would oblige them to do." Put this into plain words. I ask, why do not you accept the mercy which God commands you to accept? You answer, "because I cannot live up to the profession I must make when I receive it." Then it is plain you ought never to receive it at all. For it is no more lawful to promise once what you know you cannot perform, than to promise it a thousand times. You know too, that it is one and the same promise, whether you make it every year or every day. You promise to do just as much, whether you promise ever so often or ever so seldom.

If therefore you cannot live up to the profession they make who com municate once a week, neither can you come up to the profession you make, who communicate once a year. But cannot you indeed? Then it had been good for you that you had never been born. For all that you profess at the Lord's table, you must both profess and keep, or you cannot be saved. For you profess nothing there but this: that you will diligently keep his commandments. And cannot you keep up to this profession? Then you cannot enter into life.

12. Think then what you say, before you say, "you cannot live up to what is required of constant communicants." This is no more than is required of any communicants; yea, of every one that has a soul to be saved. So that to say, "you cannot live up to this," is neither better nor worse than renouncing Christianity. It is, in effect, renouncing your baptism, wherein you solemnly promised to keep all his commandments. You now fly from that profession. You wilfully break one of his commandments, and to excuse yourself, say, you cannot keep his commandments; then you cannot expect to receive the promises, which are made only to those that keep them.

13. What has been said on this pretence against constant communion, is applicable to those who say the same thing in other words: "We dare not do it, because it requires so perfect an obedience afterwards, as we cannot promise to perform.' Nay, it requires neither more nor less perfect obedience than you promised in your baptism. You then undertook to keep the commandments of God by his help : and you promise no more when you communicate.

14. A second objection which is often made against constant communion, is, the having so much business, as will not allow time for such a preparation as is necessary thereto. I answer, all the preparation that is absolutely necessary, is contained in those words: "Repent you truly of your sins past; have faith in Christ our Saviour;" (and observe, that word is not taken in its highest sense ;)" amend your lives, and be in charity with all men: so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy mysteries." All who are thus prepared, may draw near without fear, and receive the sacrament to their comfort. Now what business can hinder you from being thus prepared? From repenting of your past sins! From believing that Christ died to save sinners? From amending your lives, and being in charity with all men? No business can hinder you from this, unless it be such as hinders you from being in a state of salvation. If you resolve and design to follow Christ, you are fit to approach the Lord's table. If you do not design this, you are only fit for the table and company of devils.

15. No business, therefore, can hinder any man from having that preparation which alone is necessary, unless it be such as unprepares

him for heaven; as puts him out of a state of salvation. Indeed every prudent taan will, when he has time, examine himself before he receives the Lord's supper; whether ne repents him truly of his former sins; whether he believes the promises of God; whether he fully designs to walk in his ways, and be in charity with all men? In this, and in private prayer, he will doubtless spend all the time he conveniently can. But what is this to you who have not time? What excuse is this, for not obeying God? He commands you to come, and prepare yourself by prayer, ᎥᏝ you have time; if you have not, however come. Make not reverence to God's command, a pretence for breaking it. Do not rebel against him, for fear of offending him. Whatever you do, or leave undone, besides, be sure to do what God bids you do. Examining yourself, and using private prayer, especially before the Lord's supper, is good: but, behold! "To obey is better than" self examination; " and to hearken," than the prayer of an angel.

16. A third objection against constant communion is, that it abates our reverence for the sacrament. Suppose it did? What then? Will you thence conclude, that you are not to receive it constantly? This does not follow. God commands you, "Do this." You may do it now, but will not; and to excuse yourself, say, “If I do it so often, it will abate the reverence with which I do it now." Suppose it did: has God ever told you, that when the obeying his command abates your reverence to it, then you may disobey it? If he has, you are guiltless; if not, what you say is just nothing to the purpose. The law is clear. Either show that the Lawgiver makes this exception, or you are guilty before him.

17. Reverence for the sacrament may be of two sorts: either such as is owing purely to the newness of the thing, such as men naturally have for any thing they are not used to; or such as is owing to our faith, or to the love or fear of God. Now the former of these is not properly a religious reverence, but purely natural. And this sort of reverence for the Lord's supper, the constantly receiving of it must lessen. But it will not lessen the true religious reverence, but rather confirm and increase it.

