In keeping the last day of the week as a day of religious observance, the Jews, by the very act, expressed their religious acknowledgment of God, who had appointed it, and did an act of worship to Him as its author, in the character of the one Creator who made the heavens and the earth. in keeping the first day of the week, Christians by the very act, recognize Christ as the author of it, and do an act of religious homage to him as the one Redeemer, who on that day rose from the dead and secured the salvation of his people. And who does not see that upon the very same principle the observance of holidays appointed by the Church as ordinary and stated parts of divine worship is an expression of religious homage to man, who is the author of the appointment, an unlawful acknowledgement of human or ecclesiastical authority in an act of worship? In keeping, after a religious sort, a day that has no authority but man's, we are paying a religious homage to that authority. We are bowing down in the very act of our observance of the day as part of worship, not to Christ, who has not appointed it, but to the church which has. We are keeping the season holy, not to God, but to man. James Bannerman, 1869. The Regulative Principle of Worship and Christmas by Brian M. Schwartley. This book is recorded by permission of the author. Second edition. revised and expanded. Introduction. What is the most popular holy day of the year? Is it Christmas, Easter, Kwanzaa, or the Christian Sabbath? In America, by far the most popular, honored day is not the Lord's Day, but Christmas. Why is Christmas so sacred to so many people? Do we find it commanded by God in the Bible? Was it celebrated and honored by the apostles and the early church? Is there biblical justification for such a holy day anywhere in scripture? The answer to all these questions is no. Christmas did not even become a holy day in the church until the fourth century. Further, its adoption was not based on God's word, but was a pragmatic move to induce more pagans to join the Church. Interestingly, the Calvinistic wing of the Protestant Reformation, the Puritans and Presbyterians, rejected Christmas and the papal liturgical calendar as holy days not authorized by God. D. M. Murray writes, the reformation, the keeping of holy days, all those that the papists have invented as the feasts of Christmas, which things because in God's scriptures they neither have commandment nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this realm. The first book of Discipline, 88 and 89. Thus the Scottish reformers abolished the observances of the Christian year. In their view, the Lord's Day alone had scriptural authority. Their attitude is further seen in the conditional acceptance by the General Assembly in 1566 of the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith. Exception was taken to its support for the observances of the Christian Year. Christian Year in Nigel M. D. S. Cameron, Editor, Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology. After Loud's liturgy, which Charles I attempted to impose by force upon Scotland, was defeated by godly Presbyterians, the Christian year was again utterly abolished by the 1638 Glasgow Assembly because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture. Act Session 17. The victory of Presbyterianism over the Pope-ish prelatical religion of loud, and, Charles I, led to a great covenanted reformation. This reformation produced the Westminster Standards. Note the Assembly's teaching on Holy Days. There is no day commanded in Scripture to keep holy under the Gospel, but the Lord's Day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called holy days, have no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued. The Directory for the Public Worship of God, 1645. With the overthrow of the evil corrupt pre-latical House of Stuart, 1688, and the re-establishment of Presbyterianism after the Revolution, 1689, the Christian year ceased to be observed in the Church of Scotland for nearly 200 years. Interestingly, the re-establishment of papal holy days and all sorts of other human Innovations within Presbyterianism occurred virtually at the same time in Scotland and North America. This rejection did not mean that the early Puritans and Presbyterians had anything against the birth of Christ, for they honored the whole work of redemption every Lord's Day. Neither does it mean that they did not care about their children, for no people within Christendom did more to catechize and educate their own children than did the Puritans and Presbyterians. These Reformed believers swept away all the unauthorized remnants of Romanism because they made the Scriptures the only infallible standard and authority in determining worship ordinances. Any ordinance solely based on church tradition or man's authority was discarded. By consistently applying sola scriptura, that is, the scripture alone, to the worship and government of the Church. The Puritans and Presbyterians accomplished a purity in worship not seen since the Apostolic Church. Sadly, this purity attained by our spiritual forefathers has, with the passage of time, been cast aside. pragmatism, tradition, and human opinion are exalted