I. REMARKS Upon the INTRODUCTION to the Protestation.

OUR Brethren observe justly, ‘That there was some Dissatisfaction in the Minds of some of the Synod,’ (the Occasion thereof was two Acts or Canons made by the Majority, which are afterwards mentioned) ‘the Re­moval of which, it's said, was in­dustriously try'd by the greater Part of that Body.’ It is true Proposals were made, and that by Persons on both Sides of the Question; which ought in Justice to have been observ'd. ‘The Rev. Mr. Jonathan Dickin­son did offer such an Overture, (as our Protesting Brethren mention) viz. Of getting the State of the Case debated drawn up, by the Consent of both Parties, and sent to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, or to their Commission, or to the General Synod in Ireland, &c.’ We gave in before the Synod in Writing; the Reasons why we declined a Compliance with this Proposal; which our Protesting Brethren thought proper to omit entirely: We were of Opinion, that a Representation of the State of Debate, consented [Page 4]to by both Parties, would be exceeding difficult, if practicable. Again, we thought, that this would keep the Matter in a long and uncomfortable Suspense; not to say, that after repeated and deliberate Enquiries, we were fully fixed in our Judgment, and found the Smiles of Heaven upon our Practice, according to it. And therefore, to consent to make Application to distant Judicatories, where Matters might be misrepresented, when we were Conscience-bound in the controverted Affair, was, we thought, but a Tempting of GOD; and would, as we conceived, insinuate what was not true, namely, That we were not fixed in our Judgment, when the Case was otherwise.

But altho' we couldn't consistent with the Dictates of our Consciences, comply with the Measures which the aforesaid Gentleman proposed; yet in the general, we cannot but approve of his taking Pains to preserve a Union in this Infant-Church. And I am of Opinion, that, if our Protesting Brethren were of the same Ca­tholick Principles with him and the rest of the Brethren of that Presbytery, they would not have forced such a sudden Rupture as they have done.

Our Protesting Brethren proceed to observe, ‘That still the Synod used their Endeavours to accommodate this Difference, — that they protested and assured us, that they had no other Design in their late Act or Agreement, but to secure a learned Ministry, &c.’— Well; and didn't we on the other Hand, whom they have rejected, assert the same Thing, viz. That we desired and designed a well-qualified Ministry as much as our Brethren? Only we thought that the Method, which the controverted Act proposed, infringed upon the Rights of Presbyteries, which we could by no Means give into, either by a Compliance with the Act, or any Equivalent: We judged the aforesaid Design suffi­ciently secur'd, without overturning the Plan of our Government.

[Page 5] As to what is said concerning ‘the Overture brought in by the Rev. Mr. Gillespy—and my declaring (as is said) upon that Occasion, that the protesting Brethren would be only accountable to the Synod for their Conduct in Licensing and Ordaining Candidates — and that I insisted, that they should be obliged to re­ceive all whom we should license or ordain.’

So far as I remember, the Case was thus; I was then as I am now, willing to come into all regular Subordi­nation of Judicatories to one another; but what I principally intended to oppose, was this, namely, A superior Judicatory's assuming to itself a Power, upon groundless Jealousies and Surmises, arbitrarily to exa­mine over again, Candidates who had been in an order­ly Manner licensed or ordained: I apprehended, that if this was given into, as it would encourage Unchari­tableness, so it would effectually baffle all our Endea­vours to maintain the respective Rights of different Judicatories.

I confess I was in some Suspense of Mind, not having studied the Point, what Power the superior Judicatory had to invalidate the Acts of the inferior in the parti­cular Case referr'd to. I do not well remember what I said upon that Head; but what I said, was not by Concert with my Brethren; and if there was a Mistake in it, it was not theirs but mine.

It is like that I might urge the Reasonableness and Necessity of the Synod's receiving as Members of their Body, such as we did license and ordain; without cal­ling them to any farther Account. And this, in ordinary Cases, is no more than what is rational, and what has been practised by the Synod of Philadelphia, ever since it had a Being. And therefore to say that this Practice would ruin our Constitution — as our Brethren suggest, is in Effect to say, that to act ac­cording to the Frame of our Constitution, tends to destroy it; and that our Synod have been ruining their [Page 6]own Constitution, ever before the controverted Act was fram'd. It's true when Matters of Complaint are offered against any particular Candidate, no doubt they ought to be judged of, according to their Weight and Evidence; but to set up a Court of Inquisition, is, I think, of dangerous Tendency.

But tho' our Brethren severely censured One whom we had ordained, contrary to their Canon, without hearing him in his own Defence, and would not admit him as a Member of their Body; yet we never pre­tended to separate from them upon this Occasion. And here it may be observed, That, in order to remove the Jealousies some of our Brethren seemed to entertain re­specting our Care as to human Learning in Candidates, one of our Number offer'd a Proposal of this Tendency to the Synod, That we were willing they should appoint Two of their Number to be present at our Examination of Candidates for the Ministry; who, if they found us guilty of male Conduct, might accuse us before the Synod. But some were not satisfied with that Proposal, urging that a Majority should sit with us in our Judica­tory; which we could by no Means consent to, because it would take away the Power of our Judicatory, by setting a Negative over it.

Our Brethren farther observe, ‘That while they were making fruitless Proposals to accommodate the Difference, they found their protesting Brethren in­dustriously laying the Foundation of a Separation, and going farther from them by their Practices than ever, for they claimed (say they) as their particular Right, by Virtue of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield's Orders, to preach at Society-Hill, and would not allow any but themselves and Adherents this Privilege; tho' it was desired in Favour of Mr. Dickenson; and thus, in some Measure, they refused ministerial Communion with the Synod, when requested.’

[Page 7] A. Here it is insinuated, that what was done in the aforesaid Affair, was done by the joynt Consent of all the Brethren, whom they oppose; which was not Fact: If there be any Fault in the aforesaid Business, it is my own intirely; however I will relate the Reasons of my Conduct, and leave them to the Reader's Judgment.

