"able. You next fright me with a fresh inconfiftency. You "conceal the pages."

Page 17. "You have taken the freedom to misrepresent me; and, left the fraud fhould appear to every ordinary "reader, you have concealed the pages. I am no fooner "free of one inconfiftency than I am charged with another, "with equal honefty and fairness."

Page 18. "And a greater perverfion of words is not con"ceivable than what is here. Whether your conduct be

"confiftent with common juftice."

Page 19. "I wish I may get rid of it, for it is very formi. "dable."

Page 20. "How confiftent your conduct is with the fo"lemnity of your pretenfions in the conclufion."

Page 26. "You feem to let light of the context." Page 34. "The context which you are pleased fometimes to let light of, as p. 17." Page 79. "But this is of a piece with your difregarding contexts, as before, p. 17."

Page 30. Such a way of doing is mean, and unbecoming a man, to mifreprefent and trifle."

Page 31. "You charge the Prefbyterians with positive af "fertions. But juftly might I recriminate in every page al"moft, when all I meet with is nothing else but fuch."

Page 32. "Have you marked down the pages of my book? "No; this would have given the reader easy access to see your trifling."

Page 49. "It would have been fair in you to have related 66 my mind dfully. It would have been fair in you as an an

"fwerer."

Page 52. "Such mean fhifts as these you have recourse to "will never be of any good issue."

Page 54.

"You have trifled instead of answering." Page 61. "These are your words; but how conscientious, "ly they are jumbled together as expreffive of my mind." Page 63. "But these are methods unbecoming the fobriety of a Chriftian."

Page 72. "By this we have a fwatch of your candour, among other inftances."

Page 75. "And leave your bold affertions in the conclufion, to have what weight they will with your admirers; "for I am of the mind they will have little weight with fuch

as are capable to judge for themselves. Your dexterity in "this point confifts in mifreprefentations, concealments, and

"fuch

"fuch practices. I find nothing but poor fhifts and carp❝ings."

Page 76. "In the excefs of your modefty."

Page 77. "A pitiful juggle."

Page 79. "Sir, if I were at an end of this miffive, I hope never to engage with one that has caft off reason, as a mean "of judging concerning things facred."

Page 80. "Your impertinent queftions and wranglings in" ftead of anfwers Signs of a defperate caufe; your cavils and quibbles on Matth. xviii. I am obliged to you "for your fatherly concern; but fhall be glad I have never "greater need of compaffion."

Page 81. "I am wearied with such trifling and stories, in❝ftead of answers."

Page 84. "You have a dexterity in raising imaginary in"confiftencies; and I expect you will fhew an equal skill in "reconciling a real one."

Page 87. "I am wearied with such trifling, and am refolved "to be no more with it; fo you may write, and impofe on "the credulous as much as you have a mind; but the event "of these things is dangerous."

Page 89. "Sir, I have finished my answer; and I hope, "in an agreeableness to my promise in the entry; and must "now tell you, that more notorious mifrepresentations, base "calumnies, and uncharitable cenfures, were never cast upon any fociety of men."

66

OBSERVATION II.

I proceed now to the fecond obfervation, wherein you find yourself charged with inconfiftencies in managing a dispute against the Epifcopalians and Independents in one and the fame book; for, under your correction, I offered fome instances that served to confirm me in my opinion, that it is not meet to engage in fuch a difpute.

Of the first inftance you endeavour to clear yourself by fignifying, "That a court meeting in the name of Chrift, "and acting in his authority, is merely circumftantial, and

a matter left by Christ to be managed according to his ge"neral rules of decency and order; but an officer acting in "his name is a thing effential, and fo different from what is "purely circumftantial, as that of more or fewer courts in any church is." But what is the difference? and how

comes

"

comes the one to be effential, and the other purely circumstantial? And why may not the fame apology be made for the Episcopal fubordination of officers, not exprefsly inftituted, that you made in your book for the Prefbyterian fubordination of ruling courts not exprefsly inftituted? You tell me," It is "false; that there is neither apoftolical example nor precept " for the subordination of judicatures." And the Epifcopa lian can tell you, with no lefs fcripture evidence, that it is falfe; that there is neither apoftolical example or precept for the fubordination of officers; and, if you will take their fup. pofitions, whereby they explain fcriptures, and draw confe quences from them, as you would have me to grant your fuppofitions, and admit your confequences, they will give you two fcriptures for one. But I was speaking of these three courts, kirk-feffions, provincial fynods, and national fynods, for which you cannot pretend apoftolical example or precept. Next you tell me, "If the proportion of my parallel have any thing in it, it is this, viz. Because Solomon hath faid, "In the multitude of counsellors there is fafety; therefore "it is equally fafe to defcend from the counfel of a great "multitude, and devolve all into one perfon." But did not Solomon himself obferve his own proverb, without being on a level with his counsellors? Had not the primitive one bishop his prefbytery, with which he confulted, as Cyprian informs us? Had not the Scots bishop his prefbytery? Are there not councils of bifhops? And does not the Pope confult with his cardinals, and other divines, and therein pretend to regard Solomon's faying as much as your fynods, where one or two, perhaps the most ignorant in the affembly, can caft the balance in a divifion when it comes to the vote, and decide the most intricate and important question that comes before them? I find Pope Clement XI. fpeaking thus in the bull Unigenitus, "We therefore, by the favour of God, and depending on his heavenly aid, carefully and diligently, as "the greatnefs of the affair required, fet about fo falutary a work; and ordered very many propofitions, faithfully ex"tracted out of the forefaid book, according to the above"rehearsed editions respectively, and expreffed both in the "French and Latin languages, by feveral mafters in facred "theology, to be accurately difcuffed and fifted before two "of our venerable cardinal brothers of the holy Roman church, and then before us: having alfo taken the advice " of several other cardinals in council, to be, with the great"eft diligence poffible, and maturity, pondered and exami "ned

