5.  But  others  will  cad  the  obje(^ion  I  have  now  confuted  into  this
form  ;  they  will  fay :  '^  That  in  external  things,  among  which  difcipline
**  is  to  be  ranked,  churches  are  at  liberty  to  regulate  themfelves  as
*'  they  tl-ynk  good."  1  grant  that  churches  have  that  liberty  in  v\~
different  things,  which  are  not  appointed  by  a  divine  authority ;  but
this  cannot  be  applied  to  the  matter  in  hand.  An  eflabhfliment  of
divine  inftitution  cannot  be  reckoned  among  things  indifferent.  Do
we  look  upon  the  facraments  as  indifferent  ceremonies,  which  wc  are
not  bound  to  obferve,  under  pretence  that  they  are  but  external  rites
and  ordinances  ?  Churches  indeed  have  a  liberty  where  there  is  no  lav/,
though  dill  that  liberty  is  to  be  wifely  and  difcreetly  ufed,  for  fear  of
confufion  :  but  when  God  has  fettled  an  order,  churches  are  not  at
liberty  tochufe  another,  to  make  new  laws,  and  to  fet  up  a  new  form
of  government.  Such  a  liberty  would  be  mere  unrulincfs,  and  a  cri-
minal and  facrilegious  prefumption.  This  would  be  the  way  to  mul-
tiply fe^ls  and  refigions  to  a  degree  impoflible  to  be  afcertained.
4.  The  fame  anfwer  may  ferve  to  refute  fuch  who,  19  juRify  tlic
pra£lice  of  thofe  churches  which  do  not  obferve  the  form  of  difciplinc
ufcd  in  the  primitive  church,  make  a  dillin^fion  between  difcipline  and.
