AFTER mature deliberation on the preſbyterian proteſtant principles, and Mr. Oliver's ſtrong attachment to the ſame, binding his adherents to them all the days of their lives, have influenced the author to ſome degree of ſearch, to ſee if theſe things are ſo: and I profeſs to believe, that there are many illuſtrated truths in that compoſition, called the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith: and I profeſs to believe, that there are ſome great errors held forth in ſaid compoſition: and if the truths therein contained might be received without that mixture of error, I had held my peace; but that not being the caſe, although I have neither natural or acquired abilities ſufficient to compoſe a piece fit for the preſs, yet neceſſity conſtrains, yea, overpowers all objections that lie in the way; for who, with their eyes but half open, would not have their ſpirits moved, when they behold the learned ſuperſtitious bigots leading their fellow mortals in an old crooked path? mean time recommending it to be the beſt ſtraight, yea, moſt perfect and only path that ever mortals traveled in, that ever arrived to the heavenly country.

The ſacred writings give an account of ſome wild gourds, ſheared in a pot of pottage; but before they eat, it was diſcovered: and one cries out, "O thou man of God! there is death in the pot;" conſequently would not eat till the danger was removed. And did not the compilers of the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith (although it appears to me more than probable that many of them were pious godly men) gather wild gourds of error and ſhear them in with the word of truth? And what man of God ſhall we cry to reſpecting this death being in the pot? For although the preſbyterian miniſters may be called men of God, as above, yet it is thoſe very miniſters that have gathered theſe wild gourds of error, and ſheared them in with the word of truth, and dealing it out for their adherents to eat: But if we (after being alarmed of this wild gourd of error) will ſit down calmly and eat of this mixt pottage, yea, ſwear agreeably to the preſbyterian oath (by the great name of the Lord) that we will eat no other pottage all the days of our lives, we may then fear there will be neither prophet nor meat to heal this deadly poiſon: For it is dangerous ſhutting our eyes againſt light, leſt God in his righteous judgment cloſe our eyes; leſt we ſhould ſee light or come to the knowledge of the truth: and as I am attempting to caſt in my mite into the treaſury of truth, in oppoſition to error, would readily acknowledge my inability either natural or acquired, and feel myſelf greatly embarraſſed even in expreſſing my own ideas; but as a ſtammering child can neither ſpeak grammatical or ſyſtematical, yet a tender father receiving the broken ideas of his child, overlooks all thoſe imperfections of language; ſo in like manner, I aſk all, but in a ſpecial manner the learned, to overlook all thoſe imperfections that may appear in my manner of procedure: and when my attempts to arrange or illuſtrate ideas ſyſtematically ſhall fail, then look in a ſpecial manner to the ideas ſuggeſted. Was I poſſeſſed of abilities adequate to the work which I have undertook, I might have conveyed my ideas in as plain but ſmoother manner, which would be more agreeable to corrupt nature to receive: but if any ſhould think that I am too pointed with my charges againſt the preſbyterian principles or Mr. Oliver, as their advocate: To ſuch I would ſay, that in Paul's epiſtle to Titus, the apoſtle informs Titus of ſome characters whoſe mouth muſt be ſtopped, becauſe they had teached things that they ought not. Wherefore, ſays the apoſtle, 'rebuke them ſharply:' From which we may infer, that when any erroneous doctrine is ſet up and boldly advocated, by ſwearing to ſupport and defend it, all the days of their lives, that ſuch a degree of pointed ſharpneſs is neceſſary, as the nature of the error and boldneſs of its advocates require; and in my judgment I have not exceeded the bounds that the nature of the caſe requires: but of this, every one will judge according to the light in which they view things in: but if the matter is true, I truſt that it will not be rejected for its plainneſs. King David was not offended becauſe of the plainneſs of the prophet, when he ſaid 'thou art the man:' but the Scribes and Phariſees was ſo offended when Chriſt told them plain truth, that they rejected Chriſt, truth and all, and wilfully ſhut their eyes againſt light; for which, God, in his righteous judgments, cloſed their eyes, leſt they ſhould ſee light.

But without any further introductory remarks or apologies, I ſhall proceed to point out ſome of thoſe errors contained in the proteſtant preſbyterian confeſſion of faith.

1ſt. THE twenty-third chapter of the confeſſion of faith ſaith, That the civil magiſtrate hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preſerved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blaſphemies and hereſies be ſuppreſſed, all corruptions and abuſes in worſhip and diſcipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly ſettled, adminiſtered, and obſerved. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call Synods, to be preſent at them, and to provide that whatſoever is tranſacted in them be according to the mind of God:

Now the firſt great query is, whether this power which the preſbyterian proteſtant acknowledges the magiſtrate to be cloathed with, is of God or of men? I preſume it is of men; and the practice of the churches at large all declare it to be of men. Moreover, Chriſt, the great Head and King of his church, commiſſioned his apoſtles reſpecting the government of his church; and withal warns them of the perſecutions they would meet with; and tells them, they ſhould be brought before kings and rulers for his name ſake: but if Chriſt commiſſioned kings or magiſtrates according to the preſbyterian proteſtant religion, (declared in the aforeſaid twenty-third chapter of the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, to call Synods and inſpect them, and to approve or diſapprove, according as the magiſtrate found agreeable or diſagreeable to the word of God) from whence then would the perſecution ariſe? Would a king perſecute himſelf, or any acting by his authority, at his call, under his inſpection and control? But the reſult of this queſtion may be anſwered by the defence that Chriſt made when the Scribes and Phariſees accuſed him with caſting out devils through belzebub the prince of the devils. Chriſt confuted them by ſhowing them that if ſatan was divided againſt himſelf his kingdom could not ſtand. Conſequently if the civil magiſtrate is cloathed with ſuch eccleſiaſtical authority as the preſbyterians ſay he is, then it follows, that if kings and rulers perſecute the church, as Chriſt ſaid they would, they are divided againſt themſelves; conſequently could not ſtand.

2dly. The ſecond article in the thirty-firſt chapter of the aforeſaid confeſſion of faith (relative to the power of the civil magiſtrate calling Synods) is explained by the declaration of the aſſembly at Edenburgh, Auguſt twenty-ſeventh, ſixteen hundred forty-ſeven, Seſſion twenty-third; and the explanation ſaith, In point of government, that although in unſettled churches a Synod of miniſters may be called by the magiſtrate's authority and nomination, without any other call to conſult &c. and further ſaith, that although miniſters may of themſelves meet ſynodically in churches not conſtituted, yet neither of theſe ought to be done in churches conſtituted and ſettled: it being (ſay they) always free for the magiſtrate to adviſe with Synods of miniſters ordinarily, or being indicted by his authority; meantime they ſay that if the magiſtrate withhold his conſent, it is free to meet ſynodically from intrinſical power received from Chriſt, provided nevertheleſs, that the miniſters firſt make the neceſſity of meeting known to the magiſtrate by remonſtrance and humble ſupplication.

