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 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.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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?

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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

WE hope we may, without Boaſting or Offence, obſerve, that, ſo far as we know our own Hearts, we do not only, in ſome Meaſure, deſire the Proſperity, but Peace of Zion; and that we are heartily willing to purſue all ſcriptural and rational Meaſures to compaſs and preſerve both: And therefore the late cloudy Appearances of Uneaſineſs and Debate among ourſelves in this infant Church have been peculiarly afflictive to us; not ſo much, we truſt, for the Fears of any perſonal Prejudice that our Debates with you may poſſibly occaſion to us, as of the Reproach and Diſadvantage that may probably iſſue therefrom if increaſed and brought to a fatal Period upon the Honours and Intereſts of Religion in general.

However, we cannot think, that for the Sake of Peace we ſhould ſacrifice the Intereſt of what we apprehend to be Truth and Juſtice, and croſs the Dictates of our own Conſciences: No, we rather concur in Sentiments upon this Head with Luther, who juſtly obſerved, That an honourable and neceſſary War was preferable to a mean and ignoble Peace. Potius coelum & terra ruerent, &c.

We charitably hope, that a Number, at leaſt, of the late Synod deſigned the Advancement of Chriſt's Kingdom by their Concluſion: But we are ſorry that there is ſo great a Difference among us in the 〈◊〉 of Expedients to anſwer the aforeſaid truly valuable Deſign.

We crave leave to inform and aſſure you, Moderator, and Reverend Brethren, that it was not from any Diſregard to your Perſons, or juſt Authority, that we ſo warmly oppoſed the late religious Acts or Laws you have been pleaſed to form; but from a Principle of Conſcience, influenced by Scripture and Arguments; which we now beg Liberty of propoſing to your farther Conſideration, in the following Order:

The Tenor of the firſt Act we diſſented from, is, that approv'd Miniſters and Members of this Synod are thereby debarred from Preaching in any Vacancy which is in the Bounds of another Preſbytery, when any Miniſter of that Preſbytery informs them that he thinks their Preaching will cauſe Diviſions and Diſorders; until that Matter be try'd by the Preſbytery where the Vacancy is; or until he obtains Liberty from the Synod.

Againſt the aforeſaid Law, we offer the following Objections, viz. That we cannot find any Foundation for it in the Holy Scriptures. It was judged, by a Majority of the Synod, that it was a ſuitable Expedient to preſerve Peace and Order in Congregations; and this is the only Reaſon propoſed why it is enacted, without ever once pretending any particular Order or Direction from God about it; and yet it is enacted with as great Appearance of Authority, and made as univerſally Binding upon all the Members of this Synod, altho' a Number thereof did oppoſe it in its Embryo, as if it had a Thus ſaith the Lord expreſly for its Foundation. If it can be made appear from the Holy Scriptures that the the King of Zion hath appointed this Act, or the Matter therein contained, in his Word; we hope that there is none in this Synod that would be more careful to obſerve it than ourſelves; and that from a Regard to the Authority of GOD, and not of Men.

But on the Contrary, we humbly conceive, that the aforeſaid Act oppoſes the expreſs Command of God, which obliges Miniſters to be conſtant in Seaſon, and out of Seaſon, 2 Tim. iv. It bereaves both Miniſters and People of the Privileges Chriſt has given them; and reſtrains them from the Performance of commanded Duty for the time being. The Exerciſe of the Miniſter's Office, when he is regularly called to preach by the united Voice of Providence and of the Chriſtian People, is ſuſpended for a Time by one Man; and that not for any real Fault already committed, or ſo much as alledged; but upon Suſpicion that ſome bad Conſequences will follow upon his Preaching in ſuch a Place. And, in conſequence hereof, the People are debarred from doing a poſitive Duty of high Importance and Concern in Chriſtianity, viz. Hearing an approved Miniſter of Chriſt when they have convenient Opportunity. Here is ſomething that is very extraordinary indeed; every Miniſter in the Bounds of the Synod, that is inclined to be uncharitable to his Brethren, is by the Act aforeſaid veſted with a Power (in this Inſtance ſomething more than prelatical) to lord it over his Brethren, and inflict upon them one of the moſt grievious Church-Cenſures; and that without any Pretence of Fault committed. We cannot think that Uncharitableneſs gives any juſt Claims to ſuperior Powers or Pretence; and therefore to encourage ſuch a Diſpoſition which is ſo evil in its Nature and fatal in its Effects, in an Age in which it ſo much abounds, to the great Reproach of Chriſtianity, is, in our humble Opinion, as unreaſonable and prejudicial as it is unequal. If it be contrary to the Laws of Nature, of Nations, and of God, to condemn Men (altho' ſhrewdly ſuſpected to be guilty of Crimes that deſerve it) before they be heard in their own Defence; how much more ſo muſt it be to puniſh actually and grievouſly without the leaſt Pretence of Fault committed? That an approved Miniſter's ſtated Preaching in one Preſbytery ſhould be ſafe, and his occaſional in another, ſhould be dangerous, is a Riddle to us which we profeſs we cannot ſee through. If a Miniſter preaches ſound Doctrine, why ſhould it be deem'd dangerous in or unſuitable to any Place? If not, why is he approved or ſuffered to preach in any? Are not Souls equally precious in all Places? and therefore ought not the Synod's Care be equally extended to all within their Bounds? Will not the ſame Goſpel ſerve the whole Synod? And if any preach another, why are they received by that Judicatory, and ſuffered to preach in any of her Territories? If not, why are they hindered from Preaching occaſionally and tranſiently which are invited regularly?

What is offer'd, as the Reaſon of the aforeſaid Suſpenſion, rather ſerves to condemn than juſtify the Synod's new Law, in our humble Opinion, namely, the Suſpicion that one Miniſter hath, that his Brother's Preaching in ſuch a Vacancy will cauſe Diviſions and Diſorders: For hereby the Synod ſo far approves of the uncharitable Suſpicions of her Members of one another's Performances, which is a great Sin in itſelf, as to make it a ſufficient Foundation or Warrant for their committing another, viz. their cenſuring their Brethren, and bereaving them of the Privileges which the King of the Church has expreſsly and deſignedly given them, and that before they hear them. And therefore, inaſmuch as this Canon gives Licenſe to do Evil that Good may come; we think it plainly contradicts the expreſs Word of God, Rom. iii. 8:

We beg Leave farther to obſerve, that we cannot well reconcile theſe two Things in the Synod's Conduct in relation to the aforeſaid Law, viz. that the Synod approves of all her Members, and yet in the mean time encourages them to ſuſpect each other, and puniſh upon Suſpicion. Now, ſeeing Juſtice and Charity are the Springs and Principles of Peace and Order; what is contrary thereto, muſt have a direct Tendency to deſtroy both. Of this Kind we take the aforeſaid Law to be, for the Reaſons before and after-mentioned; and therefore this Canon contradicts the profeſſed Deſign thereof; inſtead of preventing Diviſions and Diſorders, it procures them; and ſo oppoſes all thoſe Scriptures that eſtabliſh the contrary.

