with most in the world is for the being, union, and communion of the church Catholick, which are variously perverted by many, separating it into parties, and confining it to rules, measures, and canons of their own finding out and establishment."*

Again. "Had the Presbyterian government been settled, at the King's," (CHARLES the II.). restoration, by the encouragement and protection of the practice of it, without a rigorous imposition of every thing supposed by any to belong thereunto, or a mixture of human constitutions; if there had any appearance of a schism or separation continued between the parties, I do judge they would have been both to blame. For as it cannot be expected that all churches and all persons in them should agree in all principles and practices belonging unto church-order, nor was it so in the days of the Apostles, nor ever since, among any true churches of Christ: so all the fundamental principles of church-communion would have been so fixed and agreed upon between them, and all offences in worship so removed, as that it would have been a matter of no great art absolutely to unite them, or to maintain a firm communion among them, no more than in the days of the

* OWEN's True Nature of a Gospel Church. Chap. XI. p. 237. 4to.

Apostles and the primitive times, in reference to the differences that were among churches in those days. For they allowed distinct communion upon distinct apprehensions of things belonging unto church-order or worship, all 'keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' If it shall be asked, then, why they did not formerly agree in the Assembly? I answer (1.) I was none of them, and cannot tell. (2.) They did agree, in my judgment, well enough; if they could have thought so: and farther I am not concerned in the difference."*

When Dr. OWEN admits that the Presbyterians and Independents "did not agree in the Assembly;" he means that they did not agree in a scheme of publick ecclesiastical union.†

* OWEN's Inquiry into the Original, &c. of Evangelical Churches, p. S47. 4to.

+ The greater part of Christendom, in that age, had its head full of the idea of a national church in alliance with the state; and to that national church every body must conform. They therefore made a wide, but not a very scriptural, difference, between the treatment of those who favoured a particular form of church government at home, and those who favoured it abroad. What in the latter case was no obsta cle to brotherly affection and intercourse, was, in the former, an unpardonable offence; fit to be argued with by civil pains and penalties. Thus, when ELIZABETH'S government was helping the Presbyterians of France, it was plaguing and persecuting the Presbyterians of England. And when the Presbyterians gained the ascendancy under CHARLES I. and OLIVER CROMWELL, nothing would do but all the world must be Presbyterians! and if the Theologians could not en

That such was the real state of the case; that churches were kept asunder in England from mere party feeling, is roundly averred by one of their noblest men, Mr. JOHN HOWE. "I cannot forget," says he, "that sometime discoursing with some very noted persons about the business of union among Christians, it hath been freely granted me, that there was not so much as a principle left (among those the discourse had reference to) upon which to disagree; and yet the same fixed aversion to union continued as before; as a plain proof they were not principles, but ends we were to differ for."*

Let us, for a moment, hear this dignified advocate of Catholick fellowship plead its cause in his own nervous language.

"The more truly Catholick the communion of Christians is, it is the more truly Christian."+

"Nor is it mere Peace that is to be aimed at, but free, mutual, Christian-communion with such as do all hold the Head Christ:

"As peace between nations infers commerce; so among Christian churches, it ought to infer a

lighten them in the expediency of such a measure, their lack of success must be supplied by that great master of syllogisms-the attorney general!

* WORKS, Vol. ii. p. 274. Lond. 1724. Fol,

+ WORKS, Vol. ii. p. 538. Lond. 1724. Fol.

fellowship in acts of worship. I wish there were no cause to say this is declined when no pretence is left against it but false accusation; none but what must be supported by lying and calumny. Too many are busy at inventing of that which is no where to be found, that exists not in the nature of things, that they may have a colour for continued distance. And is not this to fly in the face of the authority under which we live, i. e. the ruling power of the kingdom of Christ, the Prince of Peace? 'Tis strange they are not ashamed to be called Christians; that they do not discard and abandon the name, that can allow themselves in such things! And 'tis here to be noted, that 'tis quite another thing, what is in itself true or false, right or wrong; and what is to be a measure or boundary of Christian-communion. Are we yet to learn, that Christian-communion is not amongst men that are perfect; but that are labouring under manifold imperfections, both in knowledge and holiness! And whatsoever mistake in judgment or obliquity in practice can consist with holding the Head, ought to consist also with being of the same Christian-communion; not the same locally, which is impossible; but the same occasionally, as any providence invites, at this or that time; and mentally, in heart and spirit, at all times. And to such peace (and consequently

communion) we are all called, in one body, Col. iii. 15. We are expressly required to receive one another, (which cannot but mean into each others communion,) and not to doubtful disputations, Rom. xiv. 1. If any be thought to be weak, and thereupon to differ from us in some or other sentiments, if the difference consists with holding the Head, they are not, because they are weak, to be refused communion, but received; and received, because the Lord has received them, ver. 3. All that we should think Christ has received into his communion, we ought to receive into ours, Rom. xv. 7. Scriptures are so express to this purpose, that nothing can be more.

"And indeed, to make new boundaries of Christian-communion, is to make a new Christianity, and a New Gospel, and new rules of Christ's kingdom; and by which to distinguish subjects and rebels, and in effect to dethrone him, to rival him in his highest prerogative, viz. the establishing the terms of life and death for men living under his Gospel: It is to confine salvation, in the means of it, to such or such a party, such a church, arbitrarily distinguished from the rest of Christians; as if the privileges of his kingdom belonged to a party only; and that, for instance, the Lord's Table were to lose its name, and be no longer so called, but the table of this or that