unlawful to communicate with each other, but merely because their different and contrary forms of worship render it impossible. Let them not therefore censure or judge one another, but so far as true piety appears, let them account each other good christians, and be ready to do all proper christian offices for, and toward each other; and let them wait till God shall convince either of them of their excessive rigour, and unreasonable strictness, in their particular opinions, and in the mean time let them be heartily willing to join with each other in such parts of worship in which they agree, where just occasions may require it.

Secondly, If the thing were possible, and such a mingled communion of all professed protestants could be practised, yet there are some cases wherein it would be unlawful, and ought not to be practised: For several persons may believe the bible to be the only and perfect rule of faith and duty, and yet may put such a sense upon it, as is either dishonourable, dangerous, or destructive of the christian faith; I have made this appear at large under the foregoing question; there I have shown that there may be Anthropomorphite and Arian protestants, Sabellian, Socinian, and Pelagian; rational and enthusiastic; literal and allegorical; Calvinist, Arminian, and Antinomian; there I have largely proved, that persons professing the bible, may deny the divinity and satisfaction of Christ, the real resurrection of Christ, the operations of the Holy Spirit, the final resurrection of the body, and several other such important doctrines, by turning the expressions of scripture to a mere allegorical and figurative sense Now as a a certain author says, "If a man use the words of scripture, but impose a very different and new sense upon them, he may thereby as well bring in a new gospel, as if he used words of his own; and so he subjects himself justly to the anathema, or curse of the apostle. Gal. i. 8, 9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that ye have received, let him be accursed. It is a very just and remarkable saying to this purpose of doctor Reynolds, in conference with Hart: "He who believes the words of Christ, in the sense of antichrist, and rejects the sense of Christ, and his Spirit, is not a christian, but is, indeed and truth, antichristian." Now with such sort of persons, christian communion ought not to be maintained, for they who deny the christian faith, can have no right to the special ordinances of Christ.

Thirdly, if such a promiscuous communion of all professing protestants were both possible and lawful, yet it is highly inexpedient. Now the apostle has determined it, that things which are utterly inexpedient, and such as hinder the edification of the church, should not be practised; 1 Cor. x. 23. The great and evident inexpediency, and the many inconveniences of such a community, will appear under the following heads:

SECT. II. Inconvenience I. What a most uncomfortable communion would christians have among brethren and sisters, in the same community of such wild and distant principles, as those ten differences of christians I have reckoned up under the former question? Read over all their opinions again, and say, how utterly inexpedient is it that these should be united in one church! What fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? 2 Cor. vi. 14—16. For he that disbelieves any necessary articles of the christian faith, we may rank him among the infidels.

Christian communion, in the pleasure and profit of it, consists very much in an union of hearts in constant public worship, in praying occasionally with one another, and conferring together about divine things: But what bonds of charity can unite their hearts, where one justly suspects the other's faith in points of greatest importance? How can they join with pleasure in hearing the same word of God, while their sense and meaning under those words is so extremely different, and contrary to each other, as light and darkness, as God and the creature, as heaven and earth? What pleasure in joining to address the same Saviour, while one believes him to be the true and eternal God, the other thinks him but a mere man? What harmony is there in their joys and praises, while one adores this Redeemer for bearing the punishment of all his sins, and dying as a sacrifice in his stead; and the other, by the same expressions of adoration, only gives him thanks for confirming his doctrine of remission of sins by becoming a martyr for it? What delight can the members of the same church take in conversing with each other, who differ so widely even in things of experimental and practical godliness? While one is relating the power and freedom of divine grace in convincing him of sin, and shining into his heart to give him the saving knowledge of the gospel in turning his mind from earth to heaven, and changing his whole soul, with all the powers of it, into a divine temper, in securing him from this and that temptation, and over ruling his spirit to persevere in the paths of holiness; the other believes that divine grace and power has no hand in all this, but what is only providential, by external means and helps; and that this piety is really to be abscribed to the freedom of his own will; and perhaps a third person shall interpose, and say in Antinomian language, "There is no need you should be so solicitous about these lesser matters of freedom from temptation, or the mortification of sin, either by divine grace, or by your own will: if you are but a believer in Christ, and your faith be strong, sin cannot do you hurt, and you shall certainly be saved." What wretched communion in prayer, or holy

conference, must be maintained among fellow-members of the same church, whose opinions are so fearfully divided?

SECT. III. Inconvenience II. What an unhappy station must a minister have amongst such a people? How difficult to fulfil his ministrations of prayer and preaching without offence? Or rather how impossible? Surely the work of a preacher is to explain the scripture to his hearers; but he can hardly step out beyond the very express words of scripture, but he breaks in upon some of their darling sentiments: He can scarce comment upon any text, but he opposes the one side or the other of two contrary opinions, and grieves some of the flock: He can hardly speak of the person of Christ Jesus the mediator, but he offends the Arian, the Samosatenian, or Athanasian: He can scarce express any thing about the redemption and atonement of Christ, but he awakens either the Calvinist, or the Socinian, to jealousy, and affronts their sacred doctrines: He must not ascribe glory to the Father, Son, and Spirit, lest he displease the Unitarians in his assembly; nor must he neglect it, lest the Trinitarian take umbrage. He dares not name the word perseverance, lest the Arminian be angry; and if he should talk of falling from grace, the Calvinist trembles, and half despairs. And as preaching would be rendered almost impracticable, unless he confined himself only to mere moral duties, such as Seneca might preach; so all his ministrations in prayer and thanksgiving would be most unhappily perplexed and confined. He must not pray for for giveness of sins, for the antinomian believer does not want it; nor for almighty sanctifying grace, for the remonstrant christian knows no need of it: He must not confess original sin, for the pelagian disowns himself guilty; nor dares he mention a word of the imputed righteousness of Christ, or justification by faith alone, lest half the assembly rise in arms against him: Nor must he venture to give thanks for the free electing love of God, least two-thirds of his church shew a murmuring dissent. Surely there is little left for this man to talk of in his pulpit, but what he may borrow from Plato, Plutarch, or Epictetus.