The aforeſaid Law gives Liberty to cenſure a Brother upon meer Conjecture. For, what other Knowledge can any of us have of future contingent Events, unleſs any Members of the Synod have the Spirit of Propheſy, which we do not think they will pretend to? But ſuppoſing they had the aforeſaid Branch of the Apoſtolick Character, we ſee not how they could puniſh their Brethren for an Event, before it came to paſs, an Event which might come to paſs without their being any ways culpably acceſſory thereto.

This therefore leads us to obſerve, that the Reaſon annexed to the aforeſaid Law, is expreſſed in ambiguous Terms, Diviſions, Diſorders, &c. which, as they follow upon Preaching, may be taken in a good or bad Senſe: If theſe Words be taken in a bad Senſe, for ſinful Diviſions properly cauſed by Preaching; then certainly it is ſinful Preaching, that procures them. Sinful Diviſions can never be the proper Fruits of Goſpel-Truths; to ſay otherwiſe, is to pour Contempt upon the glorious Goſpel. If ſo, then it is unreaſonable to hinder the Preaching of Truth in any of our Borders, in order to prevent Diviſions. And Truth, we are by the Law of Charity obliged to hope, will be preach'd by our approved Brethren, until we have good Reaſon to the contrary.

Can any Member of one Preſbytery, know certainly before-hand, that a Member of another will preach falſe Doctrine in any of their Vacancies, more than one of their own Preſbytery? If not, then he may with equal Reaſon hinder the Brethren of his own Preſbytery from preaching in ſuch Vacancies; and ſo they ſhall never be ſupplied; for, another may hinder him by the ſame Rule: If yea, then we aſk how this can be without a Claim to Infallibility or immediate Revelation?

If a Fear of our Brother's preaching falſe Doctrine, meerly becauſe he is fallible, will juſtify his being ſuſpended from preaching for a Time, before he has preach'd it; then we query, if this, followed in its juſt and natural Conſequences, will not ſilence this Synod and all the World with them? This Method of preventing the Preaching of falſe Doctrine, is, we confeſs, effectual to anſwer the End deſigned: But then it concludes or infers rather more than we ſuppoſe the Synod will allow of; for it deſtroys all Preaching entirely, except by inſpired Perſons.

But if there are other ſufficient Foundations for the aforeſaid Fear; then why are not the ſcriptural Methods of private Reproof, and publick Charge, before his proper Judicatory purſued? If there are not ſufficient Reaſons; then why is the aforeſaid Fear followed, and made the Foundation of Cenſure; ſeeing it is unreaſonable?

But if the aforeſaid Terms are taken in a good Senſe for theſe Diſturbances which the powerful Preaching of the Goſpel only occaſions, in which reſpect our Saviour obſerves, That he came not to ſend Peace on Earth, but a Sword, to ſet a Man at Variance with his Father, &c. (See Matth. 10. 34—36.) and that while the ſtrong Man armed keeps the Houſe, all the Goods are in Peace; — Then is the aforeſaid Law very extraordinary and unaccountable indeed: For, wherever the Goſpel becomes the Wiſdom and Power of God, to the Converſion of Souls, there it is generally oppos'd by the Devil and his Emiſſaries: Theſe that are converted, do ordinarily endeavour to convince others of their ſecure Neighbours of their Danger and Miſery (which is but their Duty;) this is apt to provoke the Children of Belial to reproach the People of God; and in the Choice of a Miniſter, theſe Perſons who have a better Knowledge and Savour of true Religion, may be alſo very cautious; which is alſo their Duty: Hence Diviſions and Diſorders may enſue. Now, if this Oppoſition of Satan and his Seed againſt the Power of the Goſpel, be the Diviſions intended, and Miniſters muſt be debarr'd from preaching in particular Places, leſt the Devil's Kingdom ſhould be diſturbed, and Satan himſelf vexed or drove out of Places where GOD has ſealed their Labours for the ſame Reaſon; Then the Law we plead againſt, is moſt iniquous. But we charitably hope, that it did not appear to our Rev. Brethren, who paſſed it in this Light; and that they were inadvertently led into a Conſent to the aforeſaid Act, by the heavy Complaints and frightful undiſtinguiſhed Terms of Diviſions and Diſorders: And we are perſwaded, that now they will join with us in oppoſing this unequal Act, when the Diviſions and Diſorders pointed at in it, come to be particularly diſtinguiſhed and ſpecified by their proper Cauſes and remote Occaſions.

But whatever favourable Sentiments Charity obliges us to entertain of the Intentions of the Formers of the aforeſaid Act; yet we muſt in the mean time obſerve, that the Ambiguity of its Terms, gives Room for the aforeſaid terrible Effects.

Suffer us, Reverend Gentlemen, again to obſerve, that we think it hard and highly injurious, that a Miniſter approved of by the Synod, when he is warned, &c. muſt forbear the Exerciſe of his Office in any Vacancy of another Preſbytery, where he is providentially call'd; and if he would clear up his clouded Character, or anſwer the juſt Requeſt of the People, he muſt wait in his Travels far from Home, till a Preſbytery meets, not that which he properly belongs to; and he hears their Deciſions about his Brethren's Suſpicions, or elſe their prophetical Determinations about what is not yet come to paſs, viz. Whether his preaching in ſuch a Place, will be attended with Diviſions; yea or not. We hope you will not be offended, Gentlemen, when we aſſure you, that our feeble Powers are perfectly puzzled and nonplus'd, when we would labour to ſound the myſterious Depths of this Act in all its Parts; but thus far we think we may ſafely ſay, That according to the Notions we have of it, its general Scope and Tendency ſeems to be to diſcourage utterly all occaſional Preaching out of the Bounds of the Preſbytery we live in, and to ſubject the Exerciſe of the miniſterial Office to the capricious Humours of uncharitable, ill-natur'd Brethren.

