Upon this view of things, as far as it has gone, and as far as we trust to the scriptures of the Old Testament, I apprehend that sufficient ground has been laid for concluding, according to what I have said before, first, that a total freedom from church government and external ceremonies is not a state particularly favourable to the increase of religion, but rather the contrary secondly, that where such government, and such ordinances have been established, any attempt to shake them off, whether directed against the of the individuals who were persons at the head of the establishment, or against the authority which they exercised, and the mode of worship itself, has not only not been approved of by God, but has drawn down upon those who presumed so to act, his heavy indignation. And not only this, but we have here an example where God actually himself instituted and established not only a very minute and extensive code of such rites and ordinances, but set apart a particular description of persons to minister in them before him. This too, among that favoured people whom he had chosen out of all the nations, as the people with whom he would dwell, and with whom only the knowledge of him should be preserved. It appears, I say, that from this people, among whom he raised up a succession of holy men and prophets, he required not merely the abstracted worship of the spirit, but also a rigid adherence to visible forms and ceremonies. He required it from the body at large; he required it also from every individual. This must, therefore, I conceive, form a strong presumption in favour of adopting a certain degree of ceremony in the institution of any religion. At least it should seem hardly excusable, certainly not justifiable, for any person to separate from the communion of his fellows, united in the same faith, merely because they use ceremonies; as long, at least, as those ceremonies continue to be such as cannot be shewn to be either unlawful in themselves, or leading directly to evil consequences. Yet, you well know, that this was the reason which in later times, was assigned by the great body of the dissenters in this country for their separation from our church. When pressed hard for the grounds of that separation, when it was urged that the use of the surplice, as well as the sign of the cross in baptism, were adopted simply for the sake of decency and of edification, they persisted in objecting to them, even to the perpetuating of the schism, purely and nakedly upon the ground that there was no express warrant of Christ and his apostles for the use of those particular forms, that they were therefore impositions of men, and that to such impositions they would not submit. Now, without recurring to that argument which I have hinted before, that there is no mode of worshipping God, which prevails in any congregation, though ever so bare of forms, that has not something of human institution in it, that according to this reasoning, even the appointment of any particular day or hour for divine worship, may be called a human imposition; that such a proposition if consistently pursued, and insisted upon rigorously, would lead to all the extravagances of mysticism; that, in fact, it has led among the Quakers to the taking away of the sacraments, and the resisting of the civil authority, in more than one important point'; let us see whether in fact there be any reason to pronounce that the kingdom of Christ was to be essentially different even in these particulars, from the kingdom which had before resided with Judah; whether either our Lord or his apostles shewed a repugnance to complying with forms, merely as forms; nay, to go farther, whether they held it a sufficient reason for separating from any This is in fact the case with the Quakers in many important particulars; nor does their disclaiming all war or resistance to what they call oppression, carry with it any thing like a due and necessary submission to "the powers that be." By refusing to pay tythes, to take upon themselves particular offices, to be sworn as witnesses, and various other instances, where they hold a conduct in direct opposition to the laws of their country, they in fact carry on a system of resistance, which, if it were general, would be most effectual to the overthrow of the government. communion, that its rulers, though preserving the true doctrine, were, in their own particular practice, themselves become corrupt. In the first place, we find our saviour, though as he said of himself, he was "Lord of the Sabhath*,” as of all things, whether of divine or of human institution, submitting to every rite of the Jewish church, circumcised, presented in the temple, going up to Jerusalem with his parents at the stated season; and, before he entered upon his ministry, solemnly baptized: this too, for that very memorable reason which he gave to John at the time of his baptism, that thus "it became him to fulfil all righteousness," thus expressly attaching righteousness to the performance of outward ceremonies. After that even while he is reprobating the hypocrisy and wickedness of the elders among the Jews, so far is he from taking occasion to disparage their authority, that he expressly guards against any such conclusion. "The scribes and the pharisees," he said to the people, "sit in Moses' seat; all "therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, "that observe and do; but do not after their works, for they say and do not." Even after he had ascended up into Heaven, and when the apostles were actually carrying into 66 * Luke vi. 5. Mark ii. 28. † Matth. iii. 15. execution the important and gracious purpose for which he came, of breaking down the partition wall, and extending the knowledge of God to the gentiles also; we do not find either in the apostles themselves, or in the Jewish converts, any aversion to joining in communion with the body of the Jews, or to complying with the ceremonies of the law. They took care indeed to guard against the imposition of the yoke upon the gentile converts; but, as far as appears from history, as long as Jerusalem existed, and there was a temple where Jehovah was wor shipped, such Christians as chose might and did pay their vows at his sanctuary. And to the hierarchy of that church they not only paid respect in their persons, but in their writings reasoned upon it and alleged it as supporting their own authority, and as being connected with our religion. Christ is therefore called the "Passover*." He is also not only the vic tim, but the High Priest. It is said of those who were invested with that character, that no man taketh that honour to himself but "he that is called of God, as was Aaront." Again it is asked, as an argument why the ministers of Christ should have a provision supplied to them by those whom they taught, "Know ye not that they which minister about |