When Application was made to me, as aforesaid, I was in some Confusion of Thoughts for a Time, and knew not well what to do. But being informed, that the People of the Town generally desired to hear those who did preach on the Hill, more than others; I tho't it would be an Imposition upon them, to do otherwise than I did. The Stage being rais'd for the Rev. Mr. Whitefield by his Friends, did, as I conceived, properly belong to them, and therefore was to be disposed of by their Direction. Mr. Whitefield having publickly ad­vised his Friends, to hear some particular Ministers, whom he expressed a peculiar Value for; If I had en­courag'd others, without his Consent, to come into his Pulpit, I knew not but that it might be offensive to him. And I confess I had an earnest Desire to preach myself at the Time requested; it being the Season, when in all Probability the greatest Number would convene.

I think it strange, that the Protesters should call this a Breach of Communion with the Synod: Pray, is one Member the whole Synod, or was any Request made in the Name of the Synod? I would have been far from denying the aforesaid Gentleman, or any other of the Brethren, the Liberty of my own Pulpit; but the Stage was what I had not a Right to dispose of. I may farther add, That I had no Thoughts of what our pro­testing Brethren suggest, viz. Of opening a Breach with the Synod, by the aforesaid Transaction.

If any of our Number have refused to keep Christian and ministerial Communion with any of the protesting Brethren, since the Time aforesaid; I doubt not but [Page 8]they will be able, at a proper Season, to vindicate their Conduct in so doing. But this by the by I may observe, That the greater Part of those who are now rejected, (so far as I know) have not refused Communion with their Brethren.

As to what is farther alledged, in respect of our en­couraging the Flocks of our Protesting Brethren to forsake their Ministry, I know nothing of this. I have not done it myself, neither do I know of any of our Number that has.

Whether our Protesting Brethren be found Divines, and of a Gospel-Conversation, will probably farther appear, in the Course of this Debate.

‘And thus, they say, we have industrioufly rent their Congregations, by unscriptural Methods, with­out taking Notice of Christ's Rules, Matth. 16.’

A. That there have been some Divisions consequent upon our Preaching in some Places, we acknowledge; but that we industriously or designedly rent their Con­gregations, by unscriptural Methods, we deny.

As to the Papers of Complaint, which our Brethren now call Libels, they contained Grievances distressing to us, which we thought it our Duty to make publick Mention of; and the Synod, I remember, did not think proper to censure us for so doing. We did then offer to prove the Matters of Charge against particular Mem­bers, if the Synod required it; but this was wav'd.

As to what is farther alledged of Mr. Blair, my Brother Charles, and Myself, that we were earnestly pressed by the Presbytery of Newcastle, to table our Complaints against them, if we could convict any of them of any Thing unbecoming a Minister of the Gos­pel; but all to no Purpose. As to my Brethrens de­clining to offer Complaints at that Time, they are of Age, and able to speak for themselves. As to my own Conduct, this, I think, may be a sufficient Apology, namely, That the Proposal was Matter of Surprize to [Page 9]me; I had no Thought about any such Thing, before it was mentioned in the Face of the Judicatory; my meeting with the Presbytery at that Time and Place, was meerly accidental; and my entering into a judicial Process against any of them, was utterly inconsistent with my Design, and previous Appointments, of Itinerary Preaching.

From the Particulars aforesaid, our protesting Breth­ren conclude, ‘That the Separation has been made by us, for a considerable Time past, tho' we were united in Name:’ But how justly, I leave to the impartial Reader to determine.

The Truth is, tho' we differed in Sentiment from our Brethren in respect of some Acts or Canons they had made; yet we designed no Separation from them upon that Account; we thought that mutual Forbear­ance would be the best Expedient in the Case aforesaid. As we desired Liberty of acting according to our Con­sciences, in the controverted Affair; so we were far from a Desire of imposing our Judgment upon our Brethren, or imagining that there was a Necessity of Separation upon the Account of the aforesaid Diversity of Sentiment.

Our Protesting Brethren, in their Narrative, have quite omitted any Mention of the late extraordinary Act or Canon fram'd by the Presbytery of Donnegal, which ipso facto excommunicates, or deprives of Church-Privileges, all of their People that go to hear any of the Itinerary Preachers.

Whether this shew'd a Disposition to Peace and U­nion, I leave others to determine.

Our Protesting Brethren add, ‘That at their meet­ing this Year, when they called to Mind, how unsuccessful they had been in using all healing Measures, that this damped their Hopes, and cut off all probable Grounds to think that we would listen to any new Proposals of this Kind; and therefore they [Page 10]chose to lay open some of their crying Grievances, and to complain of our infringing and violating the known Rights of Presbytery, &c.—That if we had any Intention to an Accommodation, or were resolved to adhere to the Presbyterial Constitution, this would open a Door for us to make Proposals for Peace, and to testify our Dislike to Confusions and Disorders in Christ's Church: But after much Time spent (say they) without being allowed to enter into the Merits of the Cause—by a meer Circumstance; —This put them out of all Hopes of obtaining Peace with their protesting Brethren upon Scriptural Terms.’

A. The Case, so far as I remember, was thus; When the Roll was call'd, the Protesting Brethren having Ex­ceptions against Mr. Craighead, and having suspended him, thought it proper for the Synod to enquire into that Matter first, before they proceeded to other Business; which Motion was comply'd with. Hereupon the Pres­bytery who had passed the Censure, related divers Reasons for their so doing, (in their Minutes) and among others this, of his preaching in Mr. Allison's Congrega­tion without Leave.—Mr. Allison several Times de­sired, that this Article might be considered, immediately and separately by itself; this we opposed, as judging it reasonable that it should be considered in the Place and Order it was brought in before us, namely together with the other Reasons of the Presbytery's Process against Mr. Craighead; tho' in the mean time, we often declared our Willingness to reason upon, and consider that Mat­ter distinctly, in its proper Time and Place. But after we had entered upon the Consideration of Mr. Craig­head's Affair, not being able to come to any final De­termination about it, for want of Evidence; while some of the Members were discoursing about referring the Affair to a Committee, I was surprized to see Mr. John Thomson rising up, and hear him protesting against some Brethren in the Synod (who he said were of a different [Page 11]Opinion from the rest) being concerned in the Com­mittee. This inclined me to think, that our Brethren were determined for a Rupture, and discourag'd my proposing an Overture for Peace and Accommodation, which I was waiting for an Opportunity to communicate.

This Incident also strengthened my Perswasion (as aforesaid) namely, that when according to the Order of last Year's Minutes, they should have appointed a Com­mittee for the Fund, as usual, they wav'd it to an­other Time.