in determining how God's people are to worship Him. The attitude among many in church leadership positions is to give the people what they want rather than to submit to God's divine revelation. One said symptom of this trend is the widespread acceptance of extra-biblical holy days such as Christmas in conservative Presbyterian churches. Thus, a study is needed to call Presbyterians and all professing Reformed Christians back to the biblical attainment of our spiritual forefathers. The purpose of this book is to show that God does not give sinful man the authority to invent his own rules regarding worship. The Bible rejects human autonomy in the sphere of worship, just as it does in the area of ethics. This study of Reformed worship will be limited to two areas. First, there will be an examination of the regulative principle worship. This principle was one of the two pillars of the Calvinist wing of the Reformation. The reformer John Calvin in The Necessity of Reforming the Church writes, if it be inquired then by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standard existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, consequently the whole substance of Christianity. These, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped, and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we make glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. Henry Beveridge, editor, Selected Works, Tracts and Letters. Today the term reformed has been largely reduced to the sphere of soteriology, that is, merely the acceptance of the five points of Calvinism. At one time, however, it referred primarily to the acceptance and practice of the regulative principle of worship. The scriptural law of worship forces man to find biblical warrant for all the ordinances of worship. Man is not to add to or detract from God's word. The second part of this book examines the unlawfulness of the keeping of the Christmas holy day. Christmas is a prime example of how professing Christians violate two important biblical principles. One, Christmas is a violation of the regulative principle. It is an invention of man that came into the church long after the death of the apostles and the close of the canon. 2. Christmas is a monument of pagan idolatry and cannot be made pleasing to God. With regard to the monuments of idolatry, the biblical imperative is annihilation, not incorporation, syncretism. It is our hope and prayer that this book will be used by God to bring many brethren, whether reformed or non-reformed, back to the purity of worship attained by the Calvinist wing of the Reformation. History has shown that the acceptance of Christmas by Protestant churches has been a corrupting force leading directly to further declension. For example, the adoption of the liturgical calendar as a whole, Episcopal Lutheran liturgies, etc. Chapter 1, Sola Scriptura. One of the greatest achievements of the Protestant Reformation was a rediscovery of the biblical doctrine of sola scriptura. That is, the Bible is the sole standard and authority for faith and life. Read Deuteronomy 4, 1 and 2, 2 Timothy 3, 15 through 17, Proverbs 30, 5 and 6. Revelation 22, 18 and 19, Joshua 1, 7 and 8. The authority, completeness, perfection, and sufficiency of Scripture place the Word of God above every one. The Church and all men are required to submit to the authority of Scripture without any quibbling or reservations, for it is the voice of Almighty God Himself. The Bible is the only absolute objective standard by which ethics, doctrine, church government, and worship are to be determined and judged. The Westminster Confession says the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined and all decrees of councils Opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men and private spirits are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures. 1. 10. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura was the greatest weapon of the Protestant reformers against the corruptions of Romanism, for it forces men to prove everything from the sacred scriptures alone. Human doctrines, commandments, rituals, and ordinances cannot stand when placed under God's light and wisdom. The Roman Catholic Church for many long centuries had openly denied the final definitive authority of scripture. The clergy could formulate autonomous doctrines and worship as long as the new teaching had the blessing of the Pope and or consensus of the church hierarchy. The result of this autonomous authority was a progressive corruption of worship and doctrine. The doctrine of justification was replaced by human merit, sacerdotalism and works, righteousness. The doctrine of worship descended into the gross, blasphemous idolatry of the mass, meriality, saint worship, prayers for the dead, and so on. The common people suffered under the false doctrine, arbitrary laws, and idolatrous worship of the papal church. Standing on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther was very successful at eliminating many of the perverse teachings of Romanism. For example, the Roman Catholic Mass, auricular confessions, pilgrimages, the saints as mediators, the sacerdotal priesthood, etc. Unfortunately, however, perhaps as a