This explanatory declaration appears calculated to blend the civil and eccleſiaſtical power into one compound body; but rather gives the magiſtrate the preeminence in eccleſiaſtical things: but as Nebuchadnezzar's image was partly of iron and partly of clay, they would not mix together. So Chriſt being a ſpiritual King, having a ſpiritual kindgom, his laws for the government of his church will not mix with the temporal laws of civil government; and the officers appointed for each government are as diſtinct as the laws; conſequently the officers of Chriſt's church are not by virtue of their office to interfere with thoſe things that concerns the civil magiſtrate, neither may the civil magiſtrate (by virtue of his office in the civil department) interfere upon the office of a ruler in Chriſt's church; but each one according to their ſeveral ſtations, whether in church or ſtate in ſubjection to each other in the lawful execution of their ſeveral offices, rendering to Caeſar the things that are Caeſar's, and to God the things that are God's.

Objection. There is nothing contained in the aforeſaid chapters (relative to the civil and eccleſiaſtical power being blended together) but what is agreeably to the example of Godly kings under the law.

Anſwer. There was many ways taken by the magiſtrate under the law to inforce true religion, has no authority under the goſpel. And why ſhould we ſhut our eyes againſt the more clear light of the goſpel, and ſeek for light in the more dark diſpenſations of the law? When the prophets under the law, beheld the coming of Chriſt, they ſpake of him as a great light, in a ſpecial manner to the Gentile world: and as this great light has come and committed the keys of his kingdom, and the government of his church to his miniſters; promiſing to be with them to the end of the world. And as this great light continues to ſhine in the goſpel with great conſpicuity, for a guide to the churches feet, and a lamp to her path, how injurious muſt it then be to the great lawgiver, to traffick away ſome of the laws of Chriſt's houſe to purchaſe the ſtrength of civil government in the church? But as it was with Jeroboam in the beginning of his reign, ſo it was with the preſbyterians in the beginning of their preſbyterian reign. I ſhall attempt in ſome inſtances to draw the parallel.

And firſt, Jeroboam with the ten tribes was not willing to ſubject themſelves to the burden of Rehoboam's little finger, being thicker than his father's loins, which induced the ten tribes to revolt. So in like manner the preſbyterians were not willing to ſubmit themſelves to the burden of the liturgy rights and cerimonies of the church, which induced them to revolt, and frame a new code of preſbyterian laws.

2dly. Jeroboam was jealous of the weakneſs of his kingdom, unleſs he would prevent the people from going to Jeruſalem to worſhip. Conſequently he ſet up golden calves in Dan and Bethel, which became a ſin. So in like manner the preſbyterians were jealous of their weakneſs in their revolution; unleſs they could frame a code of laws by which the civil and eccleſiaſtical government would (in many reſpects) be cemented together into one compound power, which being affectually done, became a great ſin.

3dly. Jeroboam united with his prieſts, not only made laws to puniſh nonconformiſts, but did lay wait for them, to catch them, as a ſnare in Mizpah, and a net ſpread in Tabor. So in like manner the preſbyterian king, and the prieſts being united together, made and eſtabliſhed laws calculated to catch all that would not ſwear to conform to every point in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, and to conform in every point, would in ſome reſpects, be like conforming to the calves in Dan and Bethel.

4thly. As each party was aſpiring after united ſtrength in their eſtabliſhments, let us now view it in its nature and conſequences. It is evident that Jeroboam's calves which he ſet up at Dan and Bethel, became a ſin which deſtroyed his kingdom forever: ſo that his ſuppoſed ſtrength became his certain weakneſs. So in like manner it is evident that the preſbyterians aſpiring after great ſtrength, blended the eccleſiaſtical and civil powers together, which has become a great ſin. But let us view the conſequences. The civil authority that was ſuppoſed to be a great ſtrength to this building, ſoon became its oppoſer. The covenants that bound all together by ſolemn oaths, are committed to the flames. The eſtabliſhed laws that were all in her behalf are no more; and thus the united building is fallen, and great was the fall thereof. But ſtill ſome continue to eſpouſe preſbyterianiſm in all its parts; nevertheleſs, they have fallen into ſtrife among themſelves; ſome ſay that I am of Paul, others ſay that I am of Apollos, and ſome ſay I am of Cephas; and thoſe that are of Paul, have excommunicated thoſe of Apollos and the Apollians treat the Cephians as the Jews did the Samaritans, viz. to have no dealings with them; and there are more ſymptoms of diviſion, but I cannot as yet aſcertain the name by which they ſhall be known; but ſome of the Apollians fraimed a new confeſſion of faith, leaving out ſome of thoſe errors that were in the old; but the aged fathers that had ſworn by the great name of the Lord, to continue all the days of their lives in the obedience and doctrine of the old confeſſion, would not receive this new confeſſion for their oath ſake, and the compilers of the new confeſſion, could not ſwear to the errors of the old confeſſion for their conſcience ſake. So the contention was great; nevertheleſs, for peace ſake, conſcience yielded, the old confeſſion was reinſtated, and peace reſtored.

Moreover, as this new confeſſion has made its appearance among the Cephians, probably it will have ſome effect upon their minds. But they appear to be in a lukewarm ſtate: our miniſter in his formal way of baptizing, appears to have a venerable regard for the old confeſſion of faith, binding all in greater or leſſer degrees, to adhere to the doctrines therein contained. Nevertheleſs, in ſome other reſpects he practically pays but little attention to it. Some of our aged fathers recommend it to be the beſt ſyſtem of divinity ever compoſed ſince the days of the Apoſtles. Some approve of great doctrinal points illuſtrated in ſaid confeſſion, but abhor thoſe errors interwoven therewith. Some of our young men have bound themſelves to it, but never ſee it, nor had the knowledge of what was in it; and ſome, gallio like, care for none of theſe things.

3dly. I proceed to make ſome remarks on what is ſaid to be required in ſome of the commands relative to hope, ſorrow, prayer and thankſgiving in the name of Chriſt; reading, preaching and hearing the word; the adminiſtration and receiving of the ſacraments; church government and diſcipline, the miniſtry and maintenance thereof, and religious faſting; with many other goſpel injunctions of the ſame kind, which the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, was firſt revealed and enjoined upon Adam, for the rule of his obedience. For the proof of this aſſertion, I ſhall conſider the import of the 92d, 93d and 98th queſtions in connection with the expoſitions of the firſt and ſecond commandments in the larger catechiſm.

