"fit foever, or however Enrich'd and Adorn ૨૯ ૮ ceffarily required: And this, not only for "preventing of Confufions, and (as much as is poffible) fhutting the Door against Impoftors; but alfo in Obedience to Divine "Inftitution delivered to us in Holy Writ. "And then thefe Texts, Rom. 10. 15. Heb. 5σε 4. Tit. 1. 5. 1 Tim. 4. 14. are Cited. And "by Theorem. 7th, we are told that Church Power is not at all Committed by God to "the whole Church or Company of the Faith"ful; but to the Minifters of God's Word, "together with Elders who are joyn'd with "them for the Government of the Church. "And Theorem. 75. The Power of Ecclefia "ftical Jurifdiction (and by confequence of "Ordination) is given by God to none but a Confiftory of Prefbyters. And the 79th Theorem. is pofitive, That Civil Magiftrates "fhould fin as grofly by ufurping Church "Power, performing Holy Offices, and or"daining Minifters, as Minifters thould do, СС fhould fhould they encroach on the Civil Magi"ftracy. 45. Mr. Gillespie Tent Copies of thofe Theorems abroad, particularly One to the Theological Faculty of the University of Utrecht, to have their opinion of them. That Facul ty, it feems, thought themfelves obliged in Intereft to put an higher value on the Original Power of the People than Mr. Gillespie and the General Affembly had done; Wherefore, they Cenfured the third Theorem for making Million or Ordination as diftind from Election Jo abfolutely neceffary to the Effence of a Lawful Call, And concerning the 7th and 75th, they required that they might not be fo Strid as they were; that is, that they might not fo peremptorily exclude the Body of the People, as diftinguished from the Prefbytery, from all Participation of Church Power in all Cafes. You may fee this Judgment of that Thelogical Faculty in Johannes Hoornbeck's long Epiftle to our Countryman John Dury, concerning Independency, p. 356. Printed at Leyden, An. 1660. The Reafon why I mentioned it, is, that you may fee how much your Fathers in the days of the Covenant were understood by Foreign Divines to be againft the Original Power of the People. 46. Sir, I remember I promis'd (Let, 1, §. 8.) to give you the Reafon why I doubted if you fincerely believed that Lawful Ordi nation in the Westminster Affemblies Senfe, was abfolutely neceflary to enable One to Difpenfe the Sacraments. I think I have, by this time time given it pretty fully. I think I have alfo made it pretty Evident, that if to doubt of the Validity of the Ordinations of fome Reformed Churches, muft needs be Odious, the Burden of theOdium muft not intirely lie on me and those of my Perfwafion: Those who arePrefbyterians by Principle in oppofition to Independency muftCrouch as well as we. Yet I think I may fafely fay,in divers things you have deferted them. This is certain, your Prefbyterian Fathers, all Britain over, from An. 1640 to An. 1660, wou'd have damn'd your Notions about the No neceffity of Ordination, or Uninterrupted Succeffion; the Sufficiency of the Peoples Election with the Magiftrates Confent to Evidence Pastoral Miffion. They were fully Senfible that, if they yielded to the Independents, That Church Power is Originally lodg'd in the People, the Prefbyterian Caufe was Ruined. The Divine Right of your KirkSeffions, Prefbyteries and Synods, of all your Claffes and their Subordinations, of your whole Structure was quite Scored off. For if Church Power was Originally lodged in the People, The People, according to the Independent Scheme, might Cenfure and Depofe, as well as Ele and Ordain Minifters: which was in Effect, to Overturn your Claffes. (q) Wherefore, leaving fuch of the Reform'd Churches as had no Better Or dinations than what they (q) See to this purtion of the Governpofe, Gillespie's Afferment of the Church of Scotland. Part 2. Cap 1. Derived from the Original Power of the R People People, to Shift for themselves; they found it neceffary to Refume the Good Old Princeple, That Church Power is not Founded on any Pretended Natural Right, or Liberties or Privileges; but on Pofitive Divine Inflitution; and that it muft either be always Immediately Derived from Heaven, or Tranfmitted by the Mediation of Men Peculiarly Empowered to Tranfmit it, which is indeed Incomprehenfible, without taking in an Uninterrupted Succeffion of Perfons fo Empowered. Thus I fay, they found themfelves Obliged to Return to One Good Old Principle; but then, they topp'd too foon: They ftood at this, That Simple Prefbyters cou'd Validly Ordain; whereas the Antient Church faid (and I think I have prov'd, they had Apoftolical Inftitution to found on) that to Ordain was the Prerogative of Bishops, or Church Officers by Apoftolical Inftitution Superior to Simple Prefbyters, or Church Officers who are indeed Empowered to Preach and Adminifter Sacraments, and do many other Things, but always in Subordination to, and Dependance on Officers of an Higher Power. 47. Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured as Calmly and Diftinctly as I could, to justify my Cenfure of your Sermon, and fhew the Weakness of your Vindication of it. Only one thing more, and I have done. You may remember, Sir, the Great Point in Agitation, when you preach'd and publish'd your Sermon, and againft which you mainly Levelled in it, was, a Toleration to thofe, of the E piscopal pifcopal Perfwafion. And the main Reafon you infifted on againft it, was, in effect, that there was no Reafon for it. No Different and Divided Communion cou'd be fuftified, where the Terms of Communion were not Sinful: No different Communion was to be allowed or Tolerated where the Communion, as fuch, was not Scrupled; Toleration was always Pleaded for, or granted, as an Eafe to Tender Confciences: No fuch Thing cou'd be pleaded in Scotland: No finful Condition was requir'd of thofe of the Epif copal Perfuafion; And, you knew none who had the Confidence to Plead, there was, fo you p. 12. 1. 27, &c. And again, p. 13. 1. 23, &c. It would feem a thing unaccountable, and never heard of in any Kingdom or State, that the Supreme Authority fhou'd pafs an A&t of Toleration of Divided Communion when People are free to Hear and have no Scruple of Confcience anent Foyning in Communion, &c. And over again, p. 14. as I have already Tranfcribed your words in the Beginning of my firft Letter. Now Sir, if I have indeed Juftified my Cenfure, you fee how weakly all fuch your Reafoning was founded. your 48. You may fee that thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwafion have more than One Solid Reafon for Refufing to hold even Laical Communion with you. The Corruptions of Worship make holding even fuch Communion with you exceedingly Dangerous. The Quefionableness of the Validity of your Ordinations makes it exceedinly Unfafe: For, if your Miffion is not Valid, how can your Administrations be Ueful? And your being in a State |