18. A fourth objection is, "I have communicated constantly so long, but I have not found the benefit I expected." This has been the case with many well meaning persons, and therefore deserves to be particu larly considered. And consider this first, whatever God commands us to do, we are to do, because he commands; whether we feel any benefit thereby or no. Now God commands, "Do this in remembrance of me." This therefore, we are to do, because he conmands; whether we find present benefit thereby or not. But undoubtedly we shall find benefit sooner or later, though perhaps insensibly. We shall be insensibly strengthened, made more fit for the service of God, and more constant in it. At least, we are kept from falling back, and preserved from many sing and temptations: and surely this should be enough to make us receive this food as often as we can; though we do not presently feel the happy effects of it, as some have done, and we ourselves may, when God sees best.

19. But suppose a man has often been at the sacrament, and yet received no benefit. Was it not his own fault? Either he was not rightly prepared, willing to obey all the commands, and to receive all the promises

of God; or he did not receive it aright, trusting in God. Only see that you are duly prepared for it, and the oftener you come to the Lord's table, the greater benefit you will find there.

20. A fifth objection which some have made against constant communion is, "That the church enjoins it only three times a year." The words of the church are; "Note that every parishioner shall communicate at the least three times in the year." To this I answer, first, What if the church had not enjoined it at all; is it not enough that God enjoins it? We obey the church only for God's sake. And shall we not obey God himself? If then you receive three times a year, because the church commands it, receive every time you can, because God commands it. Else your doing the one will be so far from excusing you for not doing the other, that your own practice will prove your folly and sin, and leave you without excuse.

But, secondly, We cannot conclude from these words, that the church excuses him who receives only thrice a year. The plain sense of them is, That he who does not receive thrice at least, shall be cast out of the church: but they by no means excuse him who communicates no oftener. This never was the judgment of our church: on the contrary, she takes all possible care, that the sacrament be duly administered, wherever the Common Prayer is read, every Sunday and holiday in the year.

The church gives a particular direction with regard to those that are in holy orders: "In all cathedral and collegiate churches and colleges, where there are many priests and deacons, they shall all receive the communion with the priest, every Sunday at the least."

21. It has been shown, first, That if we consider the Lord's supper as a command of Christ, no man can have any pretence to Christian piety, who does not receive it (not once a month, but) as often as he can secondly, That if we consider the institution of it, as a mercy to ourselves, no man who does not receive it as often as he can, has any pretence to Christian prudence: thirdly, That none of the objections usually made, can be any excuse for that man who does not, at every opportunity, obey this command and accept this mercy.

22. It has been particularly shown, first, That unworthiness is no excuse because though in one sense we are all unworthy; yet none of us need be afraid of being unworthy, in St. Faul's sense of "eating and drinking unworthily:" secondly, That the not having time enough for preparation, can be no excuse: since the only preparation which is absolutely necessary, is that which no business can hinder; nor indeed any thing on earth, unless so far as it hinders our being in a state of salvation: thirdly, That its abating our reverence is no excuse: since he who gave the command, "Do this," no where adds, "unless it abates your reverence:" fourthly, That our not profiting by it is no excuse since it is our own fault, in neglecting that necessary preparation which is in our own power: lastly, That the judgment of our own church is quite in favour of constant communion. If those who have hitherto neglected it on any of these pretences, will lay these things to heart, they will, by the grace of God, come to a better mind, and never more forsake their own mercies.

SERMON CVII.-On Former Times.

Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? For thou dost not inquire wisely concerning this," Eccl. vii, 10.

1. Ir is not easy to discern any connection between this text and the context: between these words and either those that go before, or those that follow after. It seems to be a detached, independent sentence, like very many in the Proverbs of Solomon: and, like them, it contains a weighty truth, which deserves a serious consideration. Is not the purport of the question this? It is not wise to inquire into the cause of a supposition, unless the supposition itself be not only true, but clearly proved so to be. Therefore it is not wise to inquire into the. cause of this supposition, That "the former days were better than these;" because, common as it is, it was never yet proved, nor indeed ever can be.

