An enquiry into the original, nature, institution, power, order and communion of evangelical churches.…

(2.) It was a Determination against Impositions directly. And whereas it is said, that it was a Determination contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, which shows, that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alleged both ways, is no standing Rule; I grant that it was contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, but imposed nothing on them, nor was their Practice concerned in that erroneous Judgement. They were not required to do any thing contrary to their own Judgment; and the not doing whereof did reflect on their own Consciences. Wherefore the whole Rule given by the Apostle and the whole Determination made, is that no Impositions be made on the Consciences or Practice of the Disciples of Christ, in things relating to his Worship, but what were necessary by virtue of Divine Institution. They added hereunto, that the Gentiles enjoying this Liberty, ought to use it without offence; and were at Liberty by virtue of it, to forbear such things, as wherein they had, or thought they had a natural Liberty, in case they gave Offence by the use of them. And the Apostles who knew the state of things, in the Minds of the Jews, and all other Circumstances give an Instance in the things which at that season, were to be so forborne. And whereas this Determination was not absolute and obligatory on the whole Case, unto all Churches, namely, whether the Mosaical Law were to be observed among Christians, but some Churches were left unto their own Judgement and Practise, who esteemed it to be still in force, as the Churches of the Jews, and others left unto their own Liberty and Practise also, who judged it not to oblige them, both sides or Parties being bound to continue. ⟨p. 277⟩Communion among them in Faith and Love, there is herein a perpetual establishment of the Rule of mutual Forbearance in such Cases; nothing being condemned but Impositions on one another; nothing commended but an Abstinence from the use of Liberty in the case of Scandal or Offence. I had therefore Reason to say, that the false Apostles were the only Imposers, that is, of things not necessary by virtue of any divine Institution. And if the Author insinuate, that the true Apostles were such Imposers also, because of the Determination they made of this Difference, he will fail in his Proof of it.

(2.) It was a Determination against Impositions directly. And whereas it is said, that it was a Determination contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, which shews, that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both ways, is no standing Rule; I grant that it was contrary to the Judgment of the Imposers, but imposed nothing on them, nor was their Practice concerned in that erronious Judgement. They were not required to do any thing contrary to their own Judgment; and the not doing whereof did reflect on their own Consciences. Wherefore the whole Rule given by the Apostle and the whole Determination made, is that no Impositions be made on the Consciences or Practice of the Disciples of Christ, in things relating to his Worship, but what were necessary by vertue of Divine Institution. They added hereunto, that the Gentiles enjoying this Liberty, ought to use it without offence; and were at Liberty by vertue of it, to forbear such things, as wherein they had, or thought they had a natural Liberty, in case they gave Offence by the use of them. And the Apostles who knew the state of things, in the Minds of the Jews, and all other Circumstances give an Instance in the things which at that season, were to be so forborn. And whereas this Determination was not absolute and obligatory on the whole Case, unto all Churches, namely, whether the Mosaical Law were to be observed among Christians, but some Churches were left unto their own Judgement and Practise, who esteemed it to be still in force, as the Churches of the Jews, and others left unto their own Liberty and Practise also, who judged it not to oblige them, both sides or Parties being bound to continue.