And firſt, in the 92d queſtion it is aſked, what did God at firſt reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

Anſwer. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, was the moral law, including the ſpecial command.

The 93d queſtion explains what the moral law is, namely, a declaration of the will of God to mankind, and the 98th queſtion ſays, that this moral law is ſummerily comprehended in the ten commandments; then the compilers of this preſbyterian confeſſion of faith proceed to ſhow what is required in the aforeſaid commands; now provided the doctrine in the 92d, 93d and 98th queſtions, is true, then, if there can be found any thing ſaid to be required in the expoſition of the command that never was revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience; then the expoſition is erronious, and here let it be noted; that, for brevity ſake, I ſhall only repeat ſuch part of the anſwers to the following queſtions as contain the contradiction in the 104th queſtion; it is aſked, what is required in the firſt commandment? Anſwer. Hope in God, and be ſorrowful when in any thing he is offended.

Now it is evident that neither this hope nor ſorrow was revealed or enjoined upon Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience; for it is evident, that it is a goſpel hope that is here ſpoken of, for the ſcripture here cited to proves the aſſertion, ſaith, let Iſrael hope in the Lord; for with the Lord there is mercy, and with him there is plenteous redemption. Now mercy beſtowed, implies guilt in the receiver, and what guilt had Adam in the ſtate of innocence? Did a holy, a juſt, a righteous God, make an unholy, unjuſt, unrighteouſneſs creature, and at the ſame time make him in his own likeneſs?

Pauſe here a moment, and conſider how great the inconſiſtency and abuſe offered to the perfections of Deity.

Moreover, Iſrael was to hope in the Lord on the account of redemption; and redemption implies, that the redeemed was in a ſtate of bondage: now I would aſk the preſbyterian, if God made man in a ſtate of bondage? Was not he made after God's own image, knowledge, righteouſneſs and holineſs; and is this likeneſs to God a bondage to him, from which he is to hope for redemption? Furthermore, it is ſaid in the ſame queſtion, that God requires ſorrow when in any thing God is offended. Now if this doctrine was at firſt revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience; then it follows, that God tolerated Adam to ſin even in the ſtate of innocence, and only required ſorrow in that caſe; but I ſubmit to your own underſtandings, whether it would not be more conſiſtent with the perfections of Deity, to ſay, that the law required abſolute perfection; conſequently admitted of no cauſe for ſorrow. Now the ſcripture cited to prove the aforeſaid doctrine, is Jeremiah xxxi. 18. Surely I have heard Ephraim bemoaning himſelf, thus thou haſt chaſtiſed me and I am chaſtiſed, as a bullock unaccuſtomed to the yoke; turn thou me and I ſhall be turned, for thou art the Lord my God; and Pſalm cxix. 136. Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, becauſe they keep not thy law. Query. Is it poſſible in the nature of things, that the firſt revelation God made to Adam as the rule of his obedience, was, to bemoan himſelf becauſe he did not receive chaſtiſement in a ſuitable manner from God? But the query is, what God chaſtiſed him for. Would a holy God chaſtiſe his own likeneſs, his own image, conſiſting of knowledge, righteouſneſs and holineſs? But it is added, turn thou me and I ſhall be turned. Now the queſtion is, whether God did reveal to Adam for the rule of his obedience, that Adam ſhould ſay, turn thou me from thy likeneſs, from thy image, from thy knowledge, from thy righteouſneſs and holineſs; for as he was made with God's likeneſs, image, knowledge, righteouſneſs and holineſs, it then follows, that if he is turned he muſt be turned from them. Now the queſtion is, did God at firſt reveal this to Adam as the rule of his obedience, thus to turn?

Ponder here upon this great abſurdity and abuſe offered to the perfections of Deity; and with reſpect to theſe rivers of water running down the Pſalmiſt's eyes. How inconſiſtent is it to ſuppoſe, that God firſt revealed and enjoined it upon Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience, that rivers of water ſhould run down his eyes, becauſe they keep not thy law; when it is evident that Adam in his firſt ſtate of innocence, was the only one of the human kind then exiſting; how then could he have theſe rivers of water running down his eyes, becauſe non-exiſtence keep not thy law; for the word, they, being in the plural, refering to others, he could not poſſibly mean himſelf; moreover, he was in a perfect ſtate of happineſs; conſequently, not a ſubject capable of ſorrow or weeping. Furthermore, I aver, that the law of God firſt revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, the rule of his obedience, never required ſorrow from Adam, or any of his poſterity on the account of ſin; but it required perfect obedience, as was before obſerved; but now in this our fallen ſtate, the revelation of the goſpel of Jeſus Chriſt calls for ſorrow, for brokenneſs of heart, for weeping, and thoſe under the influence of a goſpel ſpirit will cry, O that mine head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night on the account of ſin that dwells in me; and with the apoſtle cry, O wretched man that I am! who ſhall deliver me from the body of this ſin, &c. I now ſubmit to your own underſtanding, the ideas ſuggeſted, with the aſſertions ſaid to be required in the command under conſideration.

I now proceed to make ſome remarks on what is ſaid to be required in the ſecond commandment; and if the duties there ſaid to be required in that commandment, were firſt revealed to Adam in the ſtate of may be true, otherwiſe it is not. Let us then attend to the law and to the teſtimony, for if they ſpeak not according to theſe, it is becauſe there is no light in them.

It is aſked, what are the duties required in the ſecond commandment?

Anſwer firſt, Prayer and thankſgiving in the name of Chriſt.

2dly, Reading, preaching and hearing of the word.

3dly, The adminiſtration and receiving of the ſacraments.

4thly, Church government and diſcipline.

5thly, The miniſtry and maintenance thereof.

6thly, Religious faſting.

I return to the firſt particular, reſpecting prayer and thankſgiving in the name of Chriſt; and would aſk you who take the preſbyterian vows upon you, if you believe that God did at firſt reveal Chriſt in his mediatorial character to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, and enjoin it upon him as the rule of his obedience to pray and give thanks in Chriſt's name? I think that the bare ſtating of the queſtion is ſufficient to convince any perſon of the error; and to undertake to prove this error would be like undertaking to prove that the ſun gives light.

2dly, It is ſaid, that God, at firſt, revealed and required the reading, hearing and preaching of the word from Adam, in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience: but I preſume there was no written word to read; and if ſo, ſurely no preaching from the word; but if Adam had preſumed to preach, I requeſt to know who would have been his hearers? Moreover, preaching holds up to view, Chriſt in his mediatorial character: and of what ſervice would this have been to Adam in the ſtate of innocence? Judge ye.

