fome in their Number, or ridiculous in their Kind, or dangerous in their Tendency, or inconfiftent in their Ufe, or infufficient in their Effect, here the Charge of Superftition may lie against such Appointments; But Some are abfolutely neceffary to the very Institution of publick Worship, and there is as much of this unhappy Delusion in a vehement Oppofition to Rites, which are innocent in themselves and profitable in their Effects, as in a Vindication of those which are otherwise. There may be a blameable Defect as well as Excefs even in this Particular, and there may be a very wrong Judgment in the Choice of Ceremonies, where the Fault does not lie in their being too Many or too Few.

Let Us obferve the Affemblies of Thofe, whose principal Rule feems to be, to defpife all Rules, and who, without any ceremonial Forms, profess to wait for the immediate Direction of the Spirit. Can Superftition appear in a more open or contemptible Light? Do not their Affociations, under the Pretence of publick Worship, destroy the very End and Intent of it? Do They not yield Diversion and Satisfaction to those who rejoyce to expofe all Appearance of Religion, and who infult it with Advantage, when it appears thus ridiculous? And do They not cause Grief of Heart to all Rational Believers, who zealously

defire to see the Glory of God advanced in every Profeffion of his Worship? who in this Case are taught by Experience the Neceffity of fome Fences even by the Want of them, and cannot but observe that the Hedge of the spiritual Vineyard being broken down, All They that go by, pluck off her Grapes: The Wild Boar out of the Wood doth root it up, and the wild Beafts of the field devour it. Pf. 80. 12, 13.

On the other Hand an unprofitable Load of Ceremonies may be as injurious to the true Worship of the Deity, may occation as much Error both in Notion and Practice as an entire Abolition of them all. And for an undoubted Instance of this, We need only look into the publick Rites of those, who would be thought the only true Church. Their numerous and burdenfome Rites are indeed the leaft Part of the Superftition chargeable on them, but they are at the fame Time the strongest Inftance of that Species of it now under Confideration. For must not the Attention of the Worshippers be either distracted or engroffed by that Variety of Forms which They are taught to go through to exprefs their Devotion? And is not this directly calculated to make them rest in those outward Observances, instead of that Purity of Heart, and uniform Tenour of Moral Conduct, which alone, if Reason and

Scripture are to be believed, can render them acceptable to the Deity? In Truth, Many of their Ceremonies are unmeaning, and if All had Significancy, No Recollection would be equal to them: nor could the Mind be profited by fuch an Over-Load of Bodily Obfervances. Several of them are faulty in other Respects befides their Multiplicity, and are exceptionable, as being either contemptible, or too eafily liable to be perverted, or contradictory to each other, or at best as trifling and useless; befides fome that are directly finful. The very Attempt of making Ceremonies univerfal, and of enjoining them to be equally received in all Ages and Nations, cannot but end in this Kind of Superftition; for such is the different Genius of different People, fuch the Variety of Local Customs, and fuch the continual Alteration, in a Course of Years, in each refpective Nation, that those ritual Obfervances, which may be proper and edifying in one Place, and at one Time, cannot fail of being ridiculous and prejudicial in another. The Forms, which exprefs Reverence in some Countries, may be and are, the very Tokens of Contempt in diftant Nations; and the Superftition lies in too fcrupulouf`ly adhering to any particular Forms as in themfelves necessary, which are in themselves all equally indifferent; and which ought so to be suited to

the

the Tempers and Manners of all People at all Seasons, as may best contribute to the outward Decency of Divine Worship, and the inward Edification of the refpective Worshippers.

It remains only to be added on this Head, that as the Pfalmift charges fuch Observances in Religion as blameable, as are vain and unprofitable, therefore this Charge may reach fuch Ceremonies, as are not in Respect of Number either defective, or exceffive, but are only unfuitably chofen in Matters of Worship, and cannot contribute to the Honour of God, or the Improvement of Men. Whilft any Rites contribute to Regularity, and Order, and Unity in Divine Worship, and in their Nature give no just Offence, they are entirely justifiable; they are more than justifiable; they are in a Manner neceffary, and answer the very End for which they were appointed. But if they tend not to promote the reverential Regard due to the fupreme Being, or tend to promote the contrary, here, though the Ceremonies might be moderately limited, and might serve for a Rule of Uniformity, yet they must only thereby lead all aftray, and leffen that habitual Awe of the Deity which All ought to live under. If Reverence to God be not duly preserved in the publick Worship of Him, how shall it be preserved by any other Means? If Men are

D 2

taught

taught to be indecently familiar in their Devotions, how should it be expected that they should retain a becoming Awe and Regard to the Divine Majesty in the common Actions of their Life? There may be a fuperftitious Fear of Superftition itself; and it is not infrequently feen, that a warm Abhorrence of some particular Species of it has driven Men to another Extreme of it, as false in itself, and as pernicious in its Confequences.

Upon the Whole, the fuperftitious Vanities, which are the Object of our Hatred, are such wrong Obfervances as are founded on groundless and unreasonable Notions with Refpect to the Deity: nor can Superftition in general be better defcribed than that it is an Act which bears the Pretence of Relation to Religious Worship either in the Exercise or the Influence of it, yet has no real Authority or Reason to support it.

The principal Errors, which Men are liable to fall into, in Relation to this Matter, respect either the Object or the Method of Worship. The Former was the Error spoken of in the Text, and that which was generally cenfured throughout the Old Testament. The Defign of the Jewish Institution being to preserve the Belief and Adoration of the one true God, The Sacred Writers under that Difpenfation are almost always expo