greater temptation to conformity with the world in matters of religion, and, by improper compliances, to do away the offence of the crofs. Paul, by preaching circumcifion, might have avoided perfecution, Gal. v. 11.; but although circumcifion was nothing in itself, 1 Cor. vii. 19. yet he would not give place by subjection to any one, no, not for an hour, in matters of religion, that the truth of the gospel (the gospel in its fimplicity) might continue in the churches which he had planted.

If we once admit the principle of adapting order and modes of worship to our circumftances, instead of adopting those, and only those, which are recorded in Scripture, it is difficult to say where we fhall ftop. Are all ordinances and modes of worship indifferent? No Chriftian will fay fo. Can a precife line be drawn, beyond which we must not go in deviating from Scripture? This is impoffible. To receive whatever the Scripture contains, is a clear and precife rule, capable of being reduced to practice, wherever men are fa voured with revelation; but once depart from this, and we are all uncertainty; our practice cannot be in faith, and therefore cannot be acceptable to God, Rom. xiv. 23.

The arguments used on this fubject equally prove the impropriety of adopting any practice in religion, not sanctioned by Scripture. Indeed the principle held by fome, that we may lawfully fet aside fome precepts formerly delivered to the

hands, and these, too, persons appearing eminently pious and holy, have, by forsaking the Scriptures, and adopting human traditions, fallen into the groffeft abfurdities. Many fuch, I doubt not, are now in heaven; but furely their history teaches us to give heed to the word of God, which we are certain cannot mislead us. A fuppofed latitude in Scripture refpecting what were called circumftantials, led the way to all the abominations of Popery; and we ought not to neglect the admonition, to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good, efpecially as we have fuch an example before our eyes.

In confequence of this natural perverseness and proneness to err, we are warned in Scripture, if we will be wife, to become fools that we may be wife, 1 Cor. iii. 18.; that is, instead of being guided by our own reafonings, we muft fubmit, as fools, to be taught of God. We are alfo affured, that whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, fhall in nowife enter therein, Luke xviii. 17. When we receive with reverence the whole of the word of God, applying each part of it to the ufe for which it was defigned, confidering it all to be highly important, we resemble a little child fitting at the feet of its father; but when we take upon us to decide what we shall receive as binding, and what we fhall neglect as unfuitable to our circumstances, we discover a very oppofite temper. We could

greater temptation to conformity with the world in matters of religion, and, by improper compliances, to do away the offence of the crofs. Paul, by preaching circumcifion, might have avoided perfecution, Gal. v. 11.; but although circumcifion was nothing in itself, 1 Cor. vii. 19. yet he would not give place by subjection to any one, no, not for an hour, in matters of religion, that the truth of the gospel (the gospel in its fimplicity) might continue in the churches which he had planted.

If we once admit the principle of adapting order and modes of worship to our circumstances, instead of adopting those, and only those, which are recorded in Scripture, it is difficult to fay where we fhall ftop. Are all ordinances and modes of worship indifferent? No Chriftian will fay fo. Can a precife line be drawn, beyond which we must not go in deviating from Scripture? This is impoffible. To receive whatever the Scripture contains, is a clear and precise rule, capable of being reduced to practice, wherever men are fa voured with revelation; but once depart from this, and we are all uncertainty; our practice cannot be in faith, and therefore cannot be able to God, Rom. xiv. 23.

accept

The arguments used on this fubject equally prove the impropriety of adopting any practice in religion, not fanctioned by Scripture. Indeed the principle held by some, that we may lawfully set aside fome precepts formerly delivered to the

neceffity of fupplying deficiencies. These principles ftand or fall together. They are equally pernicious. And although men profefs to limit their application to things indifferent, they wear a most unfavourable afpect on the perfection, fulnefs, and authority of the word of God. But what are these indifferent things? Let us hear Mr Locke on the subject. Things in their own • nature indifferent, cannot, by any human authority, be made any part of the worship of God, for this very reafon, because they are indifferent; for fince indifferent things are not capable, by any virtue of their own, to propitiate 'the Deity, no human power or authority can confer on them fo much dignity and excellency as to enable them to do it. In the common 'affairs of life, that use of indifferent things which 'God has not forbidden, is free and lawful; and therefore in those things human authority has place. But it is not fo in matters of religion. Things indifferent are no otherwife lawful in the worship of God, than as they are instituted by God himself; and as he, by some positive • command, has ordained them to be made a part of that worship which he will vouchfafe to accept of at the hands of poor finful men: nor when an incenfed Deity fhall ask us, Who has required thefe, or fuch like things, at your hands? will it be enough to answer him, that the magiftrate commanded them. If civil jurif

' fully be introduced into religion? What hodge'podge of ceremonies, what fuperftitious inven

tions, built upon the magiftrate's authority, 'might not, against conscience, be imposed upon 'the worshippers of God? For the greatest part ' of these ceremonies and superstitions confists in • the religious use of such things as are in their 6 own nature indifferent; nor are they finful upon · any other account than because God is not the "author of them, The fprinkling of water, and ⚫ the use of bread and wine, are both in their own • nature, and in the ordinary occafions of life, al'together indifferent. Will any man therefore • say, that these things could have been introdu'ced into religion, and made a part of divine worship, if not by divine institution? If any • human authority or civil power could have done 'this, why might it not also enjoin the eating of ' fish, and drinking of ale, in the holy banquet, as 6 a part of divine worship? Why not the sprinkling of the blood of beasts in churches, and expiations by water or fire, and abundance more ' of this kind? But these things, how indifferent 'foever they be in common uses, when they come 'to be annexed unto divine worship, without divine authority, they are as abominable to God as the facrifice of a dog. And why a dog fo 'abominable? What difference is there between a dog and a goat, in respect of the divine nature, equally and infinitely diftant from all affi❝nity with matter, unless it be that God required

6