Most of the errors referred to above, are found among Pagans or Catholics; but is nothing of the same kind chargeable on Protestants?  “Are there not with us sins against the Lord our God?” And of the same nature with those we have been contemplating?  The knowledge of other’s errors in ay be for our warning; but the knowledge of our own is requisite to our reformation.  Where then are we directed of God, religiously to observe Christmas, Lent, or Easter?  Where to attend the eucharist only twice or thrice a year; and never without one, or more preparatory lectures? * Where to add a third prayer at the administration of that ordinance, when our divine pattern only blessed the bread before he distributed it to his disciples, and gave thanks to the Father, before he divided to them the cup?  Where are we directed to attend quarterly seasons of prayer, or to hold weekly conferences for religious purposes?

* * * * *

* We would not be understood to intend that all religious meeting on week days are unlawful.  Special occasions often require them.  But the Lord’s day is the only time set apart by divine order for the stated attendance.  No other hath he consecrated to the business of religion.  Neither would we be considered as denying the legality of ever uniting to seek the Lord previous to the celebration of eucharist.  We may look to God to assist and accept us in every duty.  But if we consider these preparatory exercises as indispensibly requisite, and as constituting 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 constituted a part of the common duties of every Lord’s day, while the apostles ministered in the Christian church; + and that an attendance at the sacramental table, was not distinguished by any special preparatory exercises, diverse from those which anteceded other sanctuary duties.  No trace of distinction, in these respects, is to be found in scripture; neither precept nor example can be adduced to support it.  Whence then its origin?

+ Acts xx. 7.

Did not it derive from Rome?  We know the errors of the Romish church relative to the eucharist; and their tendency to induce a belief that it is more holy, and requires greater sanctity in communicant, than is requisite to an attendance on other ordinances.  And the same notion is prevalent and many who have withdrawn from the communion of that church.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 Christ’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 protestants retain a tinge of catholic leaven.  Is not the distinction respecting the sanctity of divine ordinances from this source?  It is not found in the gospel.  If the exercises under consideration