proof of it. It is true they imposed on, or charged the consciences of men with the observance of all the institutions and commands of Christ; but of other things none at all.

The last things which he endeavours an answer unto on this occasion lies in these words. The Jewish Christians were left unto their own liberty, provided they did not impose on others; and the dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile church did, viz. not to be imposed on to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed on them.' So is my sense, in the places referred unto, reported. Nor shall I contend about it, so as that the last clause be changed; for my words are not, they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ that they should be imposed on them;' but they were not satisfied it is the mind of Christ they should observe.' This respects the things themselves, the other only their imposition. And one reason against the imposition opposed is, that the things themselves imposed, are such as the Lord Christ would not have us observe; because not appointed by himself.

But hereunto he answers two things.

1. That it was agreed by all the governors of the Christian church, that the Jewish Christians should be left unto their own liberty, out of respect unto the law of Moses, and out of regard unto the peace of the Christian church, which otherwise might have been extremely hazarded.' But,

(1.) The governors of the Christian church which made the determination insisted on, were the apostles themselves.

(2.) There was no such determination made, that the Jews should be left unto their own liberty in this matter; but there was only a connivance at their inclination to bear their old yoke for a season; the determination was only on the other hand, that no imposition of it should be made on the Gentiles.

(3.) The determination itself was no act of church government or power, but a doctrinal declaration of the mind of the Holy Ghost.

(4.) It is well that church governors once judged that impositions in things not necessary were to be forborn for the sake of the peace of the church; others, I hope, may in due time be of the same mind.

2. He says, 'The false apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two circumstances in it, which extremely alter their case from that of our dissenters.' For,

(1.) They were none of their lawful governors, but went about as seducers, drawing away the disciples of the apostles from them.' It seems then,

(1.) That those who are lawful governors, or pretend themselves so to be, may impose what they please without control, as they did in the papacy, and the councils of it. But,

(2.) Their imposition was merely doctrinal, wherein there was no pretence of any act of government or governing power; which made it less grievous, than that which the dissenters have suffered under. Were things no otherwise imposed on us, we should bear them more easily.

(2.) Saith he, 'They imposed the Jewish rites as necessary to salvation, and not merely as indifferent things;' and the truth is, so long as they judged them so to be, they are more to be excused in their doctrinal impositions of them, than others are, who by an act of government, fortified with I know not how many penalties, do impose things which themselves esteem indifferent; and those on whom they are imposed, do judge to be unlawful.

Whereas he adds, 'That he hath considered all things that are material in my discourse which seem to take off the force of the argument drawn from this text;' I am not of his mind, nor I believe will any indifferent person be so, who shall compare what I wrote therein, with his exceptions against it; though I acknowledge it is no easy thing to discover wherein the force of the pretended argument doth lie. That we must walk according unto the same rule in what we have attained; that wherein we differ, we must wait on God for teaching and instruction; that the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, determined from the Scriptures, or the mind of the Holy Ghost therein, that the Jewish ceremonies should not be imposed on the Gentile churches and believers; and that thereon those churches continued in communion with each other, who did, and did not observe those ceremonies, are the only principles which in truth the doctor hath to proceed upon. To infer from these principles and propositions, that there is a national church

of divine institution, for what is not so, hath no churchpower properly so called; the nature of its power, being determined by the authority of its institution or erection. That this church hath power in its governors and rulers to invent new orders, ceremonies, and rites of worship, new canons for the observation of sundry things in the rule of the church and worship of God, which have no spring nor cause but their own invention and prescription, and is authorized to impose the observation of them on all particular churches and believers who never gave their consent unto their invention or prescription; and hereon to declare them all to be wicked schismatics, who yield not full obedience unto them in these things, it requires a great deal of art and skill, in the managers of the argument.

SECT. II.