Their whole Management look'd in my Opinion, like a pre-concerted Scheme; and if our protesting Brethren would candidly tell the Truth, I'm perswaded they would acknowledge, That before they came to Phila­delphia this Year, they had resolved on a Rupture, and so prepared Matters for it.

However I couldn't perswade myself, that Matters would be brought to such a sudden Crisis, as they were, by Mr. Robert Cross's bringing in of a Protest, and de­siring it might be read. After the reading of this, our Brethren signed it with great Precipitation; and altho' we desired to be heard, again and again, upon the Rea­sons of the Protest, our Brethren were deaf to our Im­portunity, till they had finished the tragick Scene.

And yet they declare a Willingness to receive us, with all Tenderness, upon our hearty Return to the Obsevation of the Rules of the Presbyterian Constitution; (what, with all the Errors they charge us of being guilty of? O strange!) But whether this Declaration be consistent with the aforesaid Practice, let others judge.

II. REMARKS UPON A PROTESTATION Presented to the SYNOD, June 1. 1741.

IN what preceeds the Articles of Protest, these Things following may be observed.

1. The Protesters acknowledge, ‘That notwithstanding of the comely Order and sweet Harmony, which they say have subsisted in this organized Church, for above these Thirty Years past, in a very great Degree; that there was a great Decay of practical Godliness in the Life and Power it, and many abounding Immoralities.’ If so, then we query, Why was not this tragical Outcry raised before, of the Expiring of this Infant-Church?—Is there not more Reason of Complaint, when there is a Decay of vital Religion, than when Church-Order is broken? upon the Supposition the Charge be true. Is it not unreasonable to take more Care about the Tything of Mint, Anise and Cumin, than the weightier Matters of the Law?

2. The protesting Brethren inform us, ‘That they are wounded and grieved at their very Hearts, at the dreadful Divisions, Distractions and Convulsions, which, they say, have all of a sudden seized this little [Page 13]Infant-Church, to such a Degree, that she is in no small Danger of expiring outright, as to the Form, and Order, and Constitution of an organiz'd Church —unless he who is the King in Zion do interpose!’

Well, no doubt, Divisions are to be lamented, in respect of their Authors and Tendency; because of the Guilt hereby contracted, and the Prejudice hereby frequently occasioned, to inconsiderate and unregenerate Sinners.

Yet we are far from imagining, with our protesting Brethren, that this Church is in such Danger as they apprehend upon the aforesaid Account; because we are assured by the sacred Oracles, that the spreading Power of Religion is usually attended with the aforesaid Conse­quences, in a greater or lesser Degree. Our Lord him­self informs us, that he came not to send Peace upon Earth, but a Sword, Fire and Division; and to set at Variance one Relation against another. Not that the Gospel is the proper Cause of such Divisions; no, but the innocent Occasion only.

The protesting Brethren proceed to inform us, ‘that after the most deliberate and unprejudiced Enquiry into the Causes of these Confusions, they evidently see, that their protesting Brethren, and their Ad­herents, are the direct and proper Cause thereof, by their unscriptural, anti-presbyterial, uncharitable and divisive Practices; which they have been pursu­ing (say they) with all the Industry, they have been capable of, for above these twelve Months past, &c.’

Here, after, we hope, an impartial Examination of the Case, we must beg leave to differ in Sentiments from our Brethren, and to ascribe the present Debates to a different and more early Source.

That which, in our Opinion, gave Rife to the present Controversy among us, was our Brethren's Framing two Acts or Canons some Years past; the one respecting the Admission of Candidates to the Ministry, and the o­ther against itinerary Preaching.

[Page 14] We conceiving the aforesaid Laws to be (in our O­pinion) unscriptural and arbitrary, as well as of fatal Tendency to mar the Progress of the Work of God in this Land; did judge ourselves obliged, in Conscience, to oppose them, both by Speech and Practice. Our Brethren, on the Contrary, thought it proper to main­tain them 'til last Year. That against itinerary Preach­ing has drop'd; but the other was still preserved.

Our Brethren express their Protest with extraordinary Solemnity, but we hope that this Method, without suf­ficient Evidence and Foundation, will not influence the Impartial and Judicious.

We agree to the first Article of their Protest, namely, ‘That it is the Duty of this Synod to maintain and stand by the Principles of Doctrine, Worship and Government, as the same are summed up in the Con­fession of Faith, Catechisms and Directory, composed by the Westminster Assembly, which this Synod have adopted.’

We also judge, that Part of the Second is reasonable, namely, ‘That the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and Directory, should be adopted by the Members of the Synod: But, that no Person should be allowed to sit and vote in the Synod who acts or persists in any Practice contrary to any Rules contained in the Di­rectory, or Orders made by the Synod, until he pro­fesses of his Sorrow for such sinful Disorder, to the Satissaction of the Synod, or such inferior Judicatory, as the Synod shall appoint for that Purpose;’ is, we think unreasonably severe.

According to this Plan, not only all the Rules in the Directory, are Terms of Communion, but also every Canon, form'd by the Majority, is a new Term added thereto, which may be multiplied yearly to an immense Volume.

And if one did adopt the Directory, in the strictest Sense, it is no sufficient Security against Exclusion, un­less [Page 15]he can swallow all the after-Canons, which shall be contrived by the Majority.

Such a Scheme allows no Mercy for scrupulous Con­sciences, and renders synodical Communion as preca­rious as the variable Humours and Fancies of Men.

In Adopting of the Directory, the Synod declared, that they were resolved to conform to it in Practice as far as was suitable to the Circumstances of the Church in this Country. This Resolution we adhere to.

But altho' we highly approve of the Plan of Govern­ment, asserted in the Directory; yet we think it hard and unreasonable to make every Rule in it a Term of syno­dical Communion: For at this Rate our protesting Brethren would be excluded from the Synod also.

And we can't but think it strange, that our protesting Brethren should with such Solemnity declare to the World (in Effect) that they themselves have no Right to sit and vote in the Synod; for they act and persist in Practices contrary to the Doctrines and Rules of the Directory, as will appear by the following Instances.

The Directory faith, that the Scripture doth hold out Deacons as distinct Officers in the Church. But have our protesting Brethren any such?

