this inward and divine call, to which man can add nothing but the sanction of ecclesiastical order, and solemn attestation.

We then proceeded to show, in the second place, what is not essential to the being of a church; when we endeavored to demonstrate that union under one ecclesiastical government is not essential. There were in the beginning-there have been in every age-there are now-and there ever shall be true and pure churches of Christ, which are constituent portions of the holy, catholic, and apostolic church, who owned, do own, and shall own, no subjection to any one supreme governing power. The mere fact of separation or independence, does not therefore invalidate the claims of any society to the denomination of a true church, or otherwise, there is no such thing as a true church on earth.

2. We will now, therefore, proceed to show, that uniformity in rites, ceremonies, or polity, is not essential to the constitution of a true church, nor to the scriptural unity of the church generally.

The word of God solemnly forbids any severance of the bonds of christian union, on account of diversities of views respecting rites and ceremonies. In some cases there appears unquestionably to have existed such differences in apostolical churches, as in those of Rome and Corinth, and yet they are required to receive one another as Christ had received them. This duty of mutual tolerance-this liberty which is the privilege of every christian, the apostle Paul proclaims and enforces at length, in the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in his Epistles to the Corinthians, and indeed throughout all his writings. "Let no man judge you," says he, "in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days. If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, after the doctrines and commandments of men ?"1

1) See Schism, chap. viii. and pt. ii. ch. ii. p. 326, &c. "In the days of the apostles, there were great errors and disorders in many particular churches organized by them.

But there was no breach of communion in the universal church. There was a general acknowledgment of brotherhood, and a communication both of spiritual and temporal benefits. It is not a rash conjecture, that the church at Corinth differed more from the

church at Philippi, in matters connected with true godliness, than any two evangelical churches differ in this country." Dr. Rice's Magazine, (The Lit. and Evang. Mag.) vol. ix. 1826, p. 195. Essays on the Church. "The standard adopted by the presbyterian church does not own apostolical dignity in any offinow in the universal church. It is not thought that the form of administration is essential to the being of a church." (Ibid, p. 132.)

cer

There were at a very early period different congregations in the same city, as in Jerusalem, Corinth, Antioch, &c., and yet these were one. So were there different churches in different parts of the same country, and yet these were one. And so again were there churches in different countries, and yet were these one. It is also certain that these churches differed from each other in various points, and yet they remained one. Thus where there were both Jewish and Gentile converts in the same community, they either retained their different views, rites, and customs, (as it is known the Hebrew christians did theirs for a length of time,) while united in the same congregation, or they formed separate congregations, where each maintained their own customs; and yet did they preserve the bonds of peace and unity.1

"It can be indisputably proved," says the learned Mosheim, in his Commentaries, "that those of the christians who persisted in adhering to the observance of the law of Moses, did not separate themselves from the rest of the brethren, until Jerusalem, which had just begun to rise again from its ashes, was secondly, and finally, laid waste by the Romans, in the time of the Emperor Hadrian; and that it was upon their so separating themselves, and not before, that they came to be distinguished by the titles of Ebionites and Nazarenes, and were numbered amongst the corrupters of christianity. Previously to their acting thus, they were regarded by no one in any other light than as true christians. During the first century, they certainly had not, by any means, forfeited their claim to the title of brethren, although they had given proofs of weakness, and a want of further light. Heretics, it is true, they became, but this was at a subsequent period, when they refused any longer to hold fellowship with those who had discernment enough to perceive, that Christ had relieved the necks of even the Jews themselves from the yoke and burden of the law."2

Indeed, this very case, of difference of customs in different churches, is provided for in the word of God, in reference to a point in which the subject-matter of division was, to say the very least, as important as those questions of polity which separate the reformed churches, and which are made excuses for

1) See Gieseler's Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 81; Clarkson's Primitive Episcopacy, pp. 78, 106-109; Vidal's Mosheim, vol. i. p. 288, et seq.; King's Primitive Church, p. 155.

2) Mr. Milman, in his recent

History of Christianity, expresses himself as "confidently believing, that in Rome, as in Corinth, there were two communities, a Petrine and a Pauline, a Judaizing and a Hellenizing church."

non-intercourse, alienation, and lordly claims to ascendancy and power. "Jewish converts," says the author of Unity and Schism, "were permitted to practice circumcision, and to observe other parts of the Mosaic law, so long as they did not attempt to enforce the observance of such things on their Gentile brethren; but the moment they did so, apostolic authority interposed; 'subjection' was not yielded, 'no, not for an hour.' In Paul's epistle to the churches of Galatia, we have an account of a case in which such an infringement of christian liberty was attempted, by 'false brethren unawares brought in.' 'However,' says the apostle, 'not even Titus, who was with me, though a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.' Those who attempted to enforce on their brethren, converted from among the Gentiles, the observance of the Mosaic ritual, received from the Spirit of God, by the mouth of Peter, this severe rebuke: 'Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" "