result of his conservative personality or his comfort with medieval-style worship, or even a simple error in logic. He never made the connection between scripture alone and the need of divine warrant for worship ordinances the way Calvin did. Luther held that human traditions in worship are valuable and should be respected as long as they do not contradict the Bible. In other words, only rites and ceremonies that are expressly forbidden by scripture should be disallowed. A reading of the early Lutheran symbols does reveal, however, that early Lutheran theologians had at least a vague understanding of the tension, that is, contradiction, between their position and Sola Scriptura, for they declare that human additions are within the sphere of adiaphora and are non-compulsory. As a result of the inconsistent application of Sola Scriptura to only some matters relating to worship, the Lutherans retained many ceremonies, rites, and practices that were not derived from the Bible. With such a view of the discretionary power of the Church in matters of worship practice, It is not at all surprising that the Lutheran Church retained a large portion of the ceremonial, ritualistic, and governmental structures of the Catholic Church, the root causes of the corruption in the Church against which Luther had rebelled in the first place. The Anglican or Episcopal Church also gave the Church the power to determine, that is, invent, ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies not derived from Scripture. Thus, Lutheran and Anglican churches have denied the absolute authority of Scripture in the area of worship. Therefore, although in many ways these churches were a vast improvement over Rome, for example, regarding justification by faith alone in the area of worship, and church government, they were still fundamentally Romish with minor window-dressing reforms. The Calvinist wing of the Reformation, Puritans, Presbyterians, Huguenots, Dutch Reformed, etc., was fully consistent with Sola Scriptura, and in obedience to the Scriptures, argued that whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden. That is, anything that the church does in worship must be proven from the Bible. This proof can be attained by an explicit command of God. For instance, do this in remembrance of me, Luke 22, 19, or by logical inference from scripture. That is, there may not be an explicit command, but when several passages are compared, they teach or infer a scriptural practice. There is a course of careful distinction to be made between the Word of God and inferences drawn from the Word of God. We may challenge the validity of inferences drawn from scripture and attempt to determine whether they are indeed scriptural, but we may never in the same way challenge the validity of the explicit statements of scripture. The words and statements of Scripture are absolutely authoritative. Their authority is underrived and indisputable. The authority of valid inferences from Scripture, on the other hand, is derivative in nature, but one cannot argue that such inferences are therefore less authoritative than the express declarations of Scripture. They simply make explicit what is already expressed implicitly in Scripture. Some of the most important and foundational doctrines of Christianity are drawn from inferences of Scripture, such as the hypostatic union of the two natures in Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Not the good of good and necessary consequences, or logical inference from scripture to formulate doctrine is biblical, can be seen in the following passages. Luke 20, 37 and following. Matthew 22, 31 and following. Mark 12, 26. Matthew 19, 4 through 6. 1 Corinthians 11. eight through ten, or by biblical historical example, for example, the change from the seventh day to the first day of the week for corporate public worship. An instance of historical example is Lord's Day public worship. There is no explicit command or divine imperative changing public worship from the seventh day, Saturday, to the first day, Sunday, of the week recorded in scripture. Yet in the New Testament, the change from the seventh day to the first day is recorded as an accomplished fact. Acts 20, 7, 1 Corinthians 16, 2, Revelation 1, 10. Not every divine command or prophetic word has been inscripturated, that is, included in the Bible. The universal practice of the apostolic church, such as Lord's Day public worship, is binding because of the unique authority given to the apostles, that is, direct revelation. When the apostles died, direct revelation ceased and the canon was closed. Now our doctrine, worship, and all historical examples are limited to the Bible, the Word of God. Those who appeal to church traditions invented after the closing of the canon for authority in establishing worship ordinances are, in principle, no better than Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, 1 Kings 12, 26 through 33. The scriptural law of worship is very simple. The Holy Scripture prescribes the whole content of worship. By this is meant that all elements or parts of worship are prescribed by God himself in his word. This principle has universal reference to worship performed by men since the