We thought indeed, that when Miniſters were ordained, they had a Right to preach Chriſt where they were providentially called, whether it was within their Preſbytery-Line, or beyond it: But now we are learned the Contrary; for by this new Law they muſt have new Commiſſions from a Preſbytery or Synod, if they happen in their Travels to croſs their Preſbytery-Line, or meet with a croſs Brother. Beſides there is ſomething in this new Law imply'd, that is, in our humble Opinion, very injurious to ruling Elders and the Chriſtian People, viz. That, according to it, they have no Power to invite a regular Member of another Preſbytery to preach among them one Sabbath in his Travels: If any Member of their own gives Warning to the Contrary, thus one diſorderly Brother is impower'd by the aforeſaid Act, to trample upon the Rights of Miniſters, Elders, and People: We call the ſuppoſed Perſon diſorderly, becauſe by unreaſonable Jealouſies he breaks the Law of Love, which obliges to hope all Things that are good of our Brethren, as far as it is reaſonable, and to ſuffer long, and be kind: If his Jealouſies be without ſufficient Ground, he is diſorderly; if it has ſufficient Grounds, he is alſo diſorderly, in taking ſuch an unſcriptural, yea, antiſcriptural Method with his Brother, as this Law directs to. We cannot ſee any Conſiſtency between our Saviour's Law, mentioned Matth. 18. 15—18. and this of the late Synod; nor any Kindneſs, but rather great Cruelty, in accuſing a Brother before an improper Judicatory, and that when unprepared to make his Defence.

Once more: The aforeſaid Act ſeems to us, to contradict the generous and noble Temper of the Apoſtle Paul, who reſolutely rejoiced that Chriſt was preached, tho' by ſome it was done thro' Envy, Inſincerity, Strife and Contention, ſuppoſing to add Affliction to his Bonds. Phil. 1. 16, 17.

Neither are we able to diſcern the Conſiſtency of the aforeſaid Act with the Care that Preſbyteries ſhould have that their Vacancies be ſupplied; eſpecially conſidering the Situation of Affairs in this Country is ſuch that ſome Preſbyteries are not able, without wronging their own Congregations, to ſupply the Vacancies in their Bounds; therefore, one would think, they ſhould be glad of Help en paſſant from their approved Brethren in their occaſional Travels. But the Contrary of this appears by the Law under our preſent Conſideration, which caſts unſcriptural Hinderances in the Way of Help, and makes it extreamly precarious, and even almoſt impracticable. But to proceed:

The Second Religious Law made by the laſt Synod, which we diſſented from, is to the following Purpoſe, viz. That no Preſbytery has (according to it) Liberty to examine any Candidates who offer themſelves to to them, in order to licenſe or ordain them, before they be examined and approved reſpecting their Literature by a Committee of the Synod.

That our Reaſons againſt the aforeſaid Law may be ſet in a juſt Light, we beg leave to premiſe the three following Poſitions, viz.

I. That there is a Parity of Equality of Power among Goſpel-Miniſters, is a Truth univerſally own'd by Preſbyterians; a Truth very evident from the Commiſſion Chriſt gave to his Apoſtles.

II. That a Preſbytery, or the ſmalleſt Aſſociation of Miniſters, have a Power from Chriſt to ordain, is alſo a Truth which the Scriptures fully vouch, 1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. ii. 2. A Truth which the Preſbyterians have univerſally maintained in their Defences, and conformed to in their Practice: A Truth which gave riſe to the Preſbyterian Name. He who denies the aforeſaid Poſitions overſets, conſequently, in his Opinion, all Preſbyterianiſm both in Name and Thing, and unchurches all the reformed Churches (ſtrictly ſo called) He who owns them, will, in our humble Opinion, be obliged, in Reaſon, to own a

III. Poſition neceſſarily reſulting from them; which is this, that Preſbyteries have Authority from Chriſt to examine all Candidates (who regularly offer themſelves) reſpecting all Qualifications that are neceſſary for the Miniſtry; for this the Power of Ordination, in the Nature of the Thing, neceſſarily ſuppoſes. If they may ſet them apart to the miniſterial Work, they muſt judge of their Qualifications for it, or act by implicit Faith in their own proper Buſineſs, which is abſurd.

Having offer'd the aforeſaid Concluſions, we would reaſon againſt the aforeſaid religious Law, which reſtrains the Exerciſe of that Power which Chriſt has given to Preſbyteries, as to the Examination of Candidates, for a time, as to ſome whom they may approve of, and perpetually as to others whom, perhaps, they may not approve of; in the following Manner, viz.

I. We think that the aforeſaid Act is an unſcriptural Law: We cannot find any Directions in the Scriptures that Candidates for the Miniſtry muſt be examined and approved by a Committee of any Synod, before a Preſbytery takes them under Examination in order to licenſe or ordain them.

II. We look upon it to be an uncharitable Act: It ſeems neceſſarily to ſuppoſe a Suſpicion of the Inſufficiency or Unfaithfulneſs of their own Members for or in the Performance of the Taſk Chriſt has aſſigned them as its Foundation. Now, unleſs this Suſpicion be pleaded, how can any tolerable Pretence of Neceſſity for the aforeſaid Law be urged? And if it be, how can the Conduct of the Members of this Synod in ſending ſuch into the Miniſtry, approving them in it, and allowing them the Privileges of an aſſociated Body or Preſbytery, be juſtified?

III. We think the aforeſaid Law is anti-ſcriptural: If the Scripture allows and injoins Preſbyteries to examine all Students who are of good Report (that regularly offer themſelves) as has been before proved, then it is againſt the Scripture to impair or hinder the Exerciſe of ſaid Power, unleſs the Poſſeſſors thereof conſent thereto, or be judicially convinced of ſuch Faults as deſerve ſuch Treatment.

If a godly Candidate, who is ſufficiently qualified for the miniſterial Work according to the divine Preſcription, ſhould ſcruple the Lawfulneſs of this ſynodical Law, and yet offer himſelf to a Preſbytery, &c. they are obliged by the Law of Chriſt to receive him, 2 Tim. ii. 2. Rom. xiv. 1. 4. Rom. xv. 7. But by this Law of the Synod they are obliged to reject him.

IV. It's unjuſt (in our Opinion) to impair a Power given by Chriſt to any, or to reſtrain the Exerciſe of it allowed by him, againſt the Conſent of the Wills and Dictates of the Conſciences of the Poſſeſſors, unleſs they be proved Guilty of ſuch Crimes as deſerve ſuch Penalties. To condemn and puniſh before any Accuſation is offered, is an odd Way of Judging.

Farther, we cannot ſee how it can be reconciled to the Maxims of Juſtice, to oblige all Candidates to ſpend Time and Money (which ſome can ill ſpare in attending upon ſynodical Committees) when the Matter can be otherways well managed, according to the divine Direction.

V. The aforeſaid Law is (in our Opinion) unneceſſary: Why may not or cannot Preſbyteries try young Men now, as they have done this Twenty or Thirty Years by paſt, even ever ſince this Synod was formed? If this Committee be ſo neceſſary, what a poor State muſt this Church have been in, 'til the laſt Year! and how defective muſt the Laws of Chriſt be, which have not a Word of this Committee in them, ſo far as we can gather?

