this nature, whatever may be its defign, is rebellion against God. Against no other fin hath he manifested greater indignation.

No inftance can be adduced of fuch homage being accepted, or of good refulting from fuch worship. Yea, it hath commonly been followed with the fevereft marks of the divine refentment. Witnefs the evils which came upon Ifrael when they made the golden calf, to help their devotions. Witness those which fell on the family and kingdom of Jeroboam, when he forfook the appointed worship of God, and the ministry of the Levites whom God had appointed to wait at the altar. Jeroboam did not introduce the worship of Baal, or the other heathen gods. This was done afterwards by the influence of Jezebel. He only appointed other places of worship, befide that which God had chofen, and confecrated others to minifter who had not the attachments of the Levites to the house of David and city of Zion, and made images to help the devotion of his people; and lo! his family perish; a brand of infamy is set on his name ; and because his people walk in his ways, they are finally "broken and cease to be a people !"

THE divine refentment of attempts to change the ordinances of God, or make innovations in his worship even where they feem to have been done out of concern for his honor, is left on record in his word. Saul once offered facrifice. The neceffity of his affairs feemed to require it. He professed to have done it with reluctance, but to have thought it his duty" I faid the Philistines will

Z z

come down upon me, and I have not made fupplication unto the Lord: I forced myfelf therefore, and offered a burnt offering." But Saul was not of the family of Aaron, to whom the right of facrificing folely appertained by divine appointment. Hence instead of conciliating the divine favor, his officious zeal offended heaven-for that act of disobedience he was threatened with depofition; and a repetition of attempting to improve on divine orders, in fparing the beft cattle of Amelek to facrifice unto the Lord, confirmed the fentence,* placed another on the throne, and led to the ruin of the rebellious prince. Uzzah only put forth his hand to fteady the trembling ark, and was ftruck dead for his rafhness, befide the ark of God.†

SOME fpoiled through philofophy and vain deceit, have made changes in the divine inftitutions, and attempted improvements upon them, fince the commencement of the gospel day. This hath been a leading trait of character in the chiefs of the Romish church. Many of the heads of that communion have fignalized themselves in this way. And fome of their alterations have operated to imprefs what was thought to be religion, as hath been obferved.

ANOTHER way in which they have manifested the fame difpofition hath been the multiplying of holydays. Under various pretences, nearly half the days in the year have been confecrated to religion, by order of thofe gods on earth. Some real, and many fictitious faints, have days confecrated to their memory.

* 1 Samuel xiii. 12-14-XV. 15-23.

+ Samuel vi. 6, 7.

HERE is a great fhew of wisdom, and zeal for God, and his caufe in the world; calling men fo often from their temporal concerns to attend to the duties of religion! Who can do other than approve it? Doubtless many have been deceived by appearances, and confidered thofe as wife and good who have done these things. But this is far from being their character. These have been the doings of "Antichrift, the Man of fin-the Son of perdition! Because of these things cometh the wrath of God, on the children of difobedience !" All these specious measures are no better than Saul's facrificing, Uzzah's fteadying the ark, and the use of images in divine worship! They are oppofition to the orders of the Moft High, and rebellion against him.

"Six days fhalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the feventh day is the fabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work"-Whoever takes it on himself to alter this appointment, "thinks to change times and laws;" which was foretold of him who fhould " speak great words against the Most High."

THE Lord's day, is the only day which God hath fanctified under the gofpel difpenfation. This infinite wifdom judged fufficient. Had more been requifite, more would have been confecrated by divine order. But not a hint of any other ho lyday is to be found in the New Testament.t

Daniel vii. 25.

+ Neither the day of Christ's birth, death, resurrection or afcenfion appear to have been regarded as holy time, or any way diftinguished from the other days of the year, during the apoftolic age. The former of thefe is

OCCASIONAL calls there may be to fafting and thanksgiving; and we have fcripture warrant for attending them in their feafons. But fixing on

certain days of the year, or month, flatedly to call men from their fecular business to attend to religion, and requiring the confecration of them to re. ligion is adding to the book of God. However well intended, it goes on mistaken principles, and however fpecious in appearance, is affronting the wisdom and authority of heaven.

