11. To the reft of the Charge, I might ree turn I cannot tell how many Things, but a few fhall ferve.

1

I. Then, Sir, uow you are a Professor of Divinity, and have frequent Occafions to concern your felf in the Popish Controverfies: I afk therefore, do you find your felf Bound by the Laws of Humility, Charity and Discretion, on every Occafion, before you condemn any Article, e, g, of Pope Pius the 4th's Creed, or any Definition of the Council of Trent, to go more privately to a Popish Priest, or more publickly to fome Popifh Judicatory, and humbly Inftance the Particulars? I do not fay, I do not think, that your Confeffion, and the Definitions of the Council of Trent, or the Articles of Pope Pius's Creed are equally Abfurd or Heretical; all my Business is to Argue ad Hominem, from Parity of Reafon.

12. II. Sir, you cannot have forgot, that a certain Perfon of your very good Acquaintance, Anno 1687. went to Kinwinning, a Parifh within the Diocefs of Glasgow, and did there fet up a Separate Communion; you cannot but as well remember that Anno 1687, Epifcopacy fubfifted by Law, and ftood Ratified by the Supreme Authority of the Nation. Let me afk then, Did that Perfon, before he did fet up that Separate Communion, go either more Privately to the Archbishop of Glasgow, who then had the Chief Ecclefiaftical Power within his own Diocefs; or more Publickly to any Epifcopal Judicatory in the Neighbour

hood,

hood humbly to reprefent his Reasons for breaking off from the Epifcopal Communion? Or was it more againft the Laws of Humility, Charity, and Difcretion in me, to fay there are fome Erroneous Propofitions in the Westminster Confeffion of Faith, which I had never own'd as the Confeffion of my Faith, than 'twas in that Perfon to Renounce the Epifcopal Communion wherein he had lived for many Years, and fet up an Oppofite Communion? You may have more fuch Queftions offer'd to to you, when you have honeftly got thro' thefe For my part I think I need fay no more but this.

13. III. I know very well, if my Brother fhall privately Trefpafs against me, our Lord has commanded me to go and tell him his Fault, between me and him alone; and that 'tis on-, ly when he will not hear me, that I am allowed to make my Refentment more Publick, in proportion to the Degrees of his Obftinacy. But I am to learn what Law of Humility, or Charity, or Discretion obliges me to be as tender of the Weft-minster Confeffion. What Scandal foever is in it, was a Publick Scandal, a Scandal publifh'd all this Ifland (for any thing I know all Europe) over, before I was Born. The Terms of Affumption (whereof Subfcription to it is one) were publish'd all this Nation over, fome Years before you Preach'd your Sermon; you Preach'd your Sermon on an Occafion very Solemn, and before an Auditory very Auguft; this was to make your Challenge publick enough; to

make

make it yet more publick, within a few Days you Printed it: I afk now, what Pride, what Uncharitableness, what Indifcretion could there be in publishing a Cenfure of fome Things contain❜d in a Sermon made fo very publick, if the Things were truely Cenfurable? And how could they be reprefented as truely Cenfurable, without reprefenting the Arguments that concluded them to deferve to be Cenfured?

14. One thing more you have, you pretend that Subfcription to the Westminster Confefion is not requir'd as a Term of Communion in Worship (fee p. 3. 1. 27, 28. p. 4. l. 1. 14, 15.) If you mean that 'tis not a Term of Laick Communion in Worship, directly and exprefly, I grant 'tis not; but I cannot fo eafily grant that 'tis not indirectly and by confequence: If you mean that 'tis not a Term of Minifterial Communion even in Worship, your. meaning is furprizing; for the very firft of the Terms, required of thofe who would be affum'd into Minifterial Communion with you, is, That they do fincerely own and declare the above (i. e. the Westminster) Confeffion of Faith, to be the Confeffion of their Faith, and that they own the Doctrine therein contained, to be the Doctrine which they will conftantly adhere to. I have obferv'd no more of any weight faid by you in Anfwer to my Argument, taken from your requiring Subfcription to your Confeffion. Proceed we to the next, which is,

15. III. That your Worship is Polluted. To which you have offered thefe things.

I. I

I. I had not Confidence to fay, there are Pollutions in your Worship; fo you fay without Hefitation. (p. 4. 1. 28, 29.) And yet p. 5. l. 9.

c. you fay, I add a grievous Charge, and you tranfcribe it, viz. That in your Prayers there are more than One or Two unfavory Petitions; Petitions whereby God is Difhonoured: By confequence, Petitions which thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwajion cannot bear without Horror, &c. I thought this had been pretty roundly, to fay there are Pollutions in your Worship: But to pass this. At leaft,

16. II. I had not the Confidence to inftance any thing in your Worship which Polluteth the Soul, &c. p. 4. l. 20, 21. True, I gave no Inftances; I did deliberately, forbear to give any. You have no Liturgy. 'Tis to be prefum'd therefore, that your Principles contained in your Confeffion of Faith, are the main Standard of your Prayers; wherefore having refolv'd at that time to forbear inftancing the Erroneous Propofitions in your Confellion of Faith; I thought it likewife proper to forbear inftancing the Unfavory Petitions that may be found in your Prayers; Because of their Dependance on your ErronePrinciples: Neither will I now give all that might be given; I will give only One Inftance, One perhaps as Familiar to your Party as any other, and the reafon why I now give it," is, that 'tis indeed founded on a Principle which is not laid down in your Confeffion.

17. Is it not your Common, your Darling, your Diftinguishing Principle, that Epifcopacy

is Unlawful? What more Ordinary with you than to call it a Branch of Antichriftianifm, and Bishops Limbs of Antichrift? What do you with greater Affurance Profess to believe, than that Prefbytery is the Only Church Government of God's Inftitution? And Simple Prefbyters acting in Parity, the only Paftors of our Bleffed Lord's Miffion? In confequence of this your Belief, what more Ordinary in your Publick Prayers, than Petitions befeeching God to prevent the Reftitution of Epifcopacy, and to Secure and Countenance Prefbytery in this Nation for Ever? I dare refer it to your own Ingenuity, to tell whether thefe 14 or 15 Years laft paft, these or the like Petitions have not been as ufual in your Publick Prayers as moft other Petitions? But if they have been, and are, how can you expect that thofe who believe the Apoftolick Inftitution of Epifcopacy, fhould joyn with you in your Prayers?

18. If Epifcopacy is of Divine or Apoftolical Inftitution, what other can those who have invaded the Rights of the Bishops be than Notorious Ufurpers? Ufurpers of Rights belonging to Others by Divine Inflitution? By unavoidable Confequence, what a Dishonour done to God muft it be, to Pray to him to Countenance fuch Sacrilegious Ufurpations? To pray to God to Abet or Affert an Unrighteous Ufurpation, of a Right that is but founded even on Human Law, is an Abomination to him. Suppofe Titius, by all the Human Laws that can give Right, has a

clear