after being instructed in your duty, is presumptuous violation of the will of God. According therefore to the only religious means which we possess of estimating the extent and measure of iniquity, the refusing to communicate, bears with it all the characteristics of great and aggravated guilt.

But if the neglect of the Sacrament be not a slight offence, still you conceive that it may be considered as venial by the Almighty, because it is merely the violation of a religious ordinance, and appears to be unattended by any immediate injury to your fellow creatures. I do not conceive that the Scriptures would warrant you in entertaining such an opinion. They represent the Almighty as acknowledging no rule of

right, but that of his written word, and punishing the transgressors of his moral, or ceremonial laws with an equal and impartial severity.

This important truth is demonstrated by innumerable examples. It was appointed from on high, that none, except those who were of the seed of Aaron, should offer incense in the public worship of the Tabernacle.* To all human apprehension there would seem to be no fear of injuring our neighbours by the infringement of this ordinance; and consequently little chance, as you would suppose, of exciting the vengeance of the Almighty. So thought Korah, and Dathan, and Abiram:-and, though they were not of the appointed family, they

Numbers xvi. 40.

presumed to offer incense before the Lord: "and the ground clave asunder "that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them

66

66 up. "It was ordained that no man who was not of the tribe of Levi should lay hand upon the Ark of the Covenant;-but who need be apprehensive of the commission of such an offence?-Where could be the moral criminality of such an act?— yet, "when Uzzah put forth his hand "to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; "the anger of the Lord was kindled

66

against Uzzah; and God smote him

"there for his error, and there he died

66

by the Ark of God."+ Both these offences, severely punished as they were, infringed upon the ceremonial law alone,

Numbers xvi. 31. 32.

+2 Samuel vi. 6, 7.

C

and involved no moral delinquency. But what was the offence that changed the character and the condition of the whole human race? Why were our first Parents expelled from Paradise? Not for any crime, which was, according to our views, obnoxious to reproach as an act of great moral turpitude and enormity; but for an offence which was, as you imagine the offence of abstaining from the communion to be, morally innocent in itself, but which the solemn interdiction of the Almighty, had rendered religiously guilty. But, indeed, there is a case exactly parallel with that of abstaining from the Lord's Supper. The Passover was instituted among the Jews to prefigure that very sacrifice of Christ, which the Sacrament was instituted to com

memorate. If it was considered a slight offence to neglect the Passover; or if, when neglected, the offence was one which the Almighty had expressed himself inclined to pardon; we may reasonably hope that the same degree of leniency and indulgence will be shewn towards those who disregard the Sacrament: but if, on the contrary, we find that the Almighty has expressed himself with extreme severity against those who abstained from the Passover; we can not help presuming that the same severity will be exhibited towards those who absent themselves from the corresponding, but the more perfect and holy, rite. Now, with respect to the Jewish institution, attendance was enforced under the sanction of the weightiest religious