Besides the proofs which have already been produced, let the following, out of a multitude, suffice.

(1.) The English ANABAPTISTS, in 1644, while the Westminster Assembly was sitting, published their confession of faith, which was strictly Calvinistical, excepting in the article of baptism ; but on account of that difference they declined communion with the other reformed churches-a narrowness which greatly displeased and scandalized their Christian neighbours. For, according to NEAL, "The people of this persuasion were more exposed to the publick resentments, because they would hold communion with none but such as had been dipped."*

Two things are settled by this testimony.

First, That such sectarian communion was contrary to the feelings and habits of the Calvinistic churches at that time, or it would not have drawn upon the Anabaptists "the publick resent

ments." Thence,

Secondly, That in the judgment of these churches, neither difference in the government of the church, (the Anabaptists being Independents,) nor different views of the subjects and mode of baptism, are valid reasons for breaking up communion and therefore that to refuse

* Vol. II. p. 112.

communion on their account is a worse violation of the law of Christ, than an errour in either or in both.

(2.) In 1654, five years after the termination of the Assembly, the provincial Synod of London published a book, entitled Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici; or, The Divine Right of the Gospel Ministry. The ministerial portion of a committee. of that Synod at its first meeting, in 1647, were all members of the Westminster Assembly. One of them, Mr. JEREMIAH WHITAKER, had a chief hand in composing their work.* It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude, that they not only knew, but expressed, the prevailing sentiments of the Westminster divines. In their preface, speaking of the different sorts of men whom they had to deal with, they say, to use their own words,

"5. A fifth sort are our Reverend brethren of New and Old England of the CONGREGATIONAL WAY, who hold our churches to be true churches, and our ministers true ministers, though they differ from us in some lesser things. We have been necessitated to fall upon some things wherein they and we disagree, and have represented the reasons of our dissent. But yet we here profess, That this disagreement shall not hinder us from any Christian accord with them in affec

* NEAL, Vol. II. p. 261, compared with p. 466.

tion: That we can willingly write upon our study-doors that motto which Mr. JEREMIAH BURROUGHES (who, a little before his death, did ambitiously endeavour after union amongst brethren, as some of us can testify) persuades all scholars unto,

"Opinionum varietas, et opinantium unitas non

sunt ασύςατα.”*

And that we shall be willing to entertain any sincere motion (as we have also formerly declared in our printed vindication) that shall further a happy accommodation between us.

"6. The last sort are the moderate, godly episcopal men, that hold ordination by presbyters to be lawful and valid; that a bishop and a presbyter are one and the same order of ministry —that are orthodox in doctrinal truths; and yet hold, that the government of the church by a perpetual moderator is most agreeable to scripture-pattern.

"Though herein we differ from them, yet we are fur from thinking that this difference should hinder a happy union between them and us. Nay, we crave leave to profess to the world, that it will never, as we humbly conceive, be well with ENGLAND, till there be an union endeavoured

Variety of opinions, and the unity of those who hold them, are not incompatible."

and effected between all those that are orthodox in doctrine, though differing among themselves in some circumstances about church-government.

"Memorable is the story of Bishop RIDLEY and Bishop HOOPER, two famous Martyrs, who, when they were out of prison, disagreed about certain ceremonial garments: but when they were put into prison they quickly and easily agreed together. Adversity united them whom prosperity divided."*

(3.) The ministers and messengers of above one hundred congregational churches; among them that prince of modern divines, JOHN OWEN, and that very distinguished minister of Christ, JOHN HOWE, met, at the Savoy, October 12, 1658; and adopted substantially the doctrines of the Westminster confession; among the rest, the chapter on the "communion of saints." Now as this has been proved to comprehend "churchcommunion," it would never have received the approbation of a Synod of congregationalists if it had been supposed not to leave the question about external order among the matters of forbearance. Especially by a Synod who agreed, "that churches consisting of persons sound in the faith, and of good conversation, ought not to refuse communion with each other, though they walk not in all things according to the same rule of

* Preface to Jus divinum, &c. Lond. 1654, 4to.

church-order; and if they judge other churches to be true churches, though less pure, they may receive to occasional communion such members of those churches as are credibly testified to be godly, and to live without offence."*

ans.

This agreement is the more worthy of notice on account of the influence which DR. OWEN is conceded to have possessed in the Synod. For there has not been, and cannot be a more strenuous advocate for enlarged communion than was that champion of the truth of JESUS, that terrour and torment of its vital corrupters-the SociniHe maintains, that "such a communion of Churches is to be inquired after, as from which no true church of Christ is, or can be, excluded; in whose actual exercise they may and ought all to live; and whereby the general end of all churches in the edification of the Catholick church, may be attained. This is the true and only Catholicism of the church, which whoever departs from, or substitutes any thing else in the room of it, under that name, destroys its whole nature, and disturbs the whole ecclesiastical harmony that is of Christ's institution.

"However therefore, we plead for the rights of particular churches, yet our real controversy

* NEAL, Vol. II. p. 508.