The Directory faith, it is convenient that ordinarily one Chapter of each Testament be read at every Meet­ing; and that the Canonical Books be read over in Order. Do our Brethren observe this?

The Directory faith, concerning Marriage, that the Minister is publickly to solemnize it, in the Place appointed by Authority for publick Worship. Do our Brethren observe this?

The Directory faith, that he that is to be ordained, must bring with him a Testimonial of his taking the Covenant of the three Kingdoms, and that he be 24 Years old, &c. Do our Brethren observe this, or think it should be observ'd upon Pain of Exclusion?

[Page 16] The Directory saith, that the Power of ordering the whole Work of Ordination, is in the whole Presbytery. May our protesting Brethren be reasonably supposed to like this well, when they have cast us off for Con­formity to it?

How little Mercy soever our Brethren were disposed to shew to us, yet we think they should have had some upon themselves!

The three following Articles, being grounded on the former, fall with it. [...] But,

I must proceed to consider the Reasons of the Protest.

The first alledg'd is the Charge of ‘heterodox and anarchical Principles, in denying (as is said) that Presbyteries have Authority to bind their dissenting Members,’ &c. For the Confirmation of which they refer to the 28th and 29th Pages of our Apology. Our protesting Brethren think ‘that the Tendency of the aforesaid Pages, is to divest the Officers and Judicato­ries of Christ of all Authority, and that they contra­dict the 31st Article of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which we have adopted.’

A. We cannot discover the Justness of the Conse­quence our Brethren speak of. We think that all that Authority, which is consistent with the Rights of Con­science, and private Judgment, and the Peace of the Church, is asserted in the Pages referred to.

No doubt it is the Duty of Synods to have a Confes­sion of Faith, in which they ought to express their Sentiments, concerning the Essentials of Doctrine, Worship, and Discipline; which ought to be adopted by those they admit as Members of their Body.

But to suppose that a Majority of that Body, who have comply'd with the aforesaid Terms of Commu­nion, are vested with a Power authoritatively to make new Laws or Acts, from time to time, binding the smaller Number to obey them, who conscienciously scruple and oppose them, and that from the very Time [Page 17]of their Formation, so that they shall be excluded from synodical Communion, upon their conscientious Dissent and Non-conformity, is, we think, to signify, that the Confession of Faith and Directory already agreed to, is insufficient to answer its Design, without additional Articles, and Terms of Communion; as well as to open a Door for continual Oppressions, Schisms, and Convulsions in the Christian Church.

If a Majority of the Brethren, after adopting the Confession of Faith, &c. as aforesaid, shall judge some new Rules or Acts necessary for the Good of the Church, no doubt they may agree to observe them, and may reason with their scrupulous Brethren concerning their supposed Lawfulness or Expediency; but if conscien­tious Scruples notwithstanding remain, we think it unscriptural and severe, to exclude them from synodical Communion for such a Dissent in Judgment; in such Cases we judge that mutual Forbearance will better an­swer the Design of Government, viz. The Edification of the Body of Christ, than any rigorous Measures whatsoever, in imposing new Terms of Communion.

As to Appeals or References, we think our Brethren don't give a full and fair Representation of the Case, as it is in the Apology, to which we refer the Reader for Satissaction.

We would hope, that our Brethren will not labour to defend any supposed Authority in Synods, to infringe upon the Rights of Conscience and private Judgment, which we think ought to be preserved as sacred and in­violable. We know of no Authority on Earth, that can bind us without the Word of God, and it is our own and not another's Judgment of that Word, which we are to Follow.

We cannot see any Inconsistency, between our Senti­ments expressed in the Apology, and the 31st Article of our Confession. The Article says, that it belongs to Synods and Councils, ministerially (not magisterially) to [Page 18]determine Controversies of Faith,—and altho' the Article speaks of an Authority, to determine concern­ing Complaints about male Administration; yet it after­wards informs us, that these Decrees and Determina­tions, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with Submission.—This plainly implies, that if we don't apprehend the Decrees aforesaid to be agreeable to the Word of God, we should not submit to them; and therefore it's added, in the next Paragraph, That ‘Synods or Councils are not to be made the Rule of Faith or Practice; seeing that all of them since the Apostolick Times, may err, and many have.’ Our Confession urges no other Subjection, but in the Lord, and asserts ‘his alone Sovereignty over Conscience, and that he hath left it free from the Doctrines or Com­mandments of Men, which are in any Thing con­trary to his Word, or beside it, in Matters of Faith or Worship; so that to believe such Doctrines, or obey such Commands, out of Conscience, is to betray true Liberty of Conscience: And the requiring of an implicit Faith, and an absolute blind Obedience, is to destroy Liberty of Conscience, and Reason also.’ See Confess. chap. 20. paragr. 2.

We acknowledge all that Authority, which consists with the Rights of Conscience, and private Judgment; but in the mean Time we cannot but abhor an impli­cite Faith, and blind Obedience, whatsoever plausible Epithets of Order and Government they may be gar­nished with, or whatsoever Churchmen they may be urged by notwithstanding.

A second Reason of the Protest, is ‘our protesting a­gainst the Synod's Act in relation to the Examination of Candidates, together with our Proceeding to license and ordain Men to the Ministry of the Gospel, in Opposition to, and Contempt of said Act of Synod.’

In order to understand the Nature of this Act, as well as the Reasons of our Protest against it, I must refer the [Page 19]Reader to the Apology hereto annexed: And shall only as present add, That our protesting Brethren misrepre­sent the Case, when they say we ordained Men; it was but One we ordained, contrary to the Synod's Act.

If our Brethren by these Expressions, viz. And Con­tempt of said Act of Synod, design to insinuate, that in our Practice aforesaid, we contemned the scriptural Authority of the Synod, or the Judgment of the Majo­rity of our Brethren, they wrong us; we gave all that Deference to our Brethren's Authority and Judgment, which was consistent with our irrefragable Right of Thinking for ourselves; we endeavour'd to examine, with all the Impartiality and Care we were capable of, the Reasons of our Brethren's Judgment, after supplica­ting Jehovah for Light and Direction; and not finding the Arguments upon which they went, in our Opinion, relevant or sufficient, we were constrained by our Con­sciences to act as we have done.