3dly, As to the adminiſtration and receiving of the ſacraments, ſaid to be revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience: They point ſo directly at Chriſt in his mediatorial ſufferings and atonement, that I think I may with great propriety ſay, that God never at firſt revealed them to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience.

4thly, As church government and diſcipline are ſaid to be firſt revealed to and enjoined on Adam, in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience, it neceſſarily follows to inquire, from whom did church government derive its authority? If from God out of Chriſt, then the aſſertion may be true; but if Chriſt purchaſed the church with his own blood, and is Zion's King and Lawgiver, then it follows that Adam in the ſtate of innocence was no member of Chriſt's church; conſequently could not have church government revealed to or enjoined on him, from the great Lawgiver, as the rule of his obedience.

5thly, The miniſtry and maintenance thereof, this aſſertion being ſo ſimilar in various reſpects to the two laſt particulars under conſideration,

I ſhall, without any additional remarks, paſs to the ſixth particular, namely, Religious faſting ſaid to be revealed to and required of Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience; and to prove this aſſertion, Joel ii. 12. is cited, where the Lord ſaith, "Turn ye, even to me, with all your heart, and with faſting, and with weeping, and with mourning, and rend your heart and not your gartments, and turn unto the Lord your God; for he is gracious and merciful," &c. Now God calling to man to turn, implies that man has run away from God: but Adam, during the time of his innocence, walked with God: and ſurely God never called to Adam to turn from his obedience in walking in God's image, knowledge, righteouſneſs and holineſs. Moreover, it is added rend your heart and not your garment. Now Adam's ſtate of innocence or perfection would not admit of this rending of heart: and why ſhould God tell him not to rend his garment? He had no garment on till after the fall; but one reaſon is added why he ſhould turn; namely, becauſe God is gracious and merciful, which plainly implies, that man had fallen before ever theſe calls of grace were made. Moreover, the import of the words gracious and merciful, as an inducement for man to turn, makes it evident that theſe calls to turn, were goſpel calls, made to man after the fall; conſequently was not revealed to Adam as the rule of his obedience before the fall. Therefore the aſſertion reſpecting faſting being at firſt revealed and enjoined upon Adam as the rule of his obedience is a fundamental error; and ſo in like manner are all the other aſſertions, taken notice of, not only in this 108th queſtion, but alſo in the 104th, relative to hope and ſorrow. I might make farther ſimilar remarks on the erroneous expoſitions of ſeveral of the remaining commands, in which goſpel requiſitions are aſſerted to be firſt revealed to Adam, in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience: but what has been already ſaid on the expoſitions of the two former commands, is ſufficient to convince thoſe that are willing to ſee not only of the error of the expoſition of the two firſt commands, but alſo thoſe ſimilar errors that are contained in the expoſition of ſeveral of the remaining commands, and if there be any that will ſhut their eyes againſt light and fully determined to continue all the days of their lives as they are taught in the belief of every point of the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, then any further illuſtrations on the remaining expoſitions, are unneceſſary: for if there be any that will not hear Moſes and the Prophets, the law and the teſtimony, neither would they hear or be perſuaded, though one ſhould riſe from the dead and declare unto them. Mean time I would obſerve, that thoſe who thus believe in this compoſition of law and goſpel, agreeably to the expoſition of the commands, ſaid to be at firſt revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience, muſt, if conſiſtent, believe ſuch things reſpecting Deity as is not fit to be named among chriſtians: for they may with the ſame propriety make a compound of truth and error, holineſs and ſin.

Objection. The expoſition of the commands only ſays what is required, and what is forbidden in thoſe commands; but doth not ſay that every one of thoſe requirements was firſt revealed to Adam in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience.

Anſwer. In the 92d queſtion it is ſaid, that God firſt revealed to Adam the moral law, as the rule of his obedience; and the 98th queſtion ſays, that the moral law is ſummarily comprehended in the ten commands; conſequently every thing ſaid to be required in any of the commands, muſt be underſtood ſo as to coinſide with the ground work contained in the 92d and 98th queſtions; all which being connected together amount to the very thing that I have aſſerted,—namely, that the expoſition of the commands ſaith, that every requirement in the commands was firſt revealed to Adam, and enjoined upon him in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience.

Objection 2d. The Scripture was written for our learning and inſtruction, and was given by inſpiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for inſtruction in righteouſneſs, and the expoſition of the commands are all proved by ſcripture, and are we not bound to believe the ſcripture.

Anſwer. Although we are bound to believe the ſcripture when repreſented in its true light, yet we are not bound to believe it in the light in which it may be repreſented. When Chriſt was taken up and ſet on the pinnacle of the temple, the Devil bid Chriſt to caſt himſelf down, and immediately produced ſcripture for Chriſt's ſafety. Namely, it is written, he ſhall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee, and in their hands they ſhall bear thee up, leaſt at any time thou daſh thy foot againſt a ſtone. Now it may be obſerved, that the devil quoted as real ſcripture, with a view to anſwer his purpoſe as Chriſt quoted to anſwer his purpoſe. Who then ſhall we believe? You will ſay believe Chriſt; but what then ſhall we do with the devil's citation of ſcripture? I anſwer, we muſt believe the ſcripture to be true: but a falſe light or repreſentation of Duty given from that ſcripture, ſo that it would not apply to prove the thing the devil quoted it for; and although the ſcripture is pure and majeſtic, aſcribing glory to God, light and powerful in the ſalvation of man, yet that ſame devil which attempted to lead Chriſt into error, and all from the pretended authority of the ſcriptures, is now transforming himſelf into an angel of light; and repreſenting ſcripture in a falſe light, with a view to fruſtrate the great deſigns of God relative to his own glory and the ſalvation of man.—Hence it is that the compilers of the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, ſeeing but in part hath made ſuch error in aſſerting goſpel to be law, which only ſerves to give a falſe light of the ſcriptures, and puts the whole body of the ſcriptures into a compound body of confuſed contradictions; but let law and goſpel be kept in their proper place; then the ſcriptures will appear in their purity; and the perfections of God in the diſplay of his law will appear juſt and glorious; and the great myſtery of godlineſs God manifeſt in the fleſh, appeared ſo glorious that the heavenly hoſts burſt forth in aſcribing glory to God in the higheſt. How did law and goſpel ſhine forth, glorious with great conſpicuity; when mercy and truth met together, righteouſneſs and peace kiſſed each other; when truth ſprang out of the earth and righteouſneſs looked down from heaven!—Query; who can view the law and goſpel thus in its proper light, through the of the word, and not abhor that expoſition which only ſerves to lead away the underſtanding from beholding the glories of the divine attributes, all meeting in Chriſt. Thus I have anſwered the objection, that although the expoſition of the commands may be ſcripture language, yet we are not always to believe the light in which ſcripture may be repreſented.