fall. In other words, it has equal application to the Old and the New Testaments. It is also universal in that it is the regulative of all types of worship, whether public, family, private God says regarding the worship of himself whatever I command you be careful to observe it he shall not add to it nor take away from it Deuteronomy 12 32 The worship of God is such a serious matter that God alone makes the rules. No man is permitted to add anything to or detract anything from what God has prescribed. The church's job is not to innovate and create new worship styles, forms, or ordinances, but simply to see what God has declared in His Word and obey it. The power of the church is purely ministerial and declarative. She is only to hold forth the doctrine, enforce the laws, and execute the government which Christ has given to her. She is to have nothing of her own, too, and to subtract nothing from what her Lord has established. Discretionary power she does not possess. James H. Thornwell collected writings. The Westminster Confession of Faith says that the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his own revealed will that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture, Chapter 21, Section 1. Most professing Christians would be outraged if someone added his own poetry or writings to the Bible. Isn't that what cults do? Most evangelicals would think a person, a dangerous heretic, who decided to make up new doctrines based solely on his own imagination. Isn't that what the papal church has done? When it comes to that very important activity of worshipping God, many professing Christians think virtually anything goes. What would most believers think of a church that decided to eliminate the Lord's Supper, or baptism, or the preaching of God's Word? They would probably classify such a church as a cult. The same command that forbids us from eliminating any of the worship ordinances commanded in God's word also forbids us from adding to what God has commanded. We say that the command to add nothing is an organic part of the whole law, as law, and therefore that every human addition to the worship of God, even if it be not contrary to any particular command, is yet contrary to the general command that nothing be added. The vast majority of Bible-believing churches today are totally ignorant of God's scriptural law of worship, that is, the regulative principle. Many Christians, when confronted with this doctrine, argue that such a doctrine is an Old Testament teaching. They say that God in the New Testament economy has liberated us from such a strict mess. But an examination of the New Testament teaching on worship reveals that God's regulative principle of worship has not been abrogated, but remains in full force. Furthermore, the regulative principle of worship gives man true liberty, for it frees man from the arbitrary opinions, imaginations, and gimmicks of other men. The Christian is free from the commandments of men in matters of worship because God is the only lawgiver and His will is the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness. Consequently, human constitutions or ordinances are contrary to the word of the Lord if they are devised as part of the worship of God, and their observance is bound upon the conscience as of necessary obligation. Calvin points out that in Colossians, Paul maintains that the doctrine of true worship is not to be sought from men because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught as in what way he is to be worshipped. William Young, The Puritan Principle of Worship, 7. The regulative principle of worship is taught throughout the Bible. What follows is an examination of the many passages in scripture that prove that whatever is not commanded in scripture in the worship of God is forbidden. Worship ordinances must be based specifically on what God says and not on human opinion or tradition. The regulative principle in the Old Testament. One. the unacceptable offering. And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but he did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. Genesis 4, 3 through 5. What was it regarding Cain's offering that made it unacceptable before God? The preference for Abel's offering and the rejection of Cain's was not arbitrary, but based upon past revelation given to Adam and his family. Evidently, God revealed this information to Adam when he killed animals to make coverings for Adam and his wife. Compare Genesis 2.21. Generations later, no one knew that God would only accept clean animals and birds as burnt offerings to the Lord. Compare Genesis 8 20. Cain, unlike his brother Abel, decided apart from God's word that an offering of the fruit of the ground would be acceptable before the Lord. But God rejected Cain's offering because it was a creation of his mind. God did not command it. Therefore, even if Cain had been sincere in his desire to please God, God still would have rejected his offering. A common objection to the interpretation given above is that there are no previously recorded divine imperatives regarding blood sacrifice in the book of Genesis. Therefore, it is often asserted that the idea that Cain violated the regulative principle is a