But tho' we did protest against what we apprehended (after deliberate Enquiries) to be wrong in our Breth­ren's Conduct, a Practice not unusual in Judicatories of our Denomination; yet we were far from carrying Matters to the present Crisis, which our Brethren have done by their Protest, namely, to exclude our Dissenting Brethren from Communion upon that Account.

The third Reason of the Protest, is ‘our making ir­regular Irruptions (as they say) upon the Congrega­tions of others, without Order or Allowance,— sowing the Seeds of Division among People, and doing what we could to alienate their Minds with unjust Prejudices, against their lawfully called Pastors.’

Here these Things following may be observed, viz. That what is proper in ordinary Cases may be prejudi­cial in Extraordinaries; when the Church is planted with a found, faithful and lively Ministry, no doubt, those Rules respecting Ministers keeping within the Bounds of their particular Charges, until they are invi­ted [Page 20]in an orderly Manner to go elsewhere, may be of Service: But upon the Supposition that a Number of of the Ministry are either unsound in Doctrine, or un­faithful, and contentedly unsuccessful in their Work: Then is it not lawful to suspend the aforesaid Rules for a Season? especially in such a Situation of Affairs as this; namely, when there is an earnest Thirsting, in a Number of the People, after the close and affectionate Preaching of the Word; and Ministers being also im­portuned by some of the People of the Places whither they travel'd, find themselves spirited to uncommon Labours, and perceive those attended with uncommon Successes.

But what our Synod did the last Year, at their Session, in my Apprehension, weakens the Force of the preceed­ing Reasons: Did they not cashier and vacate an Act formerly made against itinerary Preaching, and openly in the Face of the World, acknowledge that there was a Work of God carrying on in the Land, and express their Gratitude to God for it? Did not Mr. Robert Cross, who introduced this Protest, at that time, in a particular Manner, speak honourably of the Work of God aforesaid, and of itinerary Preaching, and excite his Brethren to invite such into their Pulpits, mentioning what he and his Collegue had done to this Purpose in Philadelphia? What is the Occasion of this sudden Change, that what was then allowed of by our Synod, should now, by some of the same Persons, be loaded with bad Names of unscriptural, anti-presbyterial, uncharitable, divisive Practices, and barefac'd Arrogance; and that a Number of Ministers (equal to those that cast them off) should be rejected, because that they were said to follow what was approved of last Year, and that before they were heard in their own Defence?

What is the Reason that our protesting Brethren were so full in Favour of the Work of God last Year, in their publick Speeches and Acknowledgments; and that they [Page 21]make no honourable mention of it in their Protest this Year? Has a little Space of Time alter'd the Nature of Things?

But supposing that Ministers were both sound and faithful, would it not be of Service to the Church of God for such as are sincere of their own Communion especially, to preach in their Places? And if so, is it not their Duty to invite them? Which if they neglect or refuse, when a proper Occasion offers, are they not guilty of an uncharitable and divisive Practice? This, as I am informed, has been done by more than one of our protesting Brethren.

As to what is alledged, of our ‘sowing the Seeds of Division among other Congregations, and doing what we can to alienate and fill their Minds with unjust Prejudices against their lawfully called Pastors; is, I believe, without sufficient Foundation;’ the Seed sown by myself and Brethren, so far as I know, is the Word of God. I hope our protesting Brethren will not call that the Seed of Division. And our Inten­tion in itinerary Preaching was not as our Brethren un­kindly suggest, to alienate and fill the Minds of the People with unjust Prejudices against their Pastors; but to glorify God, and bring Sinners to him. But the Truth is, that some of those who were awakened, without any Speech of ours in their Prejudice, have entertain'd, of their own accord, meaner Thoughts of the Ministry of some of our protesting Brethren than formerly. THIS, THIS, seems to have alarmed their Jealousies and Re­sentments about and against the Work of God, and such Instruments as he has been pleased graciously to use in promoting of it.

Again, the aforesaid Reason of Protest, seems to insinuate, that all of us, whom they have excluded from their Judicatories, have preached in the Congregations of other Ministers without their Consent: A Charge which cannot be fairly proved. But to proceed: The [Page 22] Fourth Reason of Protest, is (as they say) ‘our Prin­ciples and Practice, of which, Judging and Condem­ning all who do not fall in with our Measures, both Ministers and People, as carnal, graceless and Enemies to the Work of God. For the Proof of this, they re­fer to my Sermon against unconverted Ministers, and to two Papers of Complaint offer'd to the Synod last Year, by Mr. Blair, and myself.’ Answer; We know of nothing in the aforesaid Sermon and Papers that gave Ground to the aforesaid Charge. We own that rash Judging is a Sin against God; but we know of no­thing in our Principles that leads to it. We are far from such Narrowness and Bigotry as to imagine that all God's Ministers and People are coop'd up within the Verge of any one particular Denomination; or that they are all of our Sentiments, and willing to comply with our Measures in lesser Things.

Our Brethren alledge, ‘that rash Judging has been our constant Practice for above Twelve-Months past, as well as of (as they call them) our disorderly Pro­bationers.’ This Charge, our Opponents, we think, will not be able to prove. Indeed, we have been very jealous about our protesting Brethren's States towards God, because of their inconsistent Conduct in respect of the Work of God, sometimes Approving and some­times Disapproving of it; and representing of it in a gloomy Dress, because of some uncommon Incidents and Circumstances, which might admit of a favourable Interpretation. Has not Mr. John Thompson ‘term'd the late Revival of God's Work a new-fangled Stir about Religion; as also a spiritual Frenzy?’ And have not the Authors of the Pamphlet, entituled, The Wandering Spirit; expressed great Bitterness against it? We have Reason to suspect some of our protesting Bre­thren to be guilty of Forming that malignant Satyr: And are there not some shrewd Strokes of this kind in the Sixth Reason of the Protest, which we are now considering?

[Page 23] We are sorry that our protesting Brethren have, by their Speeches and Conduct, given us such Reason to be­lieve them to be Opposers of God's Work.

