rians, so they think, and they are perfwaded that fuch their Thoughts are founded on Solid and True Church Principles.

Much more might have been faid; but methinks I have faid enough. I am, &c. June. 1. Anno, 1703.

LETTER II.

T

WO Things in your Sermon, Preach'd before the Commiffioner, and the Estates of Parliament, May 16, Anno. 1703. I Adventur'd to Cen fure: You have endeavour'd to Vindicate both. Now, I have fome Leifure for it; allow me to try whether you have really done it.

2. The first Thing, you deliver'd in these Words: I know no Minifters of that [the Epifcopal Way, who judge Communion with us in Worship unlawful; unless there be any of them who Affert fuch a Neceffity of Epifcopal Ordina tion as Nullifies the Miniftry and all the Ordinan ces difpenfed by fuah who want it. In your Vindication (p. 2. 1. 9.) you feem to Infinuate, that in my former Paper I dealt not fairly in leaving out these words in Worship] Ido ingenuously Proteft, I had no Plot in leaving them out, I had not then fo much as Dream'd that your Drift was, without more ado, to Degrade us, and ftreight thruft us down into the Order of Laicks. Now I underftand you fomewhat better. Take your Words, make of them what you pleafe; I may, beC2

fore

fore I have done, attempt to fhew, That we have as little Reafon to hold Laick as Minifterial Communion with you. Again,

3. You fay, p. 2.1. 18. That I either Miftook or Mifreprefented you, as if you had faid, There can be no folid Reafon to hold Communion with fuch Churches the Ordinations of whofe Clergy are unquestionable. So'tis Printed, and in Italick too. I do again fincerely Proteft, It never enter'd my Head to fuppofe you capable of fuch a fenfelefs Propofition; I took your meaning (as I believe moft People took it) to be, that you could not Divine what the Minifters of the Epifcopal Perfwafion could pretend for their refufing to hold Communion in Worfhip with the prefent Scottish Prefbyterians, unlefs they would plead the Invalidity of Prefbyterian Ordinations. So I understood you; and understanding you fo, I thought it then not unfeasonable to let the Nation know, That tho' your Ordinations were as unqueftionable as your felves can with them, yet we wanted not weighty Reafons for our Refufing to hold Communion with you.

4. Some fuch Reafons I nam'd; particularly, That in your Confeffion of Faith, to which, in order to our being Affum'd into Minifterial Communion with you, you require Subfcription, (not precifely as it may import an Obligation to preferve Peace, but but as it imports Affent to every Propofition) there are fome Erroneous, and many dubious and unneceffary Propofitions; That in order to our being Affum'd into the fame Minifterial Communion, you require an Abrenunci

ation

ation of Epifcopal Principles: That your Worfhip is Polluted: And that you are in a State of Schifm.

5. I. That in order to our being Affum'd into Minifterial Communion with you, you require of us an Abrenunciation of Epifcopal Principles, is manifeft from your Terms of AfJumption appointed by your General Affembly Anno 1694. There, 'tis exprefly requir'd of all that would be Affum'd, That they Acknowledge, Engage, and Subscribe, that they Own and Acknowledge the Prefbyterian Church Government of this Church: And that they hall Submit thereto, Concur the ewith, and never En-deavour, Directly nor Indirectly, the Prejudice or Subverfion thereof. If this is not, What can be a manifeft Abrenunciation of Epifcopal Principles? How can Principles, which have fuch a neceffary Relation to Practice, be pre-. ferv'd, where the Practice is fo peremtorily. and pointedly Renounced? You have not fo much as once taken Notice of this Argument; but you have grappled with the reft. Con-. fider we with what Succefs.

.

6. II. To this; That in your Confeffion of Faith, to which you require Subscription, as I have faid, there are fome Erroneous Propofitions, &c. You fay, p. 3. 1. 30. That 'tis a bold Acufation without any Inftance or Proof of the Error. You repeat it 1. 37. and p. 4. 1.4. You affirm that 'twas without Inftance or Ground I faid that there are Dubious Propofitions in it. I thought I had pretty plainly, and notwithout Ground, mention'd one. Did I not

C 3

ex

exprefly fay, that I was apt to think, That fome of your felves did not Cordially Be lieve this Propofition; That Infidelity, or Difference in Religion, doth not make void the Magiftrates fuft and Legal Authority, nor free the People from their Due Obedience to Him? Was not this fairly enough, to fay, That even to your felves this was, at beft, a Dubious Propofition? When I had given fo remarkable a One, what mov'd you to fay that I had given none at all? Or was it the refult of Inadvertency? Well!

7. To make you more Advertent hereafter, I'll give you another Propofition or two. I Read, Chap. 20. §. 4. thus, They who upon pretence of Chriftian Liberty, fhall Opp fe any lawful Power, or the lawful Exercise of it, whe ther it be Civil, or Ecclefiaftical, Refift the Ordinance of God. Can you fay that the fincere Belief of this Propofition is confiftent with either the profefs'd Principles, or the Common Practice of the Generality of your Party, thefe laft Hundred Years? Again,

8. What do you think of this plain Propofition Chap. 27. 4. 4. There be only Two Sacraments Ordain'd by Chrift our Lord in the Gofpel, that is to fay, Baptifm and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be Difpenfed by any, but by a Minifter of the Word, lawfully Ordain'd? I doubt if you, your felf do fmcerely Believe, That lawful Ordination, in the Affemblies Senfe, is abfolutely Neceffary to Enable one to Difpenfe the Sacraments. The Reafon of my Doubt, you fhall be told hereafter

Thefe

Thefe Propofitions may ferve for a Taft; To give all that might be given, would fwellthis Paper to too great a Bulk,

9. II. You fay, p. 3. l. 32, &c. Humility, Charity and Difcretion would have obliged to have reprefented this (that there are Erroneous Propofitions in your Confeffion) more privately, or to fome Church Judicatory, and humbly inftanc'd the Particulars, before fuch an open Accufation of the Confefion, and Reflection not only on the Church, but on the Supream Authority and Law of the Nation, Ratifying it. This Charge feems pretty Fierce.

For

10. I begin with the latter part of it; The Supreme Authority of the Nation, I grant, is a very Tender, a very Delicate Thing; A Thing which ought never to be either. Roughly or Irreverently Touch'd: I with all Men had paid it fuitable Deferences. my part, fo Tender was I of it, that I made it my Bufinefs to fhift meddling with it. You Know very well, Sir, (and you have taken particular Notice of it. p. 6. 1. 9. and p. II. 1. 30.) That I betook my felf to Church Principles; Aud I can refer it those who at prefent are in Civil Power, as they are Men of Honour, to Determine whether you, betaking your felf to fuch Arms against me, have altogether behav'd like a Gentleman: You gave the Challenge; by the Laws of Chivalry, then, I had the Choice of the Weapons; I choos'd the Sword of the Spirit, but 'tis apparent, you would gladly have a Sword of other Metal unfheath'd against me.