4thly. I proceed to conſider ſome of the preſbyterian ſtatute laws and principles as they are recorded in their confeſſion of faith. And

1ſt. Parliament ſixth, of King James VI. in the year 1579, declares, that thoſe who agree in doctrine and adminiſtration of the ſacraments according to the confeſſion of faith, is the true and holy church of Chriſt; and thoſe who gainſay it are no members of Chriſt's church. From this it appears, that the preſbyterians viewed themſelves as the only holy church in the world: conſequently the church of England, congregational and baptiſt, &c, are declared to be no churches of Chriſt. Theſe, likewiſe, are preſbyterian proteſtant principles; and I think they exceed the principles of thoſe profeſſors we have an account of in Iſaiah lxv. 5. who ſaid to their fellow profeſſors, ſtand off by thyſelf, come not near to me; for I am more holy than thou; for it is evident theſe Jewiſh profeſſors acknowledged ſome holineſs in them they bid ſtand off by themſelves; but our old preſbyterian profeſſors would admit of none to be members of the holy church of Chriſt but preſbyterians.

2dly, Act. 69. Parl. 6. of King James VI. declares, that there is no other ſace of church or face of religion but the eſtabliſhed religion; namely, the preſbyterian religion, and which they ſtiled a perfect religion, "and all by manifold acts of Parliament were bound to profeſs and ſubſcribe" to this perfect religion —namely, to the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, "and all ſheriffs and magiſtrates "were ordained to ſearch, apprehend and puniſh all contraveners," which appears from Act. 5. Parl. 1. Act. 134, Parl. 7. Act. 25. Parl. 11. King James VI.

Query: doth the proteſtants really believe according to this declaration that there is no other face of church or face of religion but the preſbyterian religion, agreeably to the aforeſaid acts of Parliament and preſbyterian confeſſion of faith? Furthermore, doth the preſbyterians deſire our civil government to make laws commanding ſheriffs and magiſtrates to ſearch, apprehend and puniſh, with all civil pains, our neighbouring churches that will not ſubſcribe and ſwear to the aforeſaid preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, covenants and acts of Parliament? or doth not Mr. Oliver, teacher of preſbyterianiſm, feel aſhamed of his own proteſtant principles that ſtand here upon record as an everlaſting memorandum of the bigoted perſecuting ſpirit and error of the preſbyterian profeſſion.

3dly, In the 47th Act. Parl. 3. King James VI. it was ordained that none ſhould be reputed as loyal ſubjects, but be puniſhable as rebellers who would not make a confeſſion of the preſbyterian principles then eſtabliſhed by law. Query, doth the preſbyterians (agreeably to the afore cited laws) deſire that all in the United States who doth not make a profeſſion of the preſbyterian principles as they were eſtabliſhed by law, ſhould be puniſhed as rebels to the government.

4thly. It was ſtatute by acts of Parliament that all kings and princes at their coronation and reception of their princely authority, ſhould ſwear to maintain the true religion according to the confeſſion of faith, and aboliſh all religion contrary to the ſame, and root out of the empire all heretics; all which appears from Parl. 12. of King James VI. and 4th Act. and Parl. 1. of King Charles I.

Now I would aſk Mr. Oliver whether he wiſhes to have a revolution in civil government and a new ſyſtem of preſbyterian proteſtant laws eſtabliſhed agreeably to the aforeſaid ſtatute acts of Parliament, by which all our members of Congreſs would be firſt required to ſwear to the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith.

2dly, Swear to aboliſh every other religion.

3dly, Root out of the United States, as heretics, all that will not profeſs preſbyterianiſm agreeably to the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith.

5thly. Charles I. Parliament 2. Act. 5. did ordain and command the confeſſion of faith, and covenants to be ſubſcribed by all his Majeſty's ſubjects under all civil pains and ordained that it ſhould be read and ſworn to by every member of Parliament before they proceed to any other act, and refuſers to ſubſcribe and ſwear to ſaid confeſſion and covenants, were to have no voice in Parliament; and it was ordained, that all judges, magiſtrates or officers of any rank, and miniſters at their entry ſhould ſwear and ſubſcribe the confeſſion of faith and national covenant. Moreover, it was the deſire of the preſbyterian people that the King ſhould be cloathed with this authority: but the people in the American States poſſeſs a very different ſpirit, who fraimed conſtitutions and enacted laws whereby the different denominations of profeſſors may enjoy their own religion and all have equal protection from the law, and one denomination of profeſſors not to be preferred before another; and all in the union are bound to conform to their conſtitutional laws: conſequently it is inconſiſtent with common ſenſe for any perſon to profeſs to adhere to the preſbyterian proteſtant religion according to the aforeſaid ſtatute laws and covenants, and at the ſame time profeſs ſubjection to the conſtitutional laws of the United States.

5thly. I now proceed to make ſome remarks relative to the place in which the eſtabliſhed law of preſbyterians ſay, marriage muſt be ſolemnized. In the direction for the ſolemnization of marriage, they ſay, that marriage muſt be ſolemnized in the place appointed by authority for public worſhip. And as this act of divines was eſtabliſhed by an act of Parliament, it therefore received the force of law in every point and execution; to paſs thereon as may be ſeen by the act of Parliament at Edinburgh, February the 6th, 1645.

Moreover, in addition to this act of civil and eccleſiaſtical authority, the Preſbyterians bound themſelves by the oath of God, to conform to ſaid law; as may be ſeen in the ſolemn league and covenant. From this act ſeveral things may come under our conſideration. And

1ſt. Doth the word of God prohibit every other place for ſolemnizing marriage, but the place appointed for public worſhip, by authority? If any ſhould be ſo loſt as to anſwer in the affirmative, then the ſecond queſtion is, doth the Preſbyterian profeſſors pay any attention to this law, or the oath of God in the covenant, binding to the obſervation of this law: but peradventure it may be ſaid that this is a matter of no great conſequence; but I would reply, is it of no conſequence whether we ſware the truth or not in point of principle, or is it of no great conſequence whether we walk agreeable to the truth we ſware. I ſhall diſmiſs this erronious doctrine with this obſervation, viz. Where perſons are frequently taught to embrace by oath or otherways, a certain code of profeſſed religious laws or principles, without ſuitable inveſtigation, relative to the truth or error contained in the ſame has a tendancy to prevent inveſtigation, to blind the eye, harden the heart, and ſear the conſcience, by reaſon of which God's name and ordinances will be profaned.

