* 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 And the same notion is prevalent and many who have withdrawn from the communion of that church.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 serve to perpetuate this unscriptural distinction, and to drive men from a plain and important duty, they have a baleful effect. They may be well intended. Doubtless they are so by the generality of those who attend them. It is painful to be obliged to dissent from men whom we receive as brethren, and revere as Christians. But after much deliberation, such are our views of the subject before us; and we offer them to the serious consideration of the followers of Christ. * * * * * But these are well intended. So probably was Uzzah's steadying the ark--But some of these do help on the cause of God, and even more than the stale attendance on Lord's day duties. So thought those who introduced images and paintings into churches. [Some indeed attend those who neglected Lord's day duties.]