2. Perhaps there are few suppositions which have passed more currently in the world than this: That the former days were better than these; and that in several respects. It is generally supposed, that we now live in the dregs of time, when the world is, as it were, grown old; and, consequently, that every thing in it is in a declining state. It is supposed, in particular, that men were, some ages ago, of a far taller stature than now; that they likewise had far greater abilities, and enjoyed a deeper and stronger understanding; in consequence of which their writings of every kind are far preferable to those of later times. Above all, it is supposed that the former generations of men excelled the present in virtue; that mankind in every age, and in every nation, have degenerated more and more; so that, at length, they have fallen from the golden into the iron age, and now justice is fled from the earth.

3. Before we consider the truth of these suppositions, let us inquire into the rise of them. And as to the general supposition, that the world was once in a far more excellent state than it is, may we not easily believe, that this arose (as did all the fabulous accounts of the golden age) from some confused traditions concerning our first parents and their paradisiacal state? To this refer many of the fragments of ancient writings, which men of learning have gleaned up. Therefore we may allow, that there is some truth in the supposition; seeing it is certain, the days which Adam and Eve spent in paradise were far better than any which have been spent by their descendants, or ever will be, till Christ returns to reign upon earth.

4. But whence could that supposition arise, that men were formerly of a larger stature than they are now? This has been a generally prevailing opinion almost in all nations and in all ages. Ilence, nearly two thousand years ago, the well known line of Virgil:

Qualia nunc hominum producit corpora teilus.

Hence, nearly a thousand years before him, Homer tells us of one of his heroes throwing a stone, which hardly ten men could lift, Olos vuv Bgoro: Such as men are now. We allow, indeed, there have been giants in all ages, in various parts of the world. Whether the antediluvians mentioned in Genesis were such or no, (which many have

questioned,) we cannot doubt that Og the king of Bashan was such, as well as Goliath of Gath. Such also were many of the children (or descendants) of Anak. But it does not appear, that in any age or nation men in general were larger than they are now. We are very sure, they were not for many centuries past, by the tombs and coffins that have been discovered, which are exactly of the same size with those that are now in use. And in the catacombs at Rome, the niches for the dead bodies which were hewn in the rock sixteen hundred years ago, are none of them six feet in length, and some a little under. Above all, the pyramids of Egypt (that of king Cheops in particular) have, beyond all reasonable doubt, remained at least three thousand years. Yet none of the mummies (embalmed bodies) brought therefrom, are above five feet ten inches long.

5. But how then came this supposition to prevail so long and so generally in the world? I know not but it may be accounted for from hence: great and little are relative terms; and all men judge of greatness and littleness, by comparing things with themselves. Therefore it is not strange, if we think men are smaller now, than they were when we were children. I remember a remarkable instance of this, in my own case: After having left it seven years, 1 had a great desire to see the school where I was brought up. When I was there, I wondered that 、 the boys were so much smaller than they used to be when I was at school. "Many of my school fellows, ten years ago, were taller by the head than me; and few of them that are at school now, reach up to my shoulders." Very true: but what was the reason of this! Indeed a very plain one: It was not because they were smaller, but because I was bigger than I was ten years before. I verily believe this is the cause, why men in general suppose the human race do decrease in stature. They remember the time when most of those round about them were both taller and bigger than themselves. Yea, and all men have done the same in their successive generations. Is it any wonder then, that all should have run into the same mistake, when it has been transmitted unawares from father to son, and probably will be to the end of time?

6. But there is like wise a general supposition, that the understanding of man, and all his mental abilities, were of a larger size in the ancient days than they are now; and that the ancient inhabitants of the earth had far greater talents than the present. Men of eminent learning have been of this mind, and have contended for it with the utmost vehemence. It is granted that many of the ancient writers, both philosophers, poets, and historians, will not easily be excelled, if equalled, by those of later ages. We may instance in Homer, and Virgil, as poets; Thucydides and Livy, as historians. But this, mean time, is to be remarked concerning most of these writers; that each of them spent his whole life in composing and polishing one book. What wonder then if they were exquisitely finished, when so much labour was bestowed upon them? I doubt whether any man in Europe, or in the world, has taken so much pains in finishing any treatise: otherwise it might possibly have equalled, if not excelled, any that went before.

7. But that the generality of men were not one jot wiser in ancient times, than they are at the present time, we may casily gather from the most authentic records. One of the most ancient nations concerning