As to what is said in the Conclusion of the present Argument, namely, ‘that since their Congregations have been shatter'd and divided, few or none of them can say that they have that Comfort or Success among their People which they enjoyed before.’ As to Com­fort, we believe them; but respecting Success, we thought it had been the same as formerly; for, truly, this is the first time that ever we have heard of the Success of most of them. The

Fifth Reason of the Protest, is, that ‘we (as they say) industriously persuade People to believe, that the Call of God whereby he calls Men to the Ministry does not consist in their being regularly ordained, &c. but in some invisible Motions and Workings of the Spirit: And that the Gospel preached in Truth by unconverted Ministers, can be of no saving Benefit to Souls.’ In answer to the aforesaid Charge, we de­clare our Opinion as follows, namely, we believe that there is a Necessity of previous Tryals and Ordination in order to the Ministry; and that such who are regu­larly set apart, being sound in Doctrine, and blameless in Life. however their inward State may be, are true Ministers in the Sight of the Church, and that their Ministrations are valid. But in the mean time, we think that none should undertake the ministerial Work but those that are truly gracious; those that intend therein chiefly the Glory of God and Good of Man­kind; those that are inclined of God thereto: For we know not how a graceless Man can be faithful in the Ministry. Now, whether those inward, pious Dispo­sitions aforesaid be termed the inward Call of God to the Gospel-Ministry, or only Qualifications necessary or pre-requisite in the Persons whom God calls, it seems to be the same in Substance. A Debate about Words we judge needless.

[Page 24] As to what is farther alledged in this Paragraph, namely, ‘that the Gospel preached by unconverted Ministers in Truth can be of no saving Benefit to Souls, according to our Opinion.’ This Charge we deny as slanderous. God, as an absolute Sovereign, may use what Means he pleases to accomplish his Work by. We only assert this, that Success by unconverted Ministers Preaching is very improbable, and very sel­dom happens, so far as we can gather. Alas, for them poor Souls! partly thro' Ignorance of the Nature of vi­tal Religion, and partly thro' a native Enmity against it, and partly thro' Fear of losing their Credit, &c. by its Spread near their Borders; they are under great Temptations (instead of Befriending of it) to rise up against it, and try to pull it down by all their Art and Eloquence. The

Sixth Reason of the Protest, is, ‘our Preaching (as they say) the Terrors of the Law in such a Manner and Dialect as hath no Precedent in the Word of God, but rather appears to be borrow'd from a worse Dialect; and seditiously Working on the Passions of weak Minds as to cause them to cry out in a dismal Manner, and fall down in Convulsion like Fits, to the Marring of the Profiting both of themselves and others, who are so taken up in Hearing and Seeing their odd Symp­toms, that they cannot attend to, or hear what the Preacher says; after all Boasting of these Things as the Work of God; which we are persuaded do proceed from an inferior or worse Cause.’

A. This Reason, when applied to all whom they re­ject, as it doubtless is by our Opponents, which their in­definite Manner of Expression signifies, is groundless and slanderous. We challenge our Opponents to prove their invidious Charge against the greater Part of those whom they have rejected: If any one of our Number has been guilty of Indiscretion at any time in his Man­ner of Address to the People, we will not pretend to [Page 25]justify it; but to charge the Whole with this Fault, is unjust.

We know not that we use any Dialect in inculcating the Terrors of the Law, but what accords with Scrip­ture and Reason; or that we endeavour to excite the lower Passions, but after the Information of the Un­derstanding, and that by scriptural Incentives: Which is so far from being seditious, that it is the Duty of every Gospel Minister. We are bid to cry aloud and not to spare; to shew to Judah her Transgressions, and to the House of Jacob her Sins. Knowing the Terrors of the Lord, we must persuade Men. If we speak smooth Things, or please Men, we are not the Ministers of Jesus Christ.

If any one among us has boasted of People's falling into Convulsion-like-Fits as the Work of God, as our Opponents suggest, I think it is a culpable Weakness in the Person guilty of it. It is, doubtless, the Duty of People to labour to keep their Passions within due Bounds, especially in publick Assemblies, lest they in­terupt their own and others Edification.

I know of none among the rejected Brethren who look upon the aforesaid Convulsion-like-Fits to be a sufficient Evidence of the Work of God.

We only judge such Appearances to be probable In­dications of Concern of Mind, which when it issues in a Closure with Christ by Faith, a Communion with him by Love, and Conformity to him in humble Holiness; we believe it to be a special Work of God's Grace: But even before it has those Effects, while Sinners are only bewailing Sin, chiefly thro' Fear of divine Wrath, we think we have Reason to hope that it is a common Work of that Holy Spirit, whom Christ has promised, to convince of Sin, in order to Conversion and Con­solation.

And altho' some under Conviction of Sin, should be overcome by an Excess of Sorrow or Fear, we think [Page 26]that a milder Construction might be put upon this, than to ascribe it to the Devil.

In the mean time it may be observed, that there are but a few that are overcome as aforesaid, in Comparison of the Multitudes that are convinced.

It may be prov'd, by many Witnesses, that several Times when the Truths of God have been preach'd in the mildest Gospel-Strains, that many Persons have been overcome with Love, Joy or Sorrow.

What worse Representation of the Work of God, now Spreading in the World, could be expected from a professed Enemy of all Religion, than we have from our Brethren? Is it not doleful to see Religion thus wounded in the House of its professed Friends?

Do they not manifestly make use of an uncommon Circumstance to blacken the whole Work?

But while our protesting Brethren were expressing warm Resentments against the Work of God, under the plausible Umbrage of a seemingly exceptionable In­cident; methinks they should have taken some Care to avoid horrid Reflecting against the sacred Scriptures, and even against God himself.

When they say we preach the Terrors of the Law in such a Dialect as hath no Precedent in the Word of God, but rather appears to be borrow'd from a worse Dialect: Does not this, comparative worse, necessarily suppose the positive bad? So that the Meaning of the Sentence is this; The Scripture contains a bad Dialect, but they have chosen worse. And when they speak of our Boasting of People's Out-cries, &c. as the Work of God; which (say they) we are persuaded do proceed from an inferior or worse Cause; Does not this suppose God himself to be a bad Cause, in their Apprehension? But hoping that this was only a Slip of their Pen, I therefore pass it by without any farther Observation.