VOL. I.

Rr

"ned in congregations held at feveral times.-Wherefore, "after we had heard the fuffrages of the forefaid cardinals, " and other divines, exhibited to us, both by word of mouth, " and likewife by writing; and efpecially having implored "the affiftance of divine light, not only by private, but also "public prayers, folemnly appointed for that end, we do, "by this our conftitution, to continue in perpetual force, "declare, condemn, and, with the utmost abhorrence, re"ject all and every one of the propofitions before inferted respectively," &c. So that unless you can affirm, that this faying of Solomon, this part of facred writ, contains an inftitution for Presbyterian fynods, in oppofition both to Epifcopal church-government, and the government which is by the counsel and agreement of a company of elders or bishops in every church, with the confent of that church where they are elders, and where they ftand in immediate fubjection to and dependence on Jefus Chrift, that can by no means extricate you from your difficulty. And if you do not confine that word to the New Teftament, you must own, that, in Solomon's days, there was a fubordination of officers as well as of courts. Now the Epifcopalian will tell you, that if this faying did not deftroy the fubordination of officers in Solo. mon's time, why may not the fubordination of courts and officers hold together now alfo, without any prejudice to Solomon's faying?

You next give me a distinction betwixt an habitual and actual fociety, i. e. as I take it, betwixt the fynod of Angus having power to meet and act in Chrift's name, and that fynod exercising that power, as betwixt the Bishop of Brichen having power to exercise the Epifcopal office, and that Bishop actually exercifing it. And then you reprove me for being angry with a church's determining circumftances as time and place; for no other reafon, that I know, but because I am as little for a court-meeting, and ruling over the churches of Chrift in his name without his express institution, as I am for an officer's ruling over his officers without his exprefs inftitution. And thus you clear yourfelf as to the firft instance.

As to the second inftance; you first betake yourself to that fhift which you are pleafed to use throughout your letter, viz. "The pages are not fet down." But do you show, that I mifrepresented you? And when you have now explained yourself in other words, I am not fenfible of the consistency of your advance against me, and against the Epifcopalians.

The

The manner wherein you now exprefs your advance against me is, "I gave it as my opinion, that, according to what I could "learn from the hiftory of the New Testament, I was not ❝ able to determine myself of any one church that was no "more but congregational, or that continued fo." And you now express what you advanced against the Epifcopalians, in this manner. "But in after ages I perceived from human "teftimony, that the most of the churches mentioned by "them were fuch, and in small villages." I hope you are to keep now by these words, and not give me new ones in their stead the next time, because I have not fet down the page. Now, you must either deny the truth of what you have faid upon human teftimony, and fo give up what you plead. ed upon it to the Epifcopalians, and own to him, that the church where the one bishop is found in the fecond and third centuries, confifted of feveral diftinct congregations; or you muft acknowledge, that the most of the churches, mentioned by writers in the ages after the New-Teftament fcripture was finished, were congregational in your judgment, and that they were fuch in fmall villages; fuch then, according to you, were the churches where that innovation, one bishop, took place after the apoftles, and these were the apoftolic churches, and of the fame kind with them; or else you fay nothing against the Episcopalian: for if they differed from the apoftolic churches in this, that they were congregational, he has no concern about them. It is enough to him, that he finds the one bishop in the churches of the apoftolic kind, confift ing of many different congregations: you must therefore either reconcile yourself by saying, that the fathers, after the apoftles departed from their plan, by erecting a multitude of congregational churches; or that the churches erected by the apostles, did in after ages dwindle into fingle congregations; or you must say, that though you remained doubtful in reading the New Teftament, whether the apoftles erected congregational churches; yet, by reading the fathers that lived nearest them, you came to perceive, that they did erect churches. If this be your meaning, I am able to perceive, that you speak against the Epifcopalian; but it is in a conceffion to me; fo that you cannot fpeak ftrong and full in this case against us both; and this is what I was telling you. But left I fhould take advantage of the conceffion, you inquire, "Have I any where faid, that thefe churches were inde"pendent?" To which I anfwer, Neither did I any where fay, that the churches in the ages after the apoftles were alto