fage in St. Paul's firft epiftle to the Corinthians (which is the place that hath given birth to fo many groundlefs fcruples and terrors, or at leaft hath been made use of to feed them) hath nothing of that na ture. It contains a reproof of fome in that church for their receiving the Lord's fupper in fo fcandalous, fo irreverent, and fo disorderly a manner, that they might very well be faid not to difcern the Lord's body; not obferving that decorum and fobriety at the Lord's table, which all Chriftians ought to do at their common meals; and much less making a due dif tinction between that facred repast, and their ufual ones. Who could have faid lefs on this occafion than the Apoftle does? or, who not think that a like irreverence would unfit us for the ordinary worship of God? Notwithstanding which, we do not reckon ourselves excufed from coming to the house of God, but only obliged to behave with greater reverence when we are there. It is true, the Apostle fays, that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not difcerning the Lord's body. (g) But let the Apostle himself explain what he means by eating and drinking unworthily, (g) 1 Cor. xi. 29.

and what by that damnation that is hereby incurred. The irregularities of the Corinthian church, which occafioned this part of the Apostle's letter to them, will explain the former; and what they fuffered upon this account, the latter. For this caufe (as it follows in the very next verfe) many among you are weak and fickly, and many fleep, (b) or die. So that bodi ly diforders, ficknefs, and death, were that judgment (for fo the word fignifies) which fuch unworthy receivers ate and drank to themselves; not damnation, as we commonly understand it, of future and everlafting punishment; as is plain to a demonftration from what the Apostle himfelf faith, that they were thus judged or chaftened of the Lord, that they might not be condemned with the world. (i) And this will help to clear the other expreffion (ver. 27) of their being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. It fignifies their fhowing fuch a disrespect to the facrament of Chrift's body and blood, as would expose them to the tokens of God's difpleafure here mentioned. I fhall only add, that this inftance of severity was no more than neceffary in the beginning of Chrif tianity, to beget in the minds of men a (h) 1 Cor. xi. 30. (i) Verse 32.

proper reverence for the inftitutions of the gofpel; and is agreeable to the me. thod ordinarily obferved both by God and men, in making examples of those who are guilty of the first acts of contempt and difobedience against their laws. and conftitutions. Thus, concerning the man that was found gathering ticks on the fabbath day, God thus makes known his pleafure: He fhall furely be put to death; all the congregation fhall stone him with ftones without the camp. (k) Thus Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, for bringing part of the price of the poffeffion which they had fold, as if it had been the whole (which is called lying to the Holy Ghost) (1) are both of them ftruck dead upon the spot. This instance of severity, added to that other before mentioned, of the infliction of difeafes and death upon feveral members of the Corinthian church, may seem not very well to fuit with the nature of the gofpel law, which is a law of love; yet when it is confidered, that this was in or der to fecure the greater veneration to the Chriftian religion, then in its infancy, and to convince the world, that as it came from God, fo it was under his pecus liar regard and protection, we fhall no longer wonder at the reafon of it.

(2) Numb. xv. 35. (1) Acts v.

SECT. II.

3. WE may from hence fatisfy ourfelves as to the preparation neceffary to every particular communicant. Am I called to fhow forth the death of Chrift? And am I in a ftate and difpofition of mind for this facred action? Have I clean hands, and a pure heart: Am I under no fuch diforders, either of body or mind, as would incapacitate me for attending upon this ordinance without dif traction, and receiving advantage by it? Why then should I banish myself from it? It may be I have not been able to fpend the ufual time in the exercises of devotion preparatory thereto: but fince this hath been through no fault of my own, not out of choice but neceffity, and I think myself, notwithstanding, in a tolerable degree difpofed for the ordinary worship of the Lord's day, fo as to be able to compofe my thoughts, and raise my affections towards heavenly things; why fhould I imagine myself forbidden to approach the Lord's table? Is much more time neceffary to empty my heart of worldly thoughts and cares than I am mafter of? If fo, I have reafon to fear

J

that I love the world abundantly too well, or am too much involved in the business of it; and fhall therefore do better to fet myself to remove the cause of my.complaints, I mean that inordinate affection to the world, which makes it so difficult for me to get leave to go afide and con verfe with God, than, letting this alone, to be obliged to have recourfe to certain extraordinary acts of meditation, prayer, and humiliation, at the approach of every communion; and to lay the main ftrefa of my preparation at leaft, if not of my religion, upon thefe. If this neither be the caufe of men's thinking fuch a parti cular portion of time employed in devo, tional exercises abfolutely neceffary to their preparation, let them inquire whe ther there be not. fomething of fuperfti tion in this, which is a thing that will not. add either to the comfort or the credit of their religion. Does not our fear of Godt himfelf degenerate into fuperftition, when it breeds a fervility of fpirit, and perpe tual difquiétudes; making us apprehend his difpleasure for things which we do not fee any intrinfic evil in, and do not know that he hath forbidden? In like manner, is not our regard to any ordinance fuper ftitious, when we are afraid to attend upon