case of assuming what one is setting out to prove. This argument is refuted by the inspired comments of the author of Hebrews who wrote, By faith, Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Hebrews 11, 4 Biblical faith presupposes a trust in divine revelation. Throughout Hebrews 11, true faith is spoken of as a belief in God's word that results in obedience to God's revealed will. Obviously then, Abel's offering was not based on human reason or an educated guess. It was rooted in Jehovah's command. John Brown concurs. though we have no particular account of the institution of sacrifice, the theory of its originating in express divine appointment is the only tenable one. The idea of expressing religious feelings or of expiating sin by shedding the blood of animals could never have entered into the mind of man. We read that God clothed our first appearance with the skin of animals, and by far the most probable account of this matter is that these were the skins of animals which he had commanded them to offer in sacrifice. We have already seen in our illustrations of the ninth chapter, verse 16, that all divine covenants, all merciful arrangements in reference to fallen man have been ratified by sacrifice. The declaration of mercy contained in the first promise seems to have been accompanied with the institution of expiatory sacrifice. and expiatory sacrifice, when offered from a faith in the divine revelation in reference to it, was acceptable to God, both as the appointed expression of conscious guilt and ill-desert, and of the hope of mercy, and as an act of obedience to the divine will. It would appear that this revelation was not believed by Cain, that he did not see and feel the need for expiatory sacrifice, and that his religion consisted merely in an acknowledgment of the deity as the author of the benefits which he enjoyed. Abel, on the other hand, did believe the revelation. He readily acknowledges himself a sinner and expresses his penitence and his hope of forgiveness in the way of God's appointment. Believing what God has said, he did what God had enjoined. The Hebrews 11, 4 passage offers indisputable biblical proof that acceptable worship cannot be based on a human tradition which involves not a faith in God and his infallible word, but a faith in man's wisdom and imagination. Acceptable worship can only be based on faith in divine revelation. John Knox writes, It is not enough that man invent ceremony and then give it a signification according to his pleasure. But if that anything proceed from faith, it must have the word of God for the assurance. For ye are not ignorant, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Now if ye will prove that your ceremonies proceed from faith and do please God, ye must prove God in expressed words has commanded them, or else shall ye never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they please God. but that they are sin, and do displease him, according to the words of the apostle, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. God expects faith and obedience to his word. If God's people can worship the Lord according to their own will, as long as the man-made ordinances are not expressly forbidden, then could not Cain, Noah, or the Levites offer God a fruit salad or a bucket of turnips? And if God wanted a strict regulation of His worship, apart from the regulative principle, would it not require hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of volumes telling us what is forbidden? But God, in His infinite wisdom, says, Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it. You shall not add to it, nor take away from it. Deuteronomy 12, 32 2. The second commandment. Ye shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Ye shall not bow down to them, nor serve them. Exodus 20, 4 and 5. The Puritans and Presbyterians recognized that the Ten Commandments were a summary of all God's moral precepts. Thus the Second Commandment summarized how God is to be worshipped, while the command expressly forbids the making. and worshipping of any representation of false gods, and the making and worshipping of any representation of God himself. It also forbids the use of all man-made devices and ordinances in the worship of God. It condemns all superstitious devices corrupting the worship of God. adding to it or taking from it, whether invented and taken up ourselves or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever. The Westminster Larger Catechism from the answer to question 109. Puritan pastor Thomas Boston writes, The matter of this command is the worship of God and His ordinances, and it says to every man, Thou shalt not make anything whereby thou wilt worship God. And then the seventh command meets him that defiles his neighbor's wife, saying, Thou shalt not commit adultery. So this meets the Church of Rome and says, Thou shalt not make any graven image, etc. But as the 7th says also to the fornicator, thou shalt not commit uncleanness. So this says also to the Church of England, that is, the Anglican or Episcopal Church, thou shalt not make crossing in baptism, kneeling, bowing to the altar, festival days, etc. And to every sort of people, and to every particular person, it