VI. It is (in our Eſteem) anti-preſbyterian: This Law, by taking from Preſbyteries their proper Buſineſs, and reſtraining them in the Exerciſe of their original Powers unſcripturally, tends to render them uſeleſs, and ſo to deſtroy them entirely, and with them that Subordination of Judicatories dependent on them, without which the Preſbyterian Government in its preſent Model cannot ſubſiſt.

According to the Preſbyterian Conſtitution we conceive, that all the Miniſters of the Goſpel are equal one with another in all the Parts of the Paſtoral Office; ſo that none have any peculiar Powers or Privileges beyond others: And yet particular Preſbyteries, conſiſting of ſuch a Number of Miniſters, more or leſs, with the Elders of their ſeveral Congregations, as can conveniently meet together ſo often as Occaſion may require, have full and complete Power for ordering all the Affairs of the Church within their Bounds. In a Word, they have Power to execute all the Parts of Government which Chriſt has appointed in his Church, (which, by the Way, is not inconſiſtent with their Liableneſs to be brought to Account by Synods, or larger Aſſemblies conſiſting of ſeveral Preſbyteries, either for Errors in Doctrine or wrong Conduct in Practice) and conſequently they have the whole Management of the Admiſſion of Perſons to the Preaching of the Goſpel, who may and ought to apply to them for that End. Now, certainly, this Act we oppoſe, is an Abridgment of the aforeſaid Right and Privilege; for, according to it, no Preſbytery muſt try or licenſe any Candidate, until they obtain the Liberty and Approbation of thoſe who are conſtituted their Superiors in the Buſineſs; and ſuch as theſe Examinants think fit to reject; they muſt by no Means admit: Whereas we can't be aſſured but that ſome may have a Sufficiency of Learning and Knowledge, of whom theſe Gentlemen may think otherwiſe. Poſſibly ſome of them might think very meanly of a Candidate, who has, perhaps, as much uſeful Knowledge and as improving Abilities as themſelves, if he is not ſo well acquainted with ſome Metaphyſical Niceties and ſublime critical Diſquiſitions of the Schoolmen; tho' he might probably do as much to the Defence of Goſpel-Truth, and the ſaving Inſtruction of immortal Souls, as themſelves, notwithſtanding of their other Speculations: Whence it is the more neceſſary for Preſbyteries to preſerve their juſt Rights and Liberties in this as well as all other Caſes.

And to make it farther appear, that this Act is an Encroachment upon them, let it be obſerved, that by the ſame Method of Proceeding, all the Power of Preſbyteries may be taken away; and ſo our Conſtitution of Government, in the preſent Plan thereof, entirely unhing'd: For, if the Synod can take away, at its Pleaſure, one Privilege and proper Buſineſs of Preſbyteries, what hinders but that by the ſame Power they may take away another, and another, 'til they take away the Whole, by the ſame Rule that this Act is made? And we think, for as weighty Reaſons, they might take the Licenſing and Ordaining of Candidates intirely into their own Hands (it would prevent Trouble) and alſo go through Stitch with all the other Branches of the Preſbytery's Work, which they have an equal Right to with the former; and then we ſhould have an End of Preſbyteries altogether: And indeed if the Thing be taken away, why ſhould not the Name go with it? We profeſs, Gentlemen, that we cannot brook meer Shams and empty Names of Things without the Subſtance.

Beſides, we are at a Loſs to conceive how it can accord with Preſbyterian Parity, to ſet a ſmaller Number over a greater, with the Power of a Negative (againſt their Wills) in the Buſineſs of their proper Province, and that before they have any Opportunity to attempt the Performance of it. It ſeems to us to be a great Step to Prelacy: For what are the Members of the Committee, eſpecially as to thoſe who gave no Conſent to their Claims, but a Combination or Convocation of Superintendants and Deputy-Prelates, to whoſe lordly Authority the inferior Clergy, the poor Curates, I mean the Preſbyteries, are obliged to ſubmit.

But to prevent being tedious, we muſt not add that the aforeſaid Act is inconſiſtent with itſelf, and cannot well hang together. The ſpecious Reaſon offer'd in the firſt Part, viz. to ſupply the Want of Colleges, claſhes with the latter Part, which obliges even ſuch as have had a College Education, to repair to the Synod's Committee.

Thus we have in as brief a Manner as we could, offered ſome of our Reaſons againſt the Matter of the two late Acts of this Synod. We now proceed to offer our Sentiments about the Power from which they ſprung, with the principal Reaſons thereof, ſeeing it is to little Purpoſe to takeaway bad Branches while the bitter Root remains untouch'd; for ſo long as it continues, it will be apt, upon all Occaſions, to produce as bad or worſe again. We will therefore, by divine Aſſiſtance, venture a Blow at the Root.

We humbly conceive that the aforeſaid Acts in their preſent Form are founded upon a falſe Hypotheſis or Suppoſition, namely, that a Majority of Synods or other Church-Judicatories have a Power committed to them from Chriſt to make new Rules, Acts or Canons about Religious Matters, on this Ground or Foundation, viz. That they judge them either to be not againſt or agreeable to the general Directions of the Word of God, and ſerviceable to Religion; which ſhall be Binding upon thoſe that conſcientiouſly diſſent therefrom, under certain Penalties which are to be inflicted even upon thoſe who judge the Acts they inforce to be contrary to the Mind of Chriſt, and prejudicial to the Intereſts of his Kingdom. This is in brief a legiſlative or law-making Power in religious Matters, and this we do utterly diſclaim and renounce for the Reaſons which we ſhall anon mention, and are pleaſed that we have our Synod's Concurrence therein in a printed Declaration, which was ſent to Ireland ſome Years agone: That Declaration, which we apprehend worthy of a proteſtant Body, we purpoſe to maintain inviolably in our Practice as well as Profeſſion. Now, we conceive that a religious Law may be ſaid to be new in two Reſpects, viz. in reſpect of the Matter inſerted in it, or the Penalty annexed to it, i. e. when any Thing is required or forbidden by it which is not required or forbidden by God in his Word, the Law is new. Again, a Law may be ſaid to be new (as we conceive) when, tho' the Subſtance thereof be according to or contained in the Word of God, a Penalty is inflicted for the Breach thereof, which is not preſcribed by the King of the Church.

Now the principal Reaſons that incline us to believe that there is no legiſlative Authority in the Church of Chriſt, are theſe following.

I. If Church Judicatories have a Right to ſuch a Power as this, then they have received it from Jeſus Chriſt. This, we hope, will admit of no Diſpute; for he is the great Head of his Church, the Government is laid upon his Shoulders. Again, if Chriſt has given them ſuch a Power, he has ſomewhere ſignified the Grant of it in his Word. But the Place or Places of Scripture we cannot find wherein the Lord Jeſus Chriſt authorizes the greater Number of a Church-Judicature to lord it over their fewer Brethren, and the Heritage of God under their Inſpection, by making Laws of their own Deviſing over their Heads, inforced with penal Sanctions, and particularly that of Noncommunion among the reſt.

