" and their love flow * Heb. x. 19. 22. ing out to him in return? What is nearness to God? Is it not a realizing view, by faith, of his most glorious perfections, accompanied with a sense of his favour as our reconciled God in Christ? And will any pretend that believers may not, at times, enjoy these privileges as largely in the retirements of the closet, or in other parts of public worship, as in communicating? Nay, is it not evident, that, if you except the social acts of eating and drinking the symbolical bread and wine, the exercises of a communion-table are, or ought to be the very same with those which should mark other duties of devotion? Godly sorrow for sin-triumph in the merits and grace of the Lord Jesus-selfdedication to him-appropriation of his covenant mercies, &c. form the efsence of worthy communicating; and they equally form the essence of every other part of acceptable worship. The tenet here opposed, is, therefore, utterly groundless. And it is pernicious also. For it exalts one divine institution at the expence of the rest. And in its operation it may engender idolatrous notions of the supper, but will never promote a sound and evangelical piety. A habitual frame for any duty to which we may be called, would be our uuspeakable happinefs. But on our present plan, one communion is forgotten, and its imprefsions worn out, A due frequency before the next arrives. would bring on a new one, while the savour of the last is yet fresh and cheering. It would foster the spirit of communion-sabbaths, and keep our Lord's death in a manner always before our eyes. And whether this would not be a more effectual preparative for the sacramental supper, than a crowd of week-day services, let Christians judge. The last two objections lead to consequences as forbidding as they are natural. If frequency of communion breeds irreverence, then reverence is befriended by infrequent communion. If the former deprives us of leisure for preparation, then the latter must be highly favourable to it. The conclusion on the whole, is, the seldomer we communicate, the better; and we would be far more reverentially imprefsed, and might be far better prepared, if, instead of twice in one year, the Lord's death were celebrated only once in two years, or once in ten. We should then have abundance of time for every pre-requisite. We might have tenfold the present employment, and tenfold the pomp: If a week were too little, we could afford a month; and the supper of the Lord would be immensely honoured. Hither the plea which I have been considering, conducts us at last. But, O thou that lovest a crucifi |