Most of the errors referred to above, are found among Pagans or Catholics; but is nothing of the fame kind chargeable on Proteftants? "Are there not with us fins against the Lord our God?" And of the fame nature with those we have been contemplating? The knowledge of other's errors may be for our warning; but the knowledge of our own is requifite to our reformation. Where then are we directed of God, religiously to observe Christmas, Lent, or Eafter? Where to attend the eucharist only twice or thrice a year; and never without not marked in the fcriptures. Whether it happened on the twentyfifth of December, or at some other season is uncertain. So are the times in which the apoftles and primitive Chriftians fuffered martyrdom. Thefe events are veiled. Divine providence hath hidden them from mankind, probably for the fame reason that the body of Mofes was hidden from Ifrael-to prevent its being made an object of idolatrous worship-or for the fame which is supposed to have occafioned our Lord's feeming neglect of his mother, and his feverer reproof given to Peter, than to any other of his difciples-" Get thee behind me Satan ;" namely, that idolatrous honor, which he forefaw would be afterwards paid them by fome called Chriftians.

Eafter is once mentioned in our tranflation of the New Teftament; but it is not found in the Greek original. The word there ufed is zxx, the Paffover. It is mentioned only to note the time in which Herod intended to have brought forth Peter and delivered him up to his enemies. +

+ ACTS xii. 4.

one, or more preparatory lectures ?* Where to add a third prayer at the adminiftration of that ordinance, when our divine pattern only bleffed the bread before he diftributed it to his disciples, and gave thanks to the Father, before he divided to them the cup? Where are we directed to attend quarterly feafons of prayer, or to hold weekly conferences for religious purposes?

*We would not be understood to intend that all religious meetings on week days are unlawful. Special occafions often require them. But the Lord's day is the only time fet apart by divine order for stated attendance. No other hath he confecrated to the business of religion. Neither would we be confidered as denying the legality of ever uniting to feek the Lord previous to the celebration of the eucharist. We may look to God to affift and accept us in every duty. But if we confider these preparatory exercises as indifpenfibly requifite, and as conftituting a part of the duty, we do it without divine warrant.

From an attention to the gospel history, we are induced to believe that the celebration of that ordinance conftituted a part of the common duties of every Lord's day, while the apoftles ministered in the Chriftian church ;† and that an attendance at the facramental table, was not diftinguished by any Special preparatory exercises, diverse from those which anteceded other fanctuary duties. No trace of distinction, in these respects, is to be found in fcripture; neither precept nor example can be adduced to fupport it. Whence then its origing?

Did not it derive from Rome ? We know the errors of the Romish church relative to the eucharift; and their tendency to induce a belief that it is more holy, and requires greater fanctity in communicants, than is requisite to an attendance on other ordinances. And the fame notion is prevalent with many who have withdrawn from the communion of that church. Many serious people who attend other religious duties with pleasure and advantage, are afraid to obey Chrift's dying command! Is not this a relic of popery ? When Luther left the papal communion, his reformation, particularly relative to this ordinance, was but partial. Many other proteftants retain a tinge of catholic leaven. Is not the distinction respecting the fanctity of divine ordinances from this fource? It is not found in the gospel. If the exercises under confideration ferve to perpetuate this unfcriptural diftinction, and to drive men from a plain and important duty, they have a baleful effect.

They may be well intended. Doubtless they are fo by the generality of those who attend them. It is painful to be obliged to diffent from men whom we receive as brethren, and revere as Chriftians. But after much deliberation, fuch are our views of the fubject before us; and we offer them to the ferious confideration of the followers of Chrift.

+ ACTS XX. 7.