Neither can we find in the Word of God, any Paſſage wherein our bleſſed Redeemer Jeſus Chriſt has enjoined his Miniſters, and other Members of his Church, to ſubmit or yield a blind Obedience to the Laws and Ordinances of a greater Number in a Church Judicatory, altho' they judge them to be ſinful and contrary to the Good of his Kingdom. When either of the aforeſaid Particulars is made evident from the Scriptures of Truth, then we will readily ſubject our Conſciences to the Guidance of other Men, and yield undiſputed Obedience to all their Decrees: But, we hope, never before.

II. The making of new religious Laws, ſeems to us to be an Invaſion upon the kingly Office of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, to whoſe Royalty it peculiarly belongs to give Laws to his Church. Hence the Apoſtle James informs us that there is one Law-giver (i. e. one only who is excluſive of all others) who is able to ſave and deſtroy: Subjoining, Who art thou then that judgeſt another, Jam. iv. 12. Col. i. 18. Chriſt is the Head of the Body, the Church, he is conſtituted the King of Zion. Now, if the Church of Chriſt has but one Head, one King, one Law giver, how can any Man on Earth make Laws in Addition to Chriſt's for the Government of his Subjects in religious Matters, without making the Church a monſtrous Body, with many Heads, without commencing Kings in his Kingdom, or rather ſetting up a Kingdom of their own in Oppoſition to his? If making new religious Laws, as to their Matter, or adding new Penalties to old ones, be not Acts of kingly Power, we deſire to know what is.

Likewiſe the Members of Chriſt's Church are, from from this very Argument, diſſuaded from yielding Submiſſion to ſuch a Claim of Power. 1 Cor. vii. 23. Ye are bought with a Price; be not ye the Servants of Men. Mark vii. 5. 6.—ix. Then the Phariſees and Scribes aſked him, why walk not thy Diſciples according to the the Tradition of the Elders, but eat Bread with unwaſhen Hands. (To whom Chriſt replied) In vain do they worſhip me, Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. Here was an Act of the Jewiſh Synod concerning a Thing very innocent in its Nature, and yet we ſee of what dangerous Tendency it was in the Judgment of our Saviour. When the falſe Brethren would have brought the Galatian Church into the Bondage of the Jewiſh Ceremonies, the Apoſtle Paul would not give place by Subjection, no not for an Hour, that the Truth of the Goſpel might continue with them, Gal. ii. 4, 5.

III. The aforeſaid Power of Legiſlation (or Law-making) in religious Matters, ſeems to us to be utterly inconſiſtent with the Perfection of the Holy Scripture; of which the Apoſtle Paul teſtifies, That it is profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Inſtruction in Righteouſneſs, that the Man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furniſhed to every good Work, 2 Tim. iii. 16. 17. Whatever good Work there is in the whole Sphere of Religion, the holy Scriptures afford ſufficient Laws for the Performance of it; by theſe the Man of God may be thoroughly furniſhed and perfect; and can any Man deſire more than Perfection? or can there be any good Work in Religion, which is not preſcribed by the Author of it? If ſo, then Superſtition is juſtified, contrary to the many Paſſages of Holy Writ that condemn it. If not, then where is there any room for new religious Laws of human Invention?

If the King of the Church and Author of the Scriptures be Wiſdom and Love itſelf, then certainly his omniſcient Eye muſt pierce the Vail of Futurity, and perfectly behold all the various Difficulties which his poor Church was to grapple with through all the ſucceſſive Scenes of its Duration here; and his boundleſs Love excite his unſearchable Wiſdom to form every Law that was, is, or ſhall be neceſſary for its Direction in every of them. Now, if the Caſe be ſo, what need can there poſſibly be of new religious Laws made (at any time) by ſhort-ſighted, fallible, corrupt Creatures; and if it be not ſo, our Religion and Faith are vain, and we are yet in our Sins. To imagine a Neceſſity of new Laws in religious Matters, contains in it (in our Opinion) an ungenerous Reflection upon the divine Word, and the Wiſdom, Goodneſs and Faithfulneſs of its Author.

IV. A Power of Law-making in religious Affairs, is (in our Opinion) inconſiſtent with Chriſtian Liberty, which, we think, contains in it a free Uſe or Diſuſe of Things, in their general Nature indifferent, according to the beſt Judgment we ourſelves can form of their Expediency or Inexpediency, from the general Directions of the divine Word applied to our Circumſtances.

Undoubtedly there are many Things which are in their general Nature lawful to be done or avoided, which are not neceſſary by any Law of the Goſpel, any farther than as varying Circumſtances may render them expedient, as Helps for the Performance of commanded Duties, or inexpedient, as Hinderances. Now if a Majority of Church Rulers may fix and determine all theſe Things for us by Laws of their Invention, armed with Penalties againſt thoſe that conſcientiouſly diſſent, then we are in a poor Box indeed. If theſe Things that Chriſt has left free be not left ſo by Church Authority, then what ſhall become of the Liberty which our dear Redeemer has bought for us by his Blood, 1 Cor. vii. 23. Gal. 1. Being made free by ſo great a Price, wherefore ſhould we become the Servants of Men, and tamely ſuffer ourſelves to be enſnared and enſlaved by a Yoke of their Framing & Impoſing. Are we not commanded to ſtand faſt in the Liberty wherewith Chriſt has made us free. It has been frequently, and, we think, juſtly obſerved by the moſt eminent Defenders of our Perſuaſion, againſt the exorbitant Claims of another Church, viz. That it is not to be imagined that our merciful Redeemer would die to free his People from a Yoke of ceremonial Laws of divine Inſtitution, and at the ſame time leave them expoſed to the Will of their Fellow-Creatures, to be oppreſſed with a Multiplicity of their Inventions, which have been often as unreaſonable as cruel.

Every new religious Law cuts off a valuable Branch from our Chriſtian Liberty; and how ſoon they may be ſo multiplied as to bereave us entirely of that precious Privilege (in the Senſe before mentioned) we know not: But this ſeems evident to us, that, according to the Law-making Scheme, our Liberty lies at the Mercy of Men, who may, if we ſtupidly couch under the Burdens they impoſe, ſoon deſtroy it.