Must they not be stone-blind that do not see, that there be all the Evidences of a Work of GOD now [Page 27]among us, that can reasonably be desired? Are not the Ignorant enlightned, the Secure made solicitous about their Salvation, the Profane reformed, many Formalists shaken off their false Foundations, and brought to ex­perimental Christianity? Have we not all needful Evidence from their Speech and Practice, that the pre­vailing Temper of many Men's Minds is turn'd into a holy, humble and heavenly Channel?

Divers Opposers of God's Work in several Places of this Land, have been lately struck to the Heart, and made to acknowledge their Wickedness in the most publick Manner.

Some aged Persons, some middle-aged, Multitudes of young People in the Bloom of Life, as well as many little Children, have been brought to experience deep Sorrow for Sin, and the Sweets of a Saviour's Love. Of young People turn'd from Sin in its Strength, we may say, as in another Case, Thou Sea, wherefore fled­dest thou? and thou Jordan, why wast thou driven back? Shall any dare to reproach the Work of GOD, while out of the Mouths of Babes he is ordaining Strength?

Yea, divers Negroes, and Indians, have been of late, to all Appearance, effectually wrought upon. Several Places in this Continent, are at this Time joining Hand in Hand, in seeking of the LORD; they are setting their Faces Zion-ward, and weeping as they go.

And have not Persons of almost all Denominations been wrought upon by the Word as aforesaid? Do they not unite to give Testimony to God's Work, and celebrate his Praise? Herein Judah and Ephraim have harmonized. What can be desired more to prove it to be the Work of the Eternal GOD?

If it be objected, that many of those who are said to be under good Impressions, are guilty of rash Judging. A. I can't think it rash Judging to believe those to be graceless, who, in the midst of Means of Conviction, [Page 28]do habitually oppose the Work of God, under the Co­vert of some supposed or real Indiscretions.

A seventh Reason of the Protest, is ‘our preaching and maintaining (as they say) that all true Converts are as certain of their gracious State, as a Person is of what he knows by his outward Senses; and are able to give a Narrative of the Time and Manner of their Conversion, or else we conclude them to be in a graceless State; and that a gracious Person can judge of others gracious State otherwise than by his Profes­sion and Life, — that People are under no sacred Tye to Pastors, &c.’

A. Our Judgment as to the aforesaid Particulars, is this, namely, That gracious Persons may attain a full Assurance of their good State, and some of them do attain it; but we do not believe that all arrive thereto in this Life; and those that do, may, no doubt, lose it again, and get under Clouds and Darkness.

But in the mean time we think, that all who are converted, ordinarily have a lesser or greater Degree of comfortable Perswasion of their gracious State, either immediately upon their Closure with Christ, or some Time afterwards, when Faith is in Exercise, either for a shorter or longer Duration. Surely, those that are rightly humbled by the Spirit of God, will not be satis­fied 'til they obtain this.

And altho' those that are converted in adult Age, can generally remember the Time and Means of their Conviction, and give a satisfactory Account of their Experiences to those who are proper Judges of such Things; yet the Case, we suppose, is somewhat diffe­rent with those who are converted in Infancy and Childhood; yet it must be confessed, that even some Children pass under considerable Convictions. I know of none of our rejected Brethren, that do or ever did believe it to be just or proper, to judge any to be in a [Page 29]natural or graceless State, meerly because they could not tell the Time of their Conversion; if they have Evi­dences of the Thing, it is enough.

We know of no Way of Judging respecting the gracious State of others, but by their Doctrines, Expe­riences, and Practice.

No doubt there is a Relation between a Pastor and his People; but the Design of this being to promote their Good, we think it unreasonable that it should subsist to the Prejudice of that, which it's designed to procure. However, in ordinary Cases, we think it to be the People's Duty, to make regular Application to their Pastors, for Liberty to go where they get the greatest Benefit.

But when Ministers conspire to oppose the Work and faithful Servants of God, in the most open and flagrant Manner, we see no Harm in this Case, in using an ex­traordinary Method.

FOR these, and many other Reasons, our Brethren do in a most solemn Manner protest, that we have no Right to sit with them in Judicatories: The Reasons they have mentioned we have considered, and leave it to the Reader to determine, whether they are sufficient to procure our Exclusion; but as to the rest, we know them not; however thro' Mercy we are not afraid of seeing the Bottom of their Budget. We hope, and pray, that they would bring forth all their Strength, in their Reply to this; for we design no more but another Answer. We have got something else to do, which is more desireable than Controversy. We only want the State of the Case to be fairly open'd; and then, I hope, we shall be easy about the Judgment of the World, re­specting our Conduct. But to return.

From the aforesaid Particulars our protesting Breth­ren reason for the Necessity of a Rupture.

[Page 30] But having before considered the Grounds upon which our Brethren's Reasonings are built, I think it needless to speak to them separately; for they can be but such as their Foundation is, and must needs stand or fall with it.

After these Reasonings, our Brethren profess them­selves to be resolvedly against the Principles and Practice of Anarchy and Schism.

A. Whatever they profess, I think they are guilty of both, in their Protest, namely, 1. In laying down this as a Principle, that there must be a complete Uni­formity to all the Synod's Rules, or Canons, upon Pain of Exclusion. See the 2d Reason of Protest. And 2. their casting us out of Communion for our conscientious Non-conformity to their unscriptural Canon. Does not the first of these Particulars, because of the varying Opinions of Men, according to the ordinary Course of Things, open a dreadful Necessity of continual Confu­sions in the Church of God, or else of implicit Faith and blind Obedience to prevent the same? And pray, is not the Remedy worse than the Disease?

We are sorry that our protesting Brethren have given us Reason to suspect them, of being guilty of verging towards the Doctrine of implicit Faith and blind Obe­dience; this appears from their finding Fault with us (in their Protest) for not obeying the Rules, in the making of which we are in the Negative.

Here we must beg to be excused from Concurring in Sentiment with our Brethren: We are resolved, by the Grace of God, that no gingle or cant of Order and Government shall gull us out of our Reason and Con­science, or rob us of our Priviledges, as Men, as Chris­tians, as Protestants, and as Presbyterians: We declare our utter Abhorrence of all such Pretence to Power in Churches, as is built upon the Ruins of human Nature.

We cannot but join with our protesting Brethren, how­ever, in their Prayer, that God may arise, and that his [Page 31]Enemies may be scattered, and that those who hate him may fly before him. But, I think, their Application of it to us, shews them to be guilty of that rash Judging which they would charge upon us, Turpe est Doct.— quod tibi fieri non vis, &c.