6thly. I now proceed to make ſome obſervations relative to the fourth article in the directory for family worſhip. The aſſembly ſaith "That it belongs to the head of the family to perform family worſhip, it being always free (ſay they) to perſons of quality to entertain one approved by the Preſbytery to perform that exerciſe; and in other families where the head of the family is unfit, that another conſtantly reſiding there approved of by the miniſter and ſeſſion, may be employed in that ſervice; wherein the miniſter and ſeſſion are to be accountable to the Preſbytery." There are two things noticeable in this direction, viz.

1ſt. Although it is a duty incumbent on heads of families to perform that exerciſe, yet a perſon of quality may employ another to perform that worſhip.— Here ſeems to be a plain diſtinction between commonality and quality, and I preſume the law of God makes none in that caſe.

2dly. No perſon, however godly and gifted he is, may be admitted to pray in a family where he doth not continue to reſide. And even admitting he doth continue there, yet it is a crime to admit him to pray, until the miniſter and ſeſſion are notified, and their approbation received. Furthermore, "The miniſter and ruling elders in each congregation are to enquire and make trial, whether the ſaid directions be obſerved in their bounds, and ſhall reprove and cenſure ſuch as ſhall be found reprovable or cenſurable." All which appears from the act of Aſſembly at Edinburgh, Auguſt the 24th, 1647.

Query. Provided a Preſbyterian miniſter and ſeſſion, ſhould, agreeable to the aforeſaid act, make ſearch through their congregation, and ſhould find a member of their church guilty of a breach of the aforeſaid act, by aſking ſome godly friend of his to pray in his family, and ſaid member of church called before the ſeſſion and preſbytery ſhall refuſe to make any acknowledgment, muſt they not according to the rules of church government, debar him from the privileges of the church, by excommunication or otherwiſe.

Tell not ſuch abominable principles in Gath, nor publiſh ſuch profanity of God's name (by ſwearing to ſaid principles) in the ſtreets of Aſkelon, leſt the daughters of the uncircumciſed rejoice.

7thly. I paſs to make ſome obſervations reſpecting the national and ſolemn league and covenant. And firſt, it is evident, that the formation of the covenant was firſt to compel all (by virtue of civil and eccleſiaſtical authority) to acknowledge that the confeſſion of faith in every particular point was agreeable to the word of God, and then

2dly. To compel all to ſwear to continue all the days of their lives in the obedience of the doctrine and diſcipline of the Preſbyterian church, agreeable to the confeſſion of faith; conſequently, the civil and eccleſiaſtical were united together, that if any one ſhould refuſe to ſwear and ſubſcribe the oath and covenant, They ſhould be puniſhed, with all civil pains, caſt out of the church, and rooted out of the empire. All which appears from the act of Aſſembly and Parliament, dated Edinburgh, June 11th, 1640, and from ſeveral acts of Parliament, quoted in the national covenant.

It is ſaid in revelation 13th, that a beaſt did ariſe out of the earth, having two horns; which had power to cauſe that as many as would not worſhip the image of the former beaſt ſhould be killed; and is it not evident that the Preſbyterians, in their great zeal, made a corrupt mixture of civil and eccleſiaſtical power, with which they compelled all to ſubmit or ſuffer civil pains and eccleſiaſtical cenſure; and ſo far as they exceeded the bounds of God's law, ſo far they cauſed a beaſt to ariſe out of the earth.

And as this beaſt had two horns of power to put to death thoſe that would not worſhip the image of the former beaſt; ſo in like manner the Preſbyterian beaſt of error had two horns of power, viz. the civil and eccleſiaſtical corrupted authorities; and with theſe two horns they compelled all to worſhip the beaſt of error, by ſwearing by the great name of the Lord, that every article in the Presbyterian confeſſion of faith, was agreeable to the word of God, otherwiſe cauſe them to be ſlain, by inflicting all civil pains, caſting them out of the church, and rooting them out of the empire; all which appears from their own records.

2dly. The general ideas ſworn to in the covenant, are nothing more than what is contained in the confeſſion of faith at large. Nevertheleſs, I ſhall proceed to make ſome remarks on one particular declaration in the national covenant; the particular that I refer to is expreſſed in the following words, viz. Becauſe we perceive that the quietneſs and ſtability of our religion and church, doth depend upon the ſafety and good behaviour of the king's majeſty, &c.

This aſſertion relative to true religion and the church'es ſtability, depending on the ſafety and good behaviour of the king, is an error that invalidates the power and veracity of God in the promiſes. Jeſus ſaith, upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell ſhall not prevail againſt it. Now Chriſt is here not only repreſented as the rock on which the church is built; but likewiſe the builder of the church upon that rock. (Matthew xvi. 18.) Moreover, if the ſafety and good behaviour of the king, gives ſtability to religion and church, as the Presbyterians ſwear it did; then it follows, that the bad behaviour of a king, makes religion and church unſtable.

Now let us attend to the law and to the teſtimony, for if they ſpeak not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them.

When the church was carried to Babylon, they were under the Babyloniſh king, who was an enemy to true religion and church; and the church was there called in a way of deriſion, to ſing one of the ſongs of Zion, and with great ſtability ſhe replied; if I forget thee, O Jeruſalem, let my right hand forget her cunning; if I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jeruſalem above my chief joy; ſo in like manner after Chriſt's acſenſion, the ſtability of the church was great, notwithſtanding the oppoſition from government, and the reaſon is obvious; viz. becauſe the church'es ſtability was not built upon the ſafety and good behaviour of an earthly king, but upon the immutable God, the rock of everlaſting ſtrength.

Moreover, when king Darius ſigned a decree, prohibiting prayer to God, Daniel, notwithſtanding the decree, manifeſted great ſtability in opening his windows towards Jeruſalem, and prayed as he did aforetime. Shadrach, Meſhack and Abednego, manifeſted great ſtability in refuſing ſubmiſſion to the king's command; embracing the fiery furnace, rather than worſhip an idol. Conſequently the king was aſtoniſhed, and ſaid, lo! I ſee four men walking in the midſt of the fire, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God; ſurely theſe men never built their faith upon the ſafety and good behaviour of mortal fleſh, but upon that God that walked with them in the midſt of the fire. Moreover, in the ſecond pſalm we have an account of kings and rulers combining together againſt the Lord's anointed; but yet, (ſaith God) have I ſet my king upon my holy hill of Zion. Now if Chriſt as the church'es head, king and repreſentative on Zion's holy hill, was ſtable, notwithſtanding kings and rulers combined againſt him; then it follows that the church (whom Chriſt repreſented) will, through Chriſt, their head, be ſtable, notwithſtanding kings and rulers combine againſt her; conſequently the aſſertion in the oath reſpecting the ſtability of religion and church, depending upon the ſafety and good behaviour of the king, is an eſſential error; and as the ſin of Jeroboam, in making golden calves, and ſetting them up at Dan and Bethel, was a ſinful error which clave to his poſterity, ſo that the ſucceeding kings departed not from the ſin of Jeroboam, the ſon of Nebat, who cauſed Iſrael to ſin; ſo in like manner thoſe golden calves of error ſet up in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith at Edinburgh, and here has become a ſin, and that fin of error cleaves to the houſe of the ſucceeding preſbyterians from age to age; for as the fathers have eaten ſour grapes of error, their children's teeth are ſet on edge, becauſe they truſted, yea, ſwore to their fathers' principles without due inveſtigation. Thus the errors that are contained in the aforeſaid confeſſion of faith, are, by many, ignorantly embraced from age to age.