V. The aforeſaid Power of Legiſlation in Matters of Religion, Prudence, and Conſcience, oppoſes and tends to deſtroy (in our Opinion) the antient Church-Diſcipline that Chriſt has appointed, by fixing new Terms of Communion. The Subſtance of that Diſcipline which Chriſt has appointed in his Word (as we conceive) conſiſts principally in excluding from Communion ſuch groſly erroneous or vicious Perſons in Principle or Practice, as his Word points out; and receiving them again into it, upon their ſhewing the Signs of Penitence: In ſhort, the Terms of the Diſcipline of Chriſt are fixed and invariable, and ſhould be inviolably obſerved by all Churches; but the Legiſative Power aforeſaid, by coining new religious Laws, makes a new Term of Communion by every one of them, in Addition to thoſe our Saviour had ordained, ſo that hereby the Diſcipline of Chriſt is gradually drawn off its antient Foundation, namely, the Laws of God, to the Luſts, Fancies and Traditions of Men, thro' which the former are ſometimes made void; for by their Traditions they are ſometimes obliged to reject thoſe whom the Laws of Chriſt oblige them to receive, thoſe whom they themſelves were wont to receive; e. g. The Laws of Chriſt oblige them to receive to Chriſtian Communion all thoſe that are ſound in the main Points of Faith, and regular in Life, altho' they err in Circumſtantials or leſſer Points; and to Miniſterial all thoſe that have the Qualifications which the King of the Church requires in his Word. Rom. xiv. 1, 4. Him that is weak in Faith, receive ye; but not to doubtful Diſputations. Who art thou that judgeſt another Man's Servant? whereas the new Laws of Churches have excluded and do exclude ſuch. Every Man, how pious, peaceable, uſeful and eminent ſoever he be, in all valuable Reſpects, if he ſcruples and oppoſes ſuch Church-Canons as he thinks are diſhonourable and detrimental to true Religion, tho' Chriſt receives him to Glory, and bids them receive him; yet by theſe human Eccleſiaſtical Laws they will reject him, ſome from Chriſtian and Miniſterial Communion both, and ſome from Miniſterial only. Thus a dreadful Foundation is laid for a Succeſſion of Schiſms in the Church of God, while ſuch a Claim of Power is pretended to, and exerciſed, by which the Seamleſs Coat of Chriſt is rent and torn into an almoſt infinite Number of Parts. For, the Charter of Law-making (in our humble Opinion) is hard to be found in the Bible, and the Prudentials about which they exerciſe it, are oftentimes difficult to be determined. Good Men are apt to have different Minds about them, and being of different Sentiments, and conſcientiouſly inclined to act according to the beſt of their Light; ſo long as there is Conſcience and Courage on Earth, while the aforeſaid Engine is mounted on the Wheel, a ſad Scene of Debate and Diviſion is opened.

In ſhort: If we may be ſuffered to ſpeak plainly, a Legiſlative Authority makes the Terms of Communion as variable as any Weather-Cock; ſo that a Man is in continual Danger of being caſt out of Communion, where it is exerciſed in its Rigour, unleſs he has a Conſcience as plyable as Wax, ready to receive every Impreſſion, or can alter his Sentiments out of Complaiſance to a Majority of Votes, as faſt as the Camelion its Colours. Which leads us to the

VI. Reaſon, which we humbly offer againſt a Legiſlative Authority in Matters purely religious, and it is this, That we think it an unwarantable Encroachment upon the Rights of Conſcience and private Judgment; becauſe it determines for us, what properly falls within their Sphere, and obliges us to ſubmit thereto whether convinced or not, or ſuffer certain Penalties, which Almighty GOD has not preſcribed in his Word in ſuch Caſes.

That Matters of Prudence and Expediency under a religious Conſideration, come within the Sphere of Conſcience, is evident from this, That by doing what is prudent and expedient, much Service acrues to Religion, and by the contrary much Damage: Now, can any Man be a true Chriſtian and not have a conſcientious Regard to do and avoid what promotes and hinders the Intereſts of true Religion? Again, we think it evident from Scripture, that God has given the only Right to every Man to judge for himſelf in the Particulars aforeſaid. 1 Theſſ. 5.21. 1 Cor. 11.13. Rom. 14.14, 22, 23. 1 Cor. 6.12.

The Right of private Judgment in general is equally apparent from the Principles of natural as well as revealed Religion; if every Man muſt anſwer at laſt for his own Actions, and the Miſguidance of others will not clear him from Guilt or guard him from Puniſhment in following them, it is but equal that he ſhould judge for himſelf alſo: The holy Scriptures frequently enjoin this Duty of examining what is propoſed to us in religious Matters, and commend the Performance of it in the Bereans; and to what Purpoſe ſhould we examine theſe Things, but to form a Judgment about them, and act accordingly? If we muſt act contrary to our Judgment, becauſe of the Laws of our Fellow-Creatures, then our Examination ſerves but to encreaſe our Guilt and Puniſhment; for he that doubts, is damned if he eat, Rom. 14.23. And if we muſt believe, that to be prudential and ſerviceable to Religion which any Set of Men make into Laws, meerly becauſe of their ſuppoſed Authority; then certainly Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion; then implicit Faith and blind Obedience are found and wholeſome Doctrines; then in order to qualify us for thorough Subjection to our ſpiritual Governors, it will be neceſſary to pluck out our own Eyes, that we may ſee clearly thro' their Spectacles.

Neither does that plauſible Apology of the Patrons of a Legiſlative Power, viz. that their Acts or Canons about Prudentials, are grounded upon and agreeable to the Word of God, or general Directions of Scripture, make the unhappy Caſe of thoſe that are under ſuch a heavy Yoke, a Bit the better, ſo long as the minor Party are deprived of the Right of Judging for themſelves, whether theſe Things be ſo or not, and of acting according to their Judgment without Cenſure. This leads us to

VII. Another Reaſon againſt Legiſlative Authority in religious Matters, which is this, namely, That ſuch a binding Power neceſſarily ſuppoſes one of theſe two Things, viz. either that Church-Judicatories are infallible in their Determinations, and ſo cannot injoin what is wrong; or that they have Power to legitimate an Error, and make that which was antecedently Evil, to become Good, by Enjoining it. A legiſlative Authority in the Church, muſt of Neceſſity be reſolved into one or other of theſe two as its firſt Principle: But we are perſuaded that both the one and the other will be diſclaimed by us all, and conſequently ſo ought this Power, which cannot be claimed conſiſtently without them. That there is ſuch a Connexion in this Caſe is moſt manifeſt; for if Church-Judicatories are not infallible, then they may err, either requiring that to be done which ought not, or forbidding that which ought; in neither of which Caſes certainly are we bound to obey, unleſs their Authority is alſo ſuch that it can alter the Nature of Things, or ſecure us from the Puniſhment we deſerve for doing what is Evil, or neglecting what is Good. In a Word Legiſlators in Religion muſt be either infallible or omnipotent. This not only Reaſon teaches, but the Word of God confirms, Jam. iv. 12. We have no Certainty but that a Church Judicatory may injoin ſomething very prejudicial to the Church of Chriſt, either through the Short-ſightedneſs and Miſapprehenſions of well-deſigning Men; or it may poſſibly happen that a conſiderable Number are influenced by wrong Principles and Motives; and if Things appear to be ſo to others, muſt their Hands be bound up from doing their Duty in Endeavouring to promote the Intereſts of Chriſt's Kingdom; and ſo ſubject their Conſciences, and the valuable Intereſts of Religion, to the Commandments of Men? For Perſons to impoſe Laws of their own Deviſing upon others, without any Pretence to Infallibility, is (as we conceive) a very inconſiſtent Proceeding.