"So long as circumcision, and other Jewish rites, were merely permitted, and while those who observed them, were regarded as 'weak in the faith,' as but imperfectly acquainted with the true genius of christianity, it was manifest to all, that in Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing;' confidence in external rites was discouraged-no ground was afforded it whereon to rest. But once let the observance of these rites have been enforced upon all, and they could have appeared unimportant no longer. Confidence would, in many cases, have been transferred from the atonement of Christ to them; the church would have been driven back on the 'beggarly elements;' and the distinctive spirituality of christianity destroyed. Accordingly, we find that the observance of Jewish rites, was conceded to the weakness and predilections of Jewish converts, only so long as they did not esteem or inculcate them as possessed of any importance or efficacy under the christian dispensation. Whenever any of them began so to regard or inculcate them, their observance was permitted to such no longer; it was declared, in their case, to be incompatible with the essence of christian character. The language of inspired authority to such was, 'I say unto you, if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man who is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of none effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace . . . . for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but

faith that worketh by love.' Those who evinced a disposition to attach importance to the observance of superseded ceremonies, necessarily brought into suspicion the genuineness of their faith. 'After that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain . . . I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.' In accordance with this, we find that separation of Jewish from Gentile brethren, on account of differences subsisting between them regarding ceremonial observances, was emphatically condemned by the same apostle, not only as inimical to christian unity, but also as tending to the subversion of the gospel, by reinvesting with importance such observances. 'When Peter came to Antioch,' says he, 'I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For, before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter, before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law, shall no flesh be justified. . . . If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead is vain."

That such diversities of forms, order, and ceremonies existed in the early as well as in the later churches, let the canons, decrees, and the various draughts of its worship and order, and all differing from one another, so that scarcely two writers can be found to coincide as to all important matters-let these bear witness. Let the differences between the churches of different countries, and between the same church, when viewed at different periods of time, bear witness. Let the wide contrast be

1) See pp. 26-32.

2) Augustine, speaking of differences of rites, says, "there is nothing more becoming a dignified and

prudent christian, than to conform to the practice of that particular church, which he may happen to visit." Epist. 118, ad Januar. cap. ii.

tween the Oriental, Greek, Western, and Anglican churches, as now constituted and ordered, bear witness.

For many ages, we are well certified, there was no uniformity in the creeds adopted at pleasure by each church severally.' Each bishop was supreme in his own diocese, subject only to Christ, and, therefore, there could not two be found agreeing in the same order of public worship, or in the same prayers. Even after liturgies were introduced, which they were not generally for several centuries after Christ, there was no uniformity among the churches even of the same state or kingdom.3 And so it was, also, with respect to other matters equally important, as in the administration of the sacraments.*

It is granted, that even after christendom had become perfectly prelatized, and squared down by pontifical rules, and sacerdotal measurement, so as to exhibit its regular compartments of parishes, dioceses, provinces, and patriarchates, yet "from the first there were portions of the christian world which were not included in any patriarchate, but were governed by themselves. Such were the churches of Cyprus, and such were the British churches. This need not here be proved; it is confessed by papists themselves." "The great council of the whole christian world assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 431, and made the following decree: 'We, therefore, decree, that the prelates of the Cyprian churches shall be suffered without let or hindrance, to consecrate bishops by themselves; and, moreover, that the same rule shall be observed also in other dioceses and provinces every where, so that no bishop shall interfere in another province,

1) See the author's Tract on A Public Form of Christian Profession scriptural, reasonable, and in accordance with the practice of the primitive and other churches. Also Clarkson on the Liturgies, p. 100, &c.

2) The oldest reaches not beyond the fifth or fourth century, "and these are corrupted with false doctrine, and almost idol worship." Bishop Meade's Sermon for Bishop Elliott, p. 72.

3) See Clarkson, ut supra, and Bib. Repert., 1830, p. 400. There was no uniformity in the order of worship in Ireland until the time of Gillebertus and Malachias, in the twelfth century. Anselm tells us, (Collier, Eccl. Hist. fol. vol. i. pref. p. 11,) that at the instance and command of many of them, he had drawn up a form for divine service, and gone through all the offices of the church. That he engaged in

this undertaking to put an end to the different schismatical usages; that his design was to settle an uniformity of worship, and make all disagreeing compositions give way to the catholic and Roman office. For what looks more like indecency and schism than such foreign unresembling liturgies; where the diversities are so remarkable, that a priest, who is perfectly master of the service in one diocese, knows nothing of it in another?" As it regards the British churches, Mr. Palmer, in his Antiquities of the English Ritual, says, "As, however, each bishop had the power of making some improvements in the liturgy of his church, in process of time different customs arose, and several became so established as to receive the names of their respective churches." Vol. i. p. 186, 2nd edit. Oxf. 1836.

4) Clarkson, ibid, pp. 84, 82, 89.