comes this allowance to be made unto them, which elsewhere is denied?

This third is, In case men make things indifferent necessary to salvation, and divide the church on that account. But,

1. I know not which is to precede or go before, their division of the church, or the just separation, nor how they are to be distinguished; but it was necessary to be so expressed.

2. There are two things in such an imposition; first, the practice of things imposed; secondly the judgment of them that impose them. The former alone belongs unto them who are imposed on; and they may submit unto it, without a compliance with the doctrine, as many did in the apostles' days. For the judgment of the imposers, it was their own error and concernment only.

3. Why is not the imposing of things indifferent, so as to make the observation of them necessary unto men's temporal salvation in this world, so as that the refusal of it shall really affect the refusers with trouble and ruin, as just a cause of separation, as the imposing of them as necessary unto eternal salvation, which shall never affect them?

4. This making things indifferent necessary unto salvation, and as such imposing of them on others, is a thing impossible, that never was, nor ever can be. For it is the judgment of the imposers that is spoken of, and to judge things indifferent in themselves, to be in themselves necessary to salvation, is a contradiction. If only the judgment of the imposers, that such things are not indifferent but necessary to salvation, be intended, and otherwise the things themselves may lawfully be imposed, I know not how this differs from the imposition of indifferent things, under any other pretence.

In his following discourse concerning miscarriages in churches, where no separation is enjoined, we are not at all concerned, and therefore shall not observe the mistakes in it, which are not a few.

But may there not be other causes of peaceable withdrawing from the communion of a church, besides these here enumerated?

1. Suppose ȧ church should impose the observation of Judaical ceremonies, and make their observation necessary,

though not to salvation, yet unto the order and decency of divine worship; it may declare them to be in themselves indifferent; but yet make them necessary to be observed. Or,

2. Suppose a church should be so degenerated in the life and conversation of all its members, that being immersed in various sins, they should have only a form of godliness, but deny the power of it; the rule of the apostle being to avoid and turn away from them.

3. Suppose a church be fallen into such decays in faith, love, and fruits of charity, as that the Lord Jesus Christ by his word, declares his disapprobation of it, and in that state refuses to reform itself, and persecutes them who would reform themselves; Or,

4. Suppose the ministry of any church be such as is insufficient and unable to dispense the word and sacraments unto edification, so as that the whole church may perish as unto any relief by or from the administration of the ordinances of the gospel; I say, in these and such other cases, a peaceable withdrawing from the communion of such churches, is warrantable by the rule of the Scripture.

SECT. III.

THE third part of the doctor's discourse he designs to examine the pleas, as he speaks, for separation. And these he refers to four heads, whereof the first respects the constitution of the church. And those which relate hereunto are four also.

1. That parochial churches are not of Christ's institution.

2. That diocesan churches are unlawful.

3. That our national church hath no foundation.

4. That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their pastórs.

The first of these, namely, that our parochial churches are not of Christ's institution, he begins withal, and therein I am alone called to an account. I wonder the doctor

should thus state the question between us. The meaning of this assertion, that our parochial churches are not of Christ's institution, must be either, they are not so because they are parochial, or at least in that they are parochial. But is this my judgment; have I said any thing to this purpose? yea, he knows full well, that in my judgment there are no churches directly of divine institution, but those that are parochial or particular churches. We are not therefore to expect much in the ensuing disputation, when the state of the question is so mistaken at the entrance.

If he say, or intend, that there are many things in their parochial churches observed, practised, and imposed on all their members, in and about the worship of God, which are not of divine institution, we grant it to be our judgment, and part of our plea in this case. But this is not at all spoken unto.

Wherefore the greatest part of the ensuing discourse on this head, is spent in perpetual diversions from the state of the case under consideration, with an attempt to take advantage for some reflections, or an appearance of success, from some passages and expressions, belonging nothing at all unto the merit of the cause; a course which I thought so learned a person would not have taken, in a case wherein conscience is so nearly concerned.

Some mistakes occurring in it, have been already rectified; as that wherein he supposeth that my judgment is for the democratical government of the church; as also what he allegeth in the denial of the gradual declension of the primitive churches from their first original institution, hath been examined.

I shall therefore plainly and directly propose the things which I assert and maintain in this part of the controversy, and then consider what occurs in opposition unto them, or otherwise seems to be of any force towards the end in general of charging us with schism; and they are these that follow.

1. Particular churches or congregations, with their order and rule, are of divine institution, and are sufficient unto all the ends of evangelical churches. I take churches and congregations in the same sense and notion as the church of England doth, defining the church by a congregation of

believers; otherwise there may be occasional congregations that are not stated churches.

2. Unto these churches, there is committed by Christ. himself, all the ordinary power and privileges that belong unto any church under the gospel, and of them is required the observance of all church duties which it is their sin to omit.

3. There is no church of any other form, kind, nature, or constitution, that is of divine institution. Things may be variously ordered in and amongst Christians; or their societies may be cast, or disposed of, into such respective relations to, and dependance on one another, in compliance. with the political state, and other circumstances of times and places, as may be thought to tend unto their advantage. That which we affirm is, that no alteration of their state from the nature and kind of particular churches is of divine institution.

4. Such churches whose frame, constitution, and power, are destructive of the order, liberty, power, privileges, and duties of particular churches, are so far contrary unto divine institution, and not to be complied withal.

Hereon we affirm, that whereas we are excluded from total communion in our parochial assemblies, by the imposition of things unto us unlawful and sinful, as indispensable conditions of their communion, and cannot comply with them in their rule and worship on the reasons before alleged, it is part of the duty we owe to Jesus Christ, to gather ourselves into particular churches or congregations, for the celebration of divine worship, and the observation, doing, or performance of all his commands. These are the things which in this case we adhere unto, and which must all of them be overthrown, before any colour can be given. unto any charge of schism against us, and what is spoken unto this purpose in the doctor's discourse, we shall now consider. Only I desire the reader to remember, that all these principles or assertions are fully confirmed in the preceeding discourse.

That which first occurs in the treatise under consideration unto the point in hand, is the exception put in unto a passage in my former discourse, which is as follows:

We do not say that because communion in ordinances should be only in such churches as Christ hath instituted,

that therefore it is lawful and necessary to separate from parochial churches; but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold communion from them, it is the duty of them that do so to join themselves in or unto some other particular congregation.'

I have not observed any occasion wherein the doctor is more vehement in his rhetoric, than he is on that of this passage, which yet appears to me to be good sense and innocent.

1. Hereunto he says, (1.) p. 221. That this is either not to the business, or it is a plain giving up the cause of independency.' If he judge that it is not to the business, I cannot help it, and he might, as I suppose, have done well to have taken no notice of it; as I have dealt with many passages in his discourse. But if it 'be a giving up of the cause of independency,' I say, whatever that be, let whoso will take it, and dispose of it as it seems good unto them: but in proof hereof he says,

(1.) Wherefore did the dissenting brethren so much insist upon their separate congregations, when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our church was required of them?'

I answer,

(1.) If any did in those times plead for separate congregations, let them answer for themselves, I was none of them. They did indeed plead for distinct congregations, exempt in some few things from a penal rule, then endeavoured by some to be imposed on all. But there was no such difference nor restraint of communion between any of them, as it is at present between us and parochial churches.

(2.) It is very possible that there may be other reasons of forbearing a conjunction in some acts of church-rule, which was all that was pleaded for by the dissenting brethren, than those which are alleged against total communion with parochial churches in worship, order, and discipline.

2. He adds, secondly, But if he insists on those things common to our church with other reformed churches, then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first institution of churches,' &c.

I fear I do not well understand what this means, nor