May the ſpirit of the Lord lift up a ſtandard in mount Zion, and the goſpel trumpet blow with a certain ſound, and the ſons that the preſbyterian church has brought forth, ariſe and take their mother by the hand, leading her away from theſe errors, and guide her in the way of truth.

Objection. Although Mr. Oliver at firſt bound his adherents to every paragraph of the Preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, yet he now only binds them all the days of their lives to the proteſtant religion and confeſſion of faith; ſo far as they ſhall ſee it agreeably to the word of God.

Anſwer. If one perſon enter into a covenant, binding himſelf agreeably to certain articles, to ſerve another all the days of his life, and conforming to ſaid articles, ſhould be found very detrimental, they might be altered; provided both parties were agreed. But if a perſon bind himſelf to ſerve the Lord all the days of his life, by ſolemnly engaging to continue in the obedience of a certain code of laws, and ſaid laws ſhould be found diſagreeable to the word of God, then the queſtion is, how ſhall this perſon be diſengaged from his embarraſſment? The application is obvious. Mr. Oliver has formerly bound the people to every paragraph of the confeſſion of faith; and there are not only paragraphs, but eſtabliſhed laws in ſaid confeſſion of faith, which are contrary to the word of God; as hath been ſhown, and no poſſible way to be diſengaged from the embarraſſment. For if they walk agreeably to the goſpel rule, they thereby break their vow, and if they perform their vow, they thereby break God's law. I ſhall conclude this obſervation, with the obſervation that Eli made, relative to Hophni and Phinehas, the prieſts of the Lord, viz. If one man ſin againſt another, the judge ſhall judge him; but if a man ſin againſt the Lord, who ſhall intreat for him.

2dly. With reſpect to the ſecond particular in the objection relative to Mr. Oliver's only binding his adherents to the proteſtant religion all the days of their lives, I would obſerve, that according to the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, a true proteſtant is a true preſbyterian, adhering to every article in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith; which evidently appears implied in the covenants, and more particularly expreſſed by the general Aſſembly at Edinburgh, Auguſt the 17th, 1643, and by the States of Parliament at Edinburgh, July the 15th, 1644; each one of them approving of the neceſſity of entering into a ſolemn league and covenant "For the preſervation of the true "proteſtant religion." Now if the preſbyterian church and ſtate, by the aforeſaid acts, ſay, that it is neceſſary for the preſervation of the true proteſtant religion to enter into a ſolemn league and covenant; then it follows, that whatever principles are contained in the aforeſaid covenant, are the principles of a true proteſtant, which leads me to conſider what theſe proteſtant principles are which are contained in the aforeſaid covenant. I ſhall repeat, verbatim, the principal things contained in the covenant which are expreſſed in the following words:

Namely, we all ſubſcribe, and each one of us for himſelf, with our hands lifted up to the moſt high God, do ſwear,

Thus I have repeated, verbatim, the principal things contained in the aforeſaid covenant; conſiſting of ſix particulars; and they all coincide with and enforce the obſervance of all that is contained in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith: conſequently it proves, to a punctilio, that, according to the preſbyterian principles, a true proteſtant is a preſbyterian: conſequently the firſt reformers profeſſing prelacy and lutergy with their ſucceſſors in religion, were not conſidered by the preſbyterians as true proteſtants: for the preſbyterians, by acts of aſſembly and parliament, dated Edinburgh, Auguſt 17th, 1643, and Edinburgh, July 15th, 1644, conſidered it neceſſary for the preſervation of the true protiſtant religion, to enter into a ſolemn league and covenant; and they are bound by the articles of ſaid covenant to extirpate popery, prelacy, lutergy and every other profeſſion that deviates in any particular from the preſbyterian profeſſion, then it neceſſarily follows, that a true proteſtant is one that believes in every point or paragraph of the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith, binding himſelf by the oath of God, to continue all the days of his life in the obedience of the ſame.

Thus I have given a true definition of a true proteſtant, according to the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith. Hearken, then, O thou young preſbyterian proteſtant! It is for thy ſake (that thou mighteſt be no longer blindfold and lead through ſuch dark paths of error) that I have traced the proteſtant principles: and although thou mayſet ſwear againſt popery as the proteſtants did, yet how canſt thou lift up thy hand to the moſt high God, as they did, and ſwear,

Firſt, that the power of the civil magiſtrate in the church (agreeably to the 23d, and expoſition of the 31ſt chapters in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith) is agreeably to the word of God?

Secondly, Swear that the expoſition of the commands (relative to hope, ſorrow, prayer and thankſgiving in the name of Chriſt; reading, preaching and hearing the word; the adminiſtration and receiving of the ſacrament; church government and diſcipline; the miniſtry and maintenance thereof, and religious faſting) was at firſt revealed and enjoined upon Adam, in the ſtate of innocence, as the rule of his obedience?

Thirdly, Canſt thou ſwear that it is the command of God to root out of the empire, as heretics, all that will not profeſs preſbyterianiſm agreeably to the preſbyterian ſtatute laws made under the reign of king James and king Charles?

Fourthly, Canſt thou ſwear, that they are no members of Chriſt's church if they gainſay the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith; and ſwear that it is the civil magiſtrate's prerogative to take the keys of Chriſt's kingdom to open or ſhut the doors of the church for or againſt ſuch as approve or diſapprove the articles contained in the confeſſion of faith?

Fifthly, Canſt thou ſwear, that there is no other face of religion or church but the preſbyterian and ſwear that the preſbyterian religion is perfect?

Sixthly, Canſt thou ſwear that all ought to be puniſhed as "rebels to the government that will not make "a confeſſion of the preſbyterian principles?

Seventhly, Canſt thou ſwear, that the word of God forbids ſolemnizing marriage, unleſs in a place appointed by authority for public worſhip?

Eighthly, Canſt thou ſwear, that it is a violation of the divine law to admit a perſon to pray in thy houſe, without firſt applying to the miniſter and ſeſſion for their approbation?