The Proteſtant Legiſlators in religious Matters, by owning the Fallibility of their Church-Judicatories, are obliged either to abandon their favourite Scheme, or aſſert the binding Power of erroneous Laws; but not being willing to do the former, they choſe to attempt the Defence of the latter, namely, that Submiſſion is due to erroneous Laws and Sentences. To make this the more plauſible, they acknowledge that we ought to refuſe active Obedience to unjuſt Sentences, but not paſſive, i. e. as we underſtand it, we muſt, according to their Notion, neglect the Performance of a Duty which God and Conſcience enjoin, becauſe Church-Authority forbid it. If the Caſe be ſo, then the Church has Power to oblige to Sins of Omiſſion, but not of Commiſſion. Then we ought to obey negative ſinful Commands, but not poſitive. But we humbly conceive that this Diſtinction in the preſent Caſe is full nice; for if we muſt obey Man rather than God in the one, why not in the other alſo, and ſo make thorough Work of it.

To this ſhocking Extremity does the legiſlative Scheme neceſſarily lead its Patrons; for if they allowed that ſinful Canons were null and void in themſelves, altho' paſs'd by a Majority of Votes, and gave Liberty to the minor Party to judge for themſelves, and to act according to their own Judgment without Cenſure; their darling Structure would crumble into deſerved Ruin. But while they labour to maintain the contrary exorbitant and awful Claim of Power, their Doctrine tends to deſtroy every Thing that is valuable in the humane Nature, as well as to ſap the very Foundations of the proteſtant Religion. And this is

VIII. Another Argument which we beg leave a little to inſiſt upon. The Notion of a legiſlative Power in religious Matters, with the Neceſſity of ſubmiting to its erroneous Deciſions, ſeem to us to condemn the Reformation from Popery, and our Diſſenting from the Church of England: For if it be neceſſary to ſubmit to erring Sentences of Churches, then how could the firſt Reformers oppoſe the Authority and Revolt from the Juriſdiction of the Church of Rome? and how can the Nonconformiſts, upon this Plan, vindicate their oppoſing the Canons of the Church of England (which they own to be a true Church) from the Charge of Schiſm? If any Church have a Power of Legiſlation about Prudentials, they muſt of Conſequence have Authority to judge and determine what are ſuch, and ſo to oblige to the Obſervance of them, and the avoiding their Contraries under the Penalty of Non-communion. If the Preſbyterians have this Power, then certainly the Church of England have it alſo: And in purſuance of this ſuppoſed Claim of Power, they have actually made a great many Canons or religious Laws eſtabliſhing, under the Penalty of Non-communion, their Liturgy, Hierarchy, Croſs in Baptiſm, and many other Uſages, which they deemed very expedient to promote Order and Decency. Now, how can we, according to the aforeſaid Scheme, juſtify our not Submitting to the lawful Authority of that Church?

We think it very inconſiſtent to maintain ſuch a Claim of Power, as would have forever prevented the very Being of all the reformed Churches in general, and ſuch as condemns our Diſſenting-One in particular.

It ſeems alſo to us inconſiſtent, to graſp after a Power for ourſelves which we condemn in others, or to diſclaim it in Word, while we practiſe it in Deed. We cannot think that any Church can need any Thing for its Support, which would overſet its Foundations; or that Truth can alter its Nature in a Succeſſion of time: We ſuppoſe that what was true at the time of the Reformation, is ſo ſtill. Again,

IX. We know not how to free all new religious Laws from the Charge of Superſtition and Uncharitableneſs, whatever pious Deſigns the Formers of them may have notwithſtanding: For who has required theſe Things at their Hands, and why are they righteous overmuch. Eccleſs. vii. 16. Wherefore do they teach the Fear of God by the Precepts of Men, Iſa. xxix, 13. and impoſe their human Commandments upon their Brethren's Conſciences, which tho' they have a Shew of Wiſdom, are really the Contrary; becauſe they are Additions to the unerring Laws of the Wiſdom of the Father, and naturally tend to draw his People from an entire Subjection to him as the Head of his Church, Col. ii. 21, 22. Wherefore do they introduce a Syſtem of human Commandments when Chriſt has aboliſhed the old ceremonial Inſtitutions, which were of a divine Original, and thereby put a ſtumbling Block in their Brother's Way, contrary to the following Places of ſacred Scripture, Eph. ii. 15. Rom. xiv. 13, 14. Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no Man put a ſtumbling Block, or an Occaſion to fall, in his Brother's Way. To him that eſteemeth any Thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy Brother be grieved with thy Meat, now walkeſt thou not charitably. Deſtroy thou not him with thy Meat, for whom Chriſt died.

Once more we beg leave to obſerve, that the legiſlative Power aforeſaid, is introductive of very great Evils and Miſchiefs into the Church of Chriſt, and in particular, it opens a wide Door for the Introducing of an intolerable Bondage under human Yokes: Neither does it only open a Door for this, and ſo make it poſſible, nor yet only tend to it, and ſo make it probable; but it is what it has done in Fact to high degree, as the deplorable Experience of many Ages witneſs.

We are perſuaded that a Claim of Power made by the Church-Rulers to frame Laws deem'd by them to be orderly, deceut, prudent, expedient, gave Riſe to Prelacy and Popery itſelf, and to all the burdenſom Train of unſcriptural and ridiculous Ceremonies which the latter of theſe Churches does now groan under, as well as to ſtated Liturgies, and other unhappy Uſages, in which ſome Proteſtant Churches have too much copy'd after the Roman Superſtition. Theſe Things are Yokes which neither we nor our Fathers were able to bear. If this Power be taken once for granted, who knows where it may ſtop in its Effects? We cannot ſee that we have any more Security at this day upon this Plan, in the proteſtant Church, to prevent the like Bondage again, than the Church had when the inſpired Apoſtles left it. It's true it is probable we may not like the Yokes that others have made for us, and wreath'd about the Necks of Chriſt's Subjects in Ages paſt. But poſſibly we may be pleaſed with as bad or worſe, which we either do or may make ourſelves.

