lieve that which you have Chap. 23. §. 4. That Infidelity or Difference in Religion doth not make Void the Magiftrate's Fuft and Legal Authority, nor free the People from their due Obedience to Lim? Tis alfo certain, that there are many Propofitions in it which fhould not be made Terms of Communion. And, what if there are in it divers Propofitions, which plainly crofs Propofitions contain'd in the Confefion of the Faith of our Reformers fworn to, by moft of the Epifcopal Clergy, in the Teft? Befides, do not our Prefbyteri an Brethren, in order to Minifterial Communion, require Subfcription to more than is contain'd in the Weflminster Confeffion? Do they not require a Real Abrenunciation of Epifcopal Principles?

Neither is it without ground, that thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwafion are Scrupulous to joyn in the prefent Prefbyterian Worship. Have not the prefent Prefbyterians thruft out of their Publick Worship, divers Things, which all other, even Proteftant, Churches have always retain'd as very Valuable? Have they not fent a packing the Publick Reading of Scriptures; The Lord's Prayer; The Doxology; The Creed in Baptifm, &c. Which parts of Worship were thought very Sared by our Reformers, and our Predeceffors, for more than 80 years after the Reformation? Do they obferve any Rules in Publick Prayer? Do they obferve the Rules of their own Directory? Befides, in their Publick Prayers, Thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwafion think there are more than One or Two Unfavoury Petitions; Petitions whereby God is Difhonoured; by Confequence, Petitions They cannot hear without Horror, they cannot fay Amen to, with a good Confcience,

without

without Polluting their Souls. Thefe Things, though enough, are not all. For

The Orders of a Church may be Valid, and her Faith may be found, and her Worfhip Unpolluted, and yet it may be Unlawful to hold Communion with her. This is always the Cafe of all Churches that are purely Schifmatical. The Novatians, e, 8, The Meletians, The Donatifts, of Old, profefs'd the Common Faith; Nor do we find that their Worship, was otherways polluted, than that it was a Schifinatical WorThip; And nothing more Evident, than that the Catholicks own'd the Validity of their Orders. The Orders of the Novatians are exprefly Own'd as Valid by the great Council of Nice, Can. 8. The Schifm of the Meletians was ftated on a point of Difcipline, very much the fame with that on which the Novatian Schifm was stated as you may fee in Epiphanius, Har. 68. Socrat. Lib. 1. Cap. 1. & 6. Theodoret: Lib. 1. Cap. 9. Sozom. Lib. 2. Cap. 17. 20. 21. But then Meleti

had this advantage, that he was far more Canonically Ordain'd than Novatianus. The Catholicks had not the leaft fcruple against the Validity of the Donatiftick Orders. There is an admirable Paper of theirs, Recorded in the Gefta of the Conference they had with the Donatifts at Carthage, in the days of Honorius and TheodoJius; In which Paper, they invite the Donatifts to return to the Unity of the Church, Ut non folum viam falutis inveniant, fed nec Honorem Epif copatus amittant. That they might not only find the true way to Salvation, but also Retain the Honour of their Epifcopacy. Neque enim (continue they) in ijs (Donatiftis) Divina Sacramen

A

Аз

ta

་མ

ta veritatis, fed Commenta bumani detestamur erroris, &c. That is, they moft Frankly own'd the Validity of their Orders. This Paper fpake the Senfe of near 300 Catholick Bifhops. In fhort, ever fince the middle of the Third Century, it has been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church, that Churches purely Schifmatical may have True Orders. But then, it has always been the Senfe of the Catholick Church, that Communion is not to be held with Schifmaticks continuing in their Schifm. And there was (and always will be) this good Reafon for it, that Schifmaticks, by being fuch,are cut off from the only Salutary Comimunion; the One Communion of the One Vifible Body of Chrift. To bring this likeways Home, Suppofe the Faith of the prefent Prefbyterian Church in Scotland were as found, and her WorShip as pure, and her Orders as Valid, as the her felf can with them; yet thofe of the Epifcopal Perfwafion, have too good Reafon to judge her Communion unlawful; if fhe is (as they are per fwaded fhe is) Schifmatical. M. M. then muft purge his Communion of Schifm, and he muft do it on True Church Principles; Otherwife I'll take the Freedom to tell him, that thofe of the " Epifcopal Perfwafion have no Reason to joyn with him in it. If he does not, on True Church Principles, Purge his Communion of Schifm, 'tis to little purpofe, that it has Civil Law for it. Civil Authority cannot overturn True Church Prin ciples. Paganifm was Paganifm, and Christianity was Chriftianity, under Heathen Emperors; 4rianifm was Arianism, and Orthodoxy was Orthodoxy, under Arian Emperors. Mahumetifm is as much Mahumetifm in Conftantinople, as if it were

in

in Edinburgh; Popery has as much Civil Law for it in Spain, as Prefbytery has in Scotland. If Prefbytery was a Schifm before the late Revolution, Civil Authority can make it no better than a Profperous or a Prevailing Schifin.

By thefe Hints I have given, you may judge, if it was after Accurate Thinking, that M. M. taught the first thing I undertook to confider,

II. Proceed we to his other Pofition, which is, That the Opinion of those who maintain fuch a Necefity of Epifcopal Ordination as nullifies the Miniftry, and all the Ordinances difpenfed by fuch who want it, is an Opinion, that fhould not be Tolerated in any Proteftant Church. Now, what is this other, than that the Perfons who are of fuch an Opinion, ought not to be allowed to live in a Proteftant Country? A pretty hard Pofition, methinks, concerning Men who maintain an Opinion fo very innocent, An Opinion, which, hi therto, in Scotland, has been little other than a pure Speculation; Which, hitherto, has never been able, for any thing I know, to give the leaft ftop to Prefbyrerial Ordinations; And, which, likewise, for any thing I know, has not kept very many from going over to the Prefbyterian Communion: Is it not hard, I fay," That those who are of fuch a Harmless, and hitherto Ineffective Opinion, fhould every one of them be Banifhed the Kingdom? Shall I briefly try the ftrength of this Pofition? I will, and I'll do it by these steps.

1. I'll give you a Sample of its furprizing Confequences.

II. I'll give you a plain View of the Opini on it fo unmercifully trikes at.

A 4

III. I'l

III. I'll confider M. M's Arguments for his Pofition.

I give a Sample of its furprizing Confeqnen ces. M. M's Pofition, as I take it, muft ftand on this Principle, That no Perfons who Maintain Opinions, which tend to fubvert the Autho riz'd and Eftablished Religion of a Country, ought to be permitted to live in that Country. Mark, now, but thefe Three or Four Confequences, for Inftances.

Nero, Domitian, Decius, Dioclefian, &c. All the Perfecuting Roman Emperors were in the Right, when they Perfecuted the Primitive Chriftians For, nothing more certain, than that the Opinions of thofe Primitive Chriftians did directly tend to fubvert the very Foundations of Paganifm, which was then the Etablished Religi on of the Roman Empire.

The King of France, very lately, had Rea fon to fupprefs Proteftantifm in his Dominions; And to Banif out of them, all the Proteftant Minifters For, the Opinions of the French Proteftants were not only plainly, but defignedly levell❜d for overturning Popery, the National Religion of France. To come a little more immediately to M. M's. Pofition,

The far greater part of the prefent Clergy and Church of England fhould be Banish'd out of England. Why? Tis not more certain, That England is a Proteftant Country, than 'tis that the far greater Part of the prefent Clergy and Church of England are of Opinion, that the Epifcopal are the only Valid Ordinations. How can M. M. do better Service to his Brethren the English Diffenters, than by reducing his Po

fition