While this is certainly interesting, I personally don't see any reason to put any more stock into what the church did in the second century than what it did in the twelfth century, or any other century. The Bible must be our standard for worship.
I do, but at the same time I agree that the scriptures must be our standard for worship. I think the recorded practices of the second century are important because they are heirs of the writers of the scripture, who were from the first century. So it lends perspective. The second century church was the means of preserving scripture, so if they had a particular practice in place that we disagree with on scriptural grounds then the obvious question is why did they do it? What would be their interpretation of the same scripture that we disagree with? I am not here to start a fight, but I think these questions should be considered when we read the fathers and be willing to provide them a measure of grace in areas of disagreement. A group, especially in the East, who had a better mastery of the Greek language than any of us. I am not expecting an answer, nor do I want snarky comments. I think it is to easy to read our own traditions into their practices and make judgements accordingly.
And Rev. Winzer is absolutely right considering the issue of uniformity.