Again, this ſuppoſed binding Power expoſes Perſons to be perſecuted for their Conſciences; when any either of our Brethren in the Miniſtry, or of a private Station in the Church, cannot with a clear Conſcience obſerve or ſubmit to Church-Canons; then they are liable to be reproved and cenſured, and who knows to what Degree? Yea, it may even cauſe Schiſm and Separation itſelf, which lies at the Door of the Impoſers who forced it, and whereof they alone are the Authors. What diſmal Havock has been made in the Churches by this terrible Engine of legiſlative Authority, in anathematizing and excluding from Communion ſome of the worthieſt Men in our Mother-Countries and elſewhere, is ſo flagrant in Hiſtory, that we need not mention Inſtances.

When a Majority in a Church-Judicatory are ſuppos'd to have Power to coin Laws according to their own Fancy, whereby they may judge of a minor Party, only pretending in the mean Time ſome general ſcriptural Direction as 〈…〉 , as alſo their Uſefulneſs, &c. which it's 〈…〉 in any Caſe, and has been actually done in Favour of the groſſeſt Superſtitions of the Roman Church; may they not then, according to this Scheme, wreck their angry Reſentments upon, cruſh and oppreſs their fewer Brethren, juſt as they liſt, whom perhaps they could not juſtly cenſure, if they kept entirely to the good old Laws of Jeſus Chriſt.

Such being the natural Effects of a Legiſlative Authority in Religion, we cannot think the Cauſe is good that produces them, or that our wiſe and good Redeemer would put an Engine of ſo much Miſchief and Oppreſſion into the Hands of Churchmen, thereby giving an Occaſion to worry one another. On the contrary, does not our LORD inform us, how he reſents it, when his Servants by Office begin to beat and ſmite their Fellow-Servants, and exerciſe a tyrannical Dominion over them, which is the common and natural Effect of Men's adding Laws of their own unto the Laws of Chriſt? The LORD indeed has authorized the Stewards of his Houſe to cenſure the Violators of his own Laws; but not to bind where he has not bound, in Conſequence whereof his faithful People may be oppreſſed.

If it be oppoſed to the preceeding Reaſonings, that according to this Principle, it is impoſſible to maintain a Decorum and good Order in the Church, but that all imaginable Confuſions muſt be expected to enſue, without any Poſſibility of Reſtraint; and that, tho' Authority may be abuſed in ſome particular Inſtances, yet even bad Government is better than Anarchy, or no authoritative. Government at all; and that, then there is no Occaſion, much leſs Neceſſity for Synods, or other Eccleſiaſtick Judicatories, to meet at all, and ſo the whole Conſtitution which Chriſt eſtabliſhed for ordering the Affairs of his Church, falls to the Ground. To this we anſwer;

1. That the Objection bears in its Boſom groſs and grievous Reflections upon the Laws of Chriſt contained in the Scriptures, as well as upon the Lawgiver, namely, That that Syſtem of Laws he has given for the Government of his Church, is imperfect, inſufficient to anſwer the End deſigned by it, without the After-Additions of his Subjects. And indeed the Objection bears hard upon the Honour of his Wiſdom, 〈◊〉 , Faithfulneſs, and Truth, as if he either could 〈…〉 not give his People ſufficient Laws for their 〈…〉 had not done it when he ſays he has. In the 〈…〉 charitably hope, that theſe Reflections are not intended by the Objectors; but they are moſt certainly the natural and neceſſary Fruits of the Objection itſelf.

2. We think the aforeſaid Objection againſt the preceeding Reaſonings, is a meer Non-ſequitur, or falſe Conſequence. The Lord Jeſus has given ſuch Power and Authority to the Guides of his Church, as is ſufficient for the Edification of his Body, without this Power of making Acts of their own Diviſing, as obligatory Laws. Particular Preſbyteries ought undoubtedly to meet, to enquire into the Fitneſs and Qualifications of thoſe who offer themſelves to the ſacred Work of the Miniſtry, and either to admit or refuſe them, according as they find them qualified, and likely to do Service or Diſſervice to the Church in that Office.

They have Liberty and Authority alſo to deny Church-Communion too, and caſt out of Communion ſuch as by plain ſcripture Directions are diſqualified for it, either by ſuch fundamental Errors in Doctrine or enormous Practices as are inconſiſtent with true Chriſtianity; and to inflict ſuch Cenſures upon irregular Church-Members as God in his Word makes due to ſuch Offences as they are guilty of.

In Caſes of Conſcience propoſed to them, or Caſes of Difference regularly brought before them from particular Congregations, they ought to give their deliberate Judgment, with their beſt Counſel and Advice.

They have likewiſe Liberty to agree and conclude among themſelves upon ſuch Things as appear to them to have a good Tendency to the Advancing of Religion, and are founded upon or agreeable to the Word of God; and ſo engage themſelves voluntarily to the Obſervance of theſe Things, provided that they do not incroach upon the juſt Liberties of the People under their Charge, nor pretend to bind their diſſenting Members to obſerve their Agreements, who may have a different View and Apprehenſion of them.

Likewiſe, it is reaſonable and uſeful that Synods, conſiſting of ſeveral Preſbyteries, meet together, whether Matters may be brought by Way of 〈◊〉 or Reference from particular Preſbyteries in order to 〈…〉 the Judgment and Sentiment of a greater Number 〈…〉 in the Multitude of Counſellors there is Safety; and 〈…〉 doubt their Duty to take ſuch Caſes under 〈…〉 , and give their beſt Advice in them: But we think that they ſhould not proceed to any further Authority except in ſuch Caſes wherein God has given particular obvious Direction in his Word, which is to be exactly followed; and even then they do no more than ſhow from the Scriptures what is the Mind and Direction of God in ſuch Caſes, and declare their own Reſolutions to act according thereto, ſo far as they are concerned.

Now we conceive, that ſuch a Method of Management in Church Judicatories is that which the Lord Jeſus has only appointed; and we think it is far better adapted to anſwer all the valuable Ends of Church Government, than that Strain of human Authority which we are oppoſing: And had the Paſtors of the Church always contented themſelves with that Power which Chriſt has given them, without Claiming more, it is hard to conceive how the Chriſtian World could have been ſo generally corrupted and divided as it has been for many Ages, and is at this Day.

To conclude, we profeſs a hearty Charity for thoſe Gentlemen who are on the other Side of the Queſtion in this Debate. Doubtleſs Things appear to them in another Light. We have only, in the Courſe of our Reaſonings, laboured to expoſe the Abſurdity of an Opinion which we think prejudicial to the Intereſts of the Saviour's Kingdom: And if we are herein miſtaken we are willing to be convinced by Scripture and Reaſon; but whether we get Conviction or not by our Brethren's Arguments, we believe that the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace may be preſerved notwithſtanding a Diverſity of Sentiment about leſſer Things, if moderate Counſels be followed, and that mutual Forbearance be allowed, which the Goſpel of Chriſt requires.