says, Thou shalt not meddle to make anything of divine worship and ordinances out of thy own head. All holy ordinances and parts of worship God has reserved to Himself the making of them for us, saying with respect to these, Thou shalt not make them to thyself. Men are said in scripture to make a thing to themselves when they make it out of their own head, without the word of God for it. But when they make anything according to God's word, God is said to do it. Matthew 19, 6. If there be not then a divine law for what is brought into worship and ordinance of God, it is an idol of men's making. a device of their own, and so Popery, Prolecy, Ceremonies, and whatsoever is without the word, brought in God's matters, is overturned at once by His word. Thou shalt not make, be thou Pope, King, Parliament, Minister, Private Person, Synod, or Council, Commentary on the shorter Catechism, Edmonton, A.B. Canada, Stillwater's Revival Books, Thomas Ridgely writes, we further break this commandment when we invent ordinances which God has nowhere in his word commanded or think to recommend ourselves to him by gestures or modes of worship which we have no precedent or example for in the New Testament. This is what is generally called superstition and will worship. Thomas Ridgely, Commentary on the Larger Catechism. Will worship is an excellent phrase to remember for that is what it is. Worship of one's own will. Man tries to become God and decides what is worship. It is a form of idolatry, whether in the restricted area of worship or the broader area, as is prevalent today under the name of humanism, that is, man as the measure of all things. In such cases, man worships the creature rather than the creator, and God condemns it. God commands how he will be worshipped. We are not to add to or take away. Carl W. Bogue, The Scriptural Law of Worship. When discussing the Second Commandment, Michael Bushell writes, It, image worship, is the archetype of all of man's attempts to worship God through the work of his own hands. Idolatry and the introduction of unwarranted practices into services of worship are the illegitimate children of the same father. The latter is but a more sophisticated version of the former. They both proceed on the assumption that the means of worship that God has seen fit to institute are inadequate. James Durham adds, it is a sin not only to worship false gods, but to worship the true God in a false way. Zachary Ursinus concurs. The other species of idolatry is more subtle and refined as when the true God is supposed to be worshipped, whilst the kind of worship which is paid unto Him is false, which is the case when anyone imagines that he is worshipping or honouring God by the performance of any work not prescribed by the divine law. This species of idolatry is more properly condemned in the second commandment and is termed superstition because it adds to the commandments of God the inventions of men. Those who think that the Puritans were making too much of the Second Commandment must keep in mind that Christ argued that the Sixth Commandment applied to name-calling and hatred. The Seventh Commandment applied even to inward lust. If the Seventh Commandment forbids even impure thoughts, then surely the Second Commandment forbids devising our own forms of worship from our own. minds. 3. Strange fire. And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Leviticus 10, 1 and 2. What was their sin? Their sin was offering a strange fire, so the text saith that they offered a strange fire, which God commanded them not. But had God even forbidden it? Where do we find that ever God had forbidden them to offer strange fire, or appointed that they should offer only one kind of fire? There is no text of scripture that you can find from the beginning of Genesis to this place where God has said in terminus, in so many words expressly, you shall offer no fire but one kind of fire. And yet here they are consumed by fire from God for offering strange fire. The Hebrew word translated strange, tsar, as in strange fire, could also be translated unauthorized. Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorized fire. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available. free and for sale in audio, video, and printed formats. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail order catalog, containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes, and videos at great discounts, is on the web at www.swrb.com. We can also be reached by email at SWRB at SWRB.com. By phone at 780-450-4252. 3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Avenue Edmonton that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N Alberta abbreviated capital A capital B Canada T-6-L-3-T-5 you may also request a free printed catalog and remember that John Kelvin in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since he condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devise. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God, by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying his word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said That men assume too much wisdom, When they devise what he never required, Nay, what he never knew.