SECT. IV. To prevent this inconvenience, the patrons of this opinion assert, "That a minister ought not to impose any particular sense on any of the controverted scriptures in his preaching" but all his business is freely and fairly to acquaint the people with those various senses of scripture, in which the different sects of christianity have contrived to explain it He must represent the reasons impartially on both sides, and leave them to the judgment of the hearers, without biassing of them, as one expresses it, by the needless declaration of his own opinion:" "And they tell us," it would be much more edifying to all christians, if ministers in their public discourses expressly asserted no other things than such as all, who read the scrip

h

ture and receive it for the rule of their faith, acknowledge to be certain." To this I reply,

Reply I. What poor food would this be for hungry and thirsty souls to be treated with nothing else in a christian church, but the mere inculcation of moral duties, or the narration of christian controversies. What support could a weary and heavy laden sinner, bowed down and broken with a sense of guilt, obtain from such a discourse? Must a poor perishing creature, under the fears of the wrath of God, have no relief given it from a just and full explication of the sacrifice of Christ, because the Socinian does not believe it? And must a weak christian, conflicting long with sins and temptations, have no encouragement from the doctrine of inward effectual grace, lest the Arminian take offence at it? Is this that way of preaching that Christ has ordained to save guilty and impotent creatures, by a deep sense of the true and only relief, or a mere dubious proposal of it?

II. Besides, how can a minister answer it to God, or his own conscience, if he sees errors in matters of importance growing amongst men, perhaps in his own church too, and does not attempt to prevent or refute them by his best interpretation of the word of God? Is he not set for the defence and confirmation of the gospel; Phil. i. 17. Is he not bound to maintain sound doctrine, and to teach no other; 1 Tim. i. 3. Must not he contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints; Jude verse 3. How narrow is the work of a gospel minister, and how much less useful is his labour or his office, if he be forbid this service to Christ, and the church? There were some little points of controversy, in the apostles' days, about the lawfulness of meats, &c. which if they were never determined, Would not be destructive to christianity; concerning these, the apostle at some seasons directs to keep our faith, or opinion, to Ourselves; Rom. xiv. 22. Yet at other times he bids Timothy preach his own sense of them, and declare for christian liberty,' and the free use of food. 1 Tim. iv. 6. If thou put the brethren in mind of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, &c. Now can we think that Timothy should publiely give his sense in such circumstantial things, and yet not give it in the most important matters of the satisfaction and atonement of Christ, and the doctrines of the efficacious sanctifying grace of the Spirit? Read 2 Tim. ii. 14, 15, 18, 23, &c. Tit. i. 9, 10, 13. and chapter ii. 1, 2. and judge if the apostle requires, or even indulges those young preachers to propose important doctrines in such a doubtful way, as may minister questions, and gender strifes; and in such an indifferent manner, as though it was no matter which opinion his hearers embraced: Surely this Would be the way to keep men ever learning, and never coming to asetiled knowledge of the truth.

III. I might add in the third place, how can it he supposed, that every minister who has determined his own sentiments in these controverted points, should represent the different senses of scripture in just and impartial language, so as not to favour either side? Will not his own opinion give a warmth of delivery, or a brightness of expression, while he is representing the reasons of it? And will he not be tempted with a cold and languid faintness, to propose the arguments of those that differ from him? It is utterly as unreasonable to expect such an unbiassed indifferency in his explications of the important points in the word of God, as it is unrighteous to require it.

IV. In the last place I reply, that such a practice as this would kindle contentions instead of quenching them: It would raise perpetual strife in the church, instead of composing it; and by relating the opinions and arguments on all sides, would furnish every warm temper with weapons offensive and defensive, to carry on the controversial war, and fight it out at home. This thought naturally leads me to mention the third inconvenience, of forming such a mixed and motley church.

SECT. V. Inconvenience III. This sort of communion would be much more likely to tear itself to pieces by perpetual jangles, disputes, and quarrels, than to maintain peace and unity. Nor could this pretended bond of peace, an agreement in express words of scripture, secure it. Our Saviour has already given a fair decision of this matter, when he assures us, that a house divided against itself can never stand; Mat. xii. 25. These persons that entertain so different opinions in religion, might agree well enough in the common affairs of life, if they were not joined in one church, and by that means brought constantly to worship together; but when they must hear continually the same sermons, attend the same prayers, and offer thanks to God together in the same words, with different meanings, it is not possible to secure them from awakening their jarring and contrary sentiments, whensoever any thing relating to those subjects is mentioned; and it is most likely too it will rouse their anger, their contempt, and their uncharitable censures of those that differ from them in points of importance. Thus the proposed band of peace would become a fire-brand of perpetual war, till it ended in divisions and desolation. And this event may justly and reasonably be expected upon the election of every new officer in the church, as often as death, or removal of communion, or incapacity, &c. give occasion for a new choice. Will not each party be zealous to elect a person of their own sentiments? And the church by this means be crumbled into many parties, and divided amongst many candidates? Thus the passions of men will have a strong temptation to exert themselves in wrath and reproaches; nor can any of them be per