posing & intermeddling in our Differences, That " they acknow- " ledge no Jurisdiction in any Civil Court within this Province, " over the private Affairs of their Church, merely Consistorial, "and amongst themselves, &c." Indeed! this is astonishing, and what could not have been expected. Here are, if I am not mistaken, the true Principles of the Independents^ (fe) so expressly condemned in our Discipline of France (See among the Observations upon the 6th Chap, the Regulation^ made at the Synod of Clarenton, in 1644, against those Sectaries, pag. 199 and 200, of tlie Editio in duocim. & p. 118. in 4to) and Tom. 2. in folio, p. 467.

Here is a Principle capable of throwing us into Confusion and Disorder, as we see already by experience. Here is what openeth a door to all sorts of Irregularities and Extravagancies, and absolutely takes away all means of applying a Remedy. Here is a Maxim, not only very prejudicial to God's Church, but likewise very dangerous to the State, since it is easie to conceive the dreadful Consequences that will follow from it, if it took place. In fine, Here is a Principle whicli makes the Lot and Condition of a Minister persecuted among us, and in these Countries not only unhappy and dangerous, but even desperate, and without Relief. To Refute this abominable Principle, and to shew how false it is, and how contrary to tlie true Principles of Religion and the Constitution of our Churches, I need only Refer to the 46 Article of the first Chapter of our DisciplinCj compared with the 39 & 40 Articles of our Confession of Faith, & especially with all our Books of Divinity, as for instance, that of M^ Pictet, Professor at Geneva, see his 2d Tom. p. 476, 477, 478, where he treats this Question at length.