PART ii. sect. 21. p. 176. our author proceeds to renew his charge of schism or sinful separation against those, 'who though they agree with us,' saith he, in the substantials of religion, yet deny any communion with our church to be lawful.' But apprehending that the state of the question here insinuated will not be admitted, and that it would be difficult to find them out, who deny any communion with the church of England to be lawful; he adds, that he doth not speak of any improper acts of communion, which Dr. Owen calls communion in faith and love; which they allow to the church of England.' But why the acts hereof are called 'improper acts of communion,' I know not. Add unto faith and love, the administration of the same sacraments, with common advice in things of common concernment, and it is all the communion that the true churches of Christ have among themselves in the whole world. Yea, this church communion is such, as that,

1. Where it is not, there is no evangelical communion at all. Whatever acts of worship or church-order men may agree in the practice of, if the foundation of that agreement be not laid in a joint communion in faith and love, they are neither accepted with God, nor profitable unto the souls of men. For,

2. These are the things, namely, faith and love, which enliven all joint duties of church-order and worship, are the life and soul of it; and how they should be only improperly that, which they alone make other things to be properly, I cannot understand.

3. Where there is no defect in these things, namely, in faith and love, the charge of schism on dissenting in things of lesser moment, is altogether unreasonable. It is to be desired, that an overweening of our differences, make us not overlook the things wherein we are agreed. This is one of the greatest evils that attend this controversy. Men are forced by their interest, to lay more weight on a few outward rites and ceremonies, which the world and the church might well have spared, had they not come into the minds of some men, none know how, than upon the most important graces and duties of the gospel. Hence communion in faith and love, is scarce esteemed worth taking up in the streets, in comparison of uniformity in rites and ceremonies. Let men be as void of, and remote from, true gospel faith and love as is imaginable; yet if they comply quietly with, and have a little zeal for, those outward things, they are to be approved of, as very orderly members of the church. And whatever evidences on the other hand, any can or do give of their communion in faith and love, with all that are of that communion, yet if they cannot in conscience comply in the observance of those outward things mentioned, they are to be judged schismatics, and breakers of the church's unity; whereas no part of the church's unity doth or ever did consist in them.

In his procedure hereon, our author seems to embrace occasions of contending, seeking for advantages therein, in things not belonging unto the merit of the cause, which I thought was beneath him. From my concession, that some at least of our parochial churches are true churches; he asks,, 'In what sense? Are they churches rightly constituted, with whom they may join in communion as members?' I think it is somewhat too late now, after all this dispute about the reasons of refraining from their communion, and his severe charges of schism upon us for our so doing, to make this inquiry. Wherefore he answers himself, 'No, but his meaning is,' saith he, 'that they are not guilty of any such

heinous errors in doctrine, or idolatrous practice in worship, as should utterly deprive them of the being and nature of churches,' which I suppose are my words. But then comes in the advantage; 'Doth,' saith he, this kindness belong only unto some of our parochial churches? I had thought that every parochial church was true or false according unto its frame and constitution, which among us, supposeth the owning the doctrine and worship established in the church of England.' I answer briefly, It is true, every church is true or false according unto its original frame and constitution. This frame and constitution of churches, if it proceed from, and depend upon, the institution of Christ, it is true and approvable. If it depend only on a national establishment of doctrine and worship, I know not well what to say unto it. But let any of these parochial churches be so constituted, as to answer the legal establishment in the land, yet if the generality of their members are openly wicked in their lives, and they have no lawful or sufficient ministry, we cannot acknowledge them for true churches., Some other things of the like nature do ensue, but I shall not insist on them.

He gathers up in the next place, the titles of the causes alleged, for our refraining communion with those parochial assemblies, which he calls our separation from them. And hereon he inquires, whether these reasons be a ground for a separation from a church, wherein it is confessed there are no heinous errors in doctrine, or idolatrous practice in worship;' that is, as he before cited my words, 'as should utterly deprive them of the being and nature of churches.' And if they be not, then, saith he, 'such a separation may be a formal schism, because they set up other churches of their own.'

The rule before laid down, that all things lawful are to be done for the church's peace, taking in the supposition on which it proceeds, is as sufficient to establish church tyranny, as any principle made use of by the church of Rome, notwithstanding its plausible appearance. And that here insinuated of the unlawfulness of separation from any church in the world (for that which hath pernicious errors in doctrine, and idolatry in worship, destroying its being, is no church at all), is as good security unto churches, in an obstinate refusal of reformation, when the souls of the people are