Our protesting Brethren farther observe, ‘That to give Way to the pulling down of the Hedge of Discipline, is far from being the Method of causing his tender Plants to grow.’

A. If so, then why are they guilty of it, by their unscriptural Impositions upon, and rash Separation from their Brethren, in such a Manner as is, for what I know, without all Precedent?

Particular Rules of Churches, are only so far to be valued and obeyed, as they serve to answer their supposed Design, namely, the Edification of the Body of Christ. To say that we should regard and obey them when the Case is otherwise, is to say, that we ought to esteem and promote the Injury of Christ's Kingdom; which is absurd.

Our protesting Brethren say, that they doubt not but that when God sees us humbled for our Sins, he will return again in Mercy. No doubt we have at all. Times Reason to humble ourselves before God: But if they be not blinded with Prejudice, or otherwise, they may see Reason now to rejoice, that God has returned to his Church in Mercy.

Once more: Our protesting Brethren think that their Protest, which they call their Testimony, may be of use to their Children yet unborn. It may so, for what we know, in shewing them their Fathers Oppo­sition to the Work of God, and schismatical Separation from their Brethren.

But tho' we are called to speak plainly, yet we wish our protesting Brethren all needful Mercies from the Bottom of our Hearts.

REMARKS UPON THE APPENDIX.

THE Narrative our Brethren give of what happened after the Protest was signed, is a strange Misre­presentation of the Affair.

‘After the Protest was entered and subscribed (say our Opponents) the Brunswick Party insisted that a great Number of us, who are now the Synod, should be cast out of Membership; for (say they) there were several Brethren, who did not sign this Protest, who were not of the Number we protested against, and they concluded that all these Members would join with them, and they were exact in Counting of the Roll, and found that when they had counted all such with themselves, they could not make the Majority: But some of the Members, who did not sign this Pro­test, soon convinced them, that they would not be of their Party; And upon this, they thought it expedient to withdraw.’

As to the Brunswick-Party's (as they are pleased to call us) insisting that they should be cast out of the Synod, it is what I know nothing of; such a Thought did not enter into my Heart.

[Page 33] But how can our Brethren assert, what it was not possible for them at that Time to know, without our Declaration, which they had not? namely, That we concluded that all these Members, who had not signed their Protest, would join with us? What we concluded upon, was this, That those who had not signed the Protest, had not rejected us; and therefore were so far upon our Side of the Question, that they could join with us in Judicatories.

Our Brethren call themselves a great Number; the Truth is, there was but a small Difference between them and us as to Number, which will appear thus; The Persons they protested against, were these, viz.

• William Tennent, senior.
• Richard Treat,
• Samuel Blair,
• Charles Tennent,
• James Alexander,
• Alexander Craighead,
• William Tennent,
• Eleazar Wales,
• John Rowland,
• Gilbert Tennent.

All the rest of the Ministers in Synod (besides these now mentioned, and the Protesters) were only Four in Number, namely,

• George Gillespy,
• Alexander Hutchison,
• Jedidiah Andrews,
• — M" Henery.

[Page 34] The Two first of those last mentioned, seemed in­clinable to join with us; which put us on a Par as to Number with our Opponents: And Mr. M" Henery was also dissatisfy'd with the Protest. But the Number of the Elders, on each Side of the Question, I cannot tell; not having the Synod's Minutes by me.

It is evident from what has been said, that there was a Majority of Non-protesting Ministers.

Our protesting Brethren assert, that they are the Synod; but I think it is easier for them to assert, than prove it. Does not their offering a Protest before the Synod, signify, that the Synod were a Number distinct from them, in their own Judgment? For it seems unreasonable for a Number of Men, to offer a Protest to themselves.

It is alledg'd by our protesting Brethren, ‘That when some who did not sign the Protest, convinced us, that they would not be of our Party; that upon this, we thought it expedient to withdraw.’ This is a gross Mistake; for some of the Non-protesting Members convinced us of no such Thing. Neither was any Thing like this, the Occasion of our Withdrawing; we stay'd 'till the Moderator commanded Silence.

Our protesting Brethren say, ‘That our Withdraw­ing put the House into a little Confusion.’ Here is another strange Misrepresentation; for the Confusion the House was in, was neither after, nor occasioned by our Withdrawing; it was before we came away, and was occasioned by the Reading and Signing of the Pro­test; we did not come away 'til our protesting Brethren came with us; and that was after the Session was con­cluded, with Prayer, as usual.

[Page 35] The Roll indeed was counted, but not with the View mention'd by our Opponents, but to see whether in respect of Number, our protesting Brethren could cast us out, according to the Tenor of their Protest.

The Truth is, the Reading and hasty Signing of the Protest, put the Assembly into Disorder; we were surprized with the extraordinary Method of Proceeding, and knew not well what to do; we were loath to be cast out so hastily, without speaking any Thing in our own Defence; but our Attempts to speak were repulsed, the House being confus'd, one spoke one Thing, and another another, and sometimes two or more at once; so that it's hard to tell what was said. Mr. Blair, I re­member, offer'd more than once, to read a Paper; but the Motion was rejected, and Silence enjoin'd by the Mo­derator; and thus the Assembly, after Prayer, broke up.

No doubt Societies have a Right to judge of the Qua­lifications of their own Members, and to reject such as render themselves unworthy of their Communion. But according to the Laws of Nature, of Nations, and of God, they should be first heard in their own Defence, before they are condemned and rejected.

Our Brethren have their Liberty to prove all they can against us; and we have little Reason to doubt their Inclinations that Way. But if they will keep to the Rules of Truth and Justice, we fear not their Alle­gations.

Their saying, that it was only want of an Opportu­nity, and not of a willing Mind, that prevented us from turning of them out, is uncharitable and severe; if we had had such a Desire to separate, as our Brethren suggest, we might have easily done it long agone.

[Page 36] But forasmuch as a Historical Narrative of the whole Affair of Debate, will in a little Time be exposed to publick Light, I will add no more at present.

May the gracious GOD grant that these Contentions may issue in Zion's Prosperity. Amen.

New-Brunswick, July 3. 1741.