church had, at this period, become notoriously corrupt;' and while the Levitical code had been continually enlarged by tradition, many things were taught as 'doctrines' which were but the commandments of men.'" Happy had it been for the cause of religion, if Christians had never imitated the conduct of the Pharisees, by claiming authority either to prescribe or to forbid the use of forms! What is, in itself, lawful, may become unlawful, when thus enforced: for compliance is then the dictate, not of conviction, but of necessity, or of self-interest. Besides, does the unity of the body of Christ depend either on the use, or the absence, of a liturgy in worship? May we not, here, apply, in its spirit, the apostolic exhortation? Let not him that eateth despise

worship, which, as the above valuable writer intimates, was, at the time, corrupt, and had much to be condemned in it?' Surely He did not.-Indeed the principle of this argument (from what Christ did as a Jew, and as the Messiah, and therefore Lord of the synagogue, and of the whole Jewish economy) would equally tend, if thoroughly carried out, to establish a divine precedent for retaining, in perpetuity, all the rites and ceremonies of Judaism. If any body of Christians prefer a liturgy, vestments, etc., let them use them; but let not the sacredness of divine sanction be brought forward, on uncertain ground, to uphold what is merely human.

1 Horne's Introduction to the Holy Scriptures, 1822, vol. ii. p. 386.-Gieselers Kirchengeschichte, Bd.i. Abth. 15. 2 Matt. xv. 9.

him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.''

Similar remarks are extensively applicable, also, to vestments, postures, and all ritual and ceremonial observances, not specified in the New Testament, and not absolutely required by common decency. But is there one precept of Christ, or his apostles, by which any particular forms of this kind are enjoined? Yet how often have they been made essential to the unity of the church! What have not the most conscientious and upright men, men whom all parties are now glad to claim, endured, in consequence of these outward forms being imposed! How justly did the Puritans reply to the plea of those who imposed them as 'things indifferent,' and, therefore, to be submitted to;— 'then let them be indifferent; do not enforce them.' You 'impose them, and that makes them essentials;'-an argument in the true spirit of the apostolic doctrine respecting the Mosaic practices. For, apart from the important consideration, (which we now omit,) how far any of the rites or ceremonies, enforced, might, in themselves, be consistent with the letter, or with the spirit of Christianity, compliance would have been sinful, unless free and conscientious. He that doubteth

1 Rom. xiv. 3.

2 Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 132-227.

is condemned if he eat; because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."1

Are even creeds and confessions, as couched in human terms, essential to the unity of the church? How far, historically, they have conduced to real unity, or have shielded the church from the irruptions of error,-or, if desirable, under what precise circumstances, and in what manner, they may be employed, is not now our question;-but can they be scripturally enforced? The first Christians used no written creed. The earliest pastors of the church drew their belief from scripture itself; and they were contented to express that belief in the language of scripture.' Have we anything approaching to fair historical evidence for attributing even the most venerable of our creeds to the apostles? and ought the general principle of imposing as doctrine, any merely human or doubtful forms, to be admitted in the church of Christ?

All parties have erred, more or less, in thus rendering imperative the commandments of men.' Even granting that the traditionary evidence for any supposed apostolic usage may be so overpowering to me, that, although I am obliged to admit that it is not actually found in the scriptures, I can still conscientiously adopt it for my

1 Rom. xiv. 23.

2 Waddington's Church History, p. 26. Ibid. p. 27. Maclaine's Mosheim, 1806. vol. i. p. 116.

self, as virtually of divine authority ;-granting that I cannot sympathize with my brother Christian in his scruples,—that they seem to me to arise from prejudice, or possibly from some obtuseness of intellect which renders him less alive to the force of evidence ;-shall I, even then, build compulsory uniformity on this ground,-the ground of my own private conviction? Shall I make his yielding his opinion to me an essential to my visible oneness with him in Christ? Is he then a 'weak brother?' Of the propriety of so terming him, we will not stay to inquire. But be it so that he is a 'weak brother.' Is it not still a question,

like those of meats,' and days'- a question which does not affect the system of Christianity? 'Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.'-'But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.' *

It is the unanimous testimony of Ecclesiastical History, that the second century was fertile in those germs of corruption which, in the third, assumed a decided form. Mistaken visions of outward unity mingled largely in the process of degeneracy. Piety became confounded with its forms, till the diseased eye of superstition or ambition, saw little beauty but in visible uniformity; and on this, greater and greater stress was laid, in proportion as faith and charity, the vital elements of real unity,

* Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Cor. viii. 12.

died away. Still it was long before the church, in general, had so far lost the ancient apostolic spirit, as to hold uniformity indispensable to unity, and to enact laws for its enforcement.

'The unity of the church,' says Lord King, consisted not in a uniformity of rites and customs, for every particular church (company or congregation of Christians) was at liberty to follow its own proper usages: one church was not obliged to observe the rites of another; but every one followed its own peculiar customs.''

From several of the early christian writers, we may learn that customs and observances which, in later ages, were made essential,-such as given forms of devotion, certain ecclesiastical vestments, or kneeling at the Supper, were not in the primitive times imposed. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian, testify that the mode of celebrating the eucharist varied with time and place; and Firmilian of Cæsarea says that, amidst such diversity, according to the difference of names and places, there has not, on this account, been a departure from the peace and unity of the church.'3

1

6

Enquiry into the Primitive Church. By an Impartial Hand. Lond. 1691. Part I. chap. ix. § 2; comp. Part I. chap. i. § 1, 2.

2

King's Enquiry, part ii. chap. 6.

'Multa pro locorum et nominum diversitate variantur,