9thly. Canſt thou ſwear to the firſt part of the oath in the national convenant, viz. That there is no other religion pleaſing to God, or bringing ſalvation to man, but the preſbyterian religion?

10thly. Canſt thou ſwear to the ſecond article in the covenant, viz. That you agree in your own conſcience to all points of the aforeſaid confeſſion of faith, as unto God's undoubted truth.

11thly. Canſt thou ſwear to the third article, viz. That the ſtability of religion and church, depends upon the ſafety and good behaviour of the king's majeſty?

12thly. Canſt thou with the proteſtant in the covenant Lift up thy hand and ſwear by the great name of the Lord, that thou will defend the king's majeſty, with thy goods, body and life; calling the living God, the Searcher of hearts to witneſs, that this is your deſire and unfeigned reſolution, as you will anſwer to Jeſus Chriſt in the great day, and under the pain of God's everlaſting wrath, and of infamy and loſs of all honour and reſpect in the world.—As theſe twelve particulars are all parts of the proteſtant religion contained in the confeſſion of faith; if thou canſt ſwear that they are all agreeably to the word of God, and that thou wilt continue all the days of thy life in the obedience of the ſame, then thou art ſo far qualified for being a Proteſtant. Mean time it is worthy of notice, that the Preſbyterian kings, Parliaments, majeſtrates, &c. were all ſworn to ſupport the Preſbyterian principles, according to the confeſſion of faith; ſo in like manner the proteſtants proteſted and ſwore, by the great name of the Lord, that they would ſubmit to and defend the king's majeſty, his perſon and authority, in the execution of the aforeſaid Preſbyterian laws. But the Preſbyterian kings have revolted from Presbyterianiſm, burnt the covenants which were the bond of union, and a new code of laws made by which each one may enjoy his own religion, and have equal protection from government. Conſequently a papiſt has the ſame protection from government that a preſbyterian has.

Now the great queſtion is, where is the king and parliament at this day, whom our young Proteſtants ſwear to defend?

It proteſtants voluntarily ſwear to defend a king in the execution of thoſe laws which protect a papiſt in his religion, then they are guilty of a breach of the oath of God in the covenants and preſbyterian laws in the confeſſion of faith. Furthermore, if the young preſbyterian proteſtants take upon them the old proteſtant vows, and do not protect ſome king and parliament in the execution of preſbyterian laws according to the confeſſion of faith, then they are chargeable with a breach of their oath in the covenant: but it is probable no ſuch king and parliament will be found; but even admitting they ſhould be found, would not the oath of allegiance to them be rebellion againſt the United States? yea, a breach of the oath of allegiance? But provided the proteſtants ſhould ſay, that they mean to ſubmit to and defend the authority of the United States in the ſame manner that the old proteſtants ſubmitted to and defended king and parliament, I would reply, we have neither king, parliament nor preſbyterian laws, agreeably to proſtetant principles in the confeſſion of faith; but the reverſe by giving the ſame protection to a papiſt as to a preſbyterian. Conſequently the oath of God in the covenants and proteſtant laws in the confeſſion of faith, forbids proteſtant ſubjection to the authority of the United States.

Thus I have traced ſome of the proteſtant errors, both reſpecting principles and oaths: and ſurely the proteſtants are in a very ſingular ſituation; for they are ſo bound with laws and oaths that even where greater light appears and truth calling them to turn, the oath of God which they have taken, will not ſuffer them to turn. Conſequently if they march forward, according to the proteſtant ſyſtem, they, in many reſpects, break God's law; and if they retreat back, or even ſtand ſtill, they break their oath: but as I can trace them no farther here, I muſt leave them, and bid them adieu.

Nevertheleſs, as theſe proteſtant preſbyterian principles and oaths contained in the preſbyterian confeſſion of faith do, in a ſpecial manner, concern the Pariſh in Pelham, I would ſubmit to their own underſtanding who hath required theſe things at your hands? Jophthah (without a call from God) bound himſelf with a vow, that if God would deliver his enemies into his hand, when he returned in peace, he would offer up, for a burnt offering, whatever would meet him in the door of his houſe. And God gave him a great victory over his enemies. And at his return, God providentially ſent his only daughter to the door of her father's houſe with timbrels, &c. at which ſight, Jephthah remembering his vow, cried out, alas! thou haſt brought me very low, my daughter; for I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot go back. Now it is worthy of notice, that God's law did not require, conſequently forbid Jephthah to offer up his daughter for a burnt offering; but his vow bound him to it—ſo that if he attended to the law of God, he muſt break his vow; and if he performed his vow, he muſt break the law of God. So in like manner, ſome of you have taken the American conſtitutional oath, by which you are bound to demean yourſelves as loyal ſubjects of the United States; and to renounce and oppoſe the king's juriſdiction in every particular. And you have likewiſe taken the preſbyterian proteſtant vows upon you, by which you have bound yourſelves to ſubmit to the King's authority, both in eccleſiaſtial and civil matters; defending him with your goods, bodies and lives; and thus like Jephthah, you have (by your vows) brought yourſelves into a ſnare, out of which you never can extricate yourſelves. Tell not ſuch contradictory vows in Gath, nor publiſh ſuch profanity of God's name in the ſtreets of Aſhkelon, leſt the uncircumciſed rejoice.

Contemplate then upon thine own inconſiderate inconſiſtency; and thou mayeſt likewiſe look upon thy proteſtant Teacher, and ſay, alas! thou haſt brought me very low; for thou haſt lead me to open my moth in making theſe preſbyterian vows to the Lord; and like Jephthah, I cannot go back, neither can I conſiſtently with truth perform my vows. Alas! my Teacher, thou haſt brought me very low. But as there are ſome of the Pariſh that have not brought themſelves under ſuch contradictory vows, I would ſay to them be careful about bringing yourſelves under any profeſſed religious vows or acknowledgments of principles, where human wiſdom forms them, ſwears to them, and calls upon thee to ſwear to them. Conſider firſt whether theſe principles are built upon the word of truth in every particular; and ſecondly, whether God calls thee to ſwear. For even admitting the thing is true which man calls thee to ſwear; thou muſt have a "thus ſaith the Lord," as a warrant for thy ſwearing the truth: for it is evident God doth not call thee to ſwear to every truth. But I would ſay to thee as in the words of inſpiration, be not raſh with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be haſty to utter any thing before God. Better it is that thou ſhouldſt not vow than that thou ſhouldſt vow and not pay; for thus ſaith the Lord, when thou ſhalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou ſhalt not be ſlack to pay it, for the Lord thy God will ſurely require it of thee, and it would be ſin in thee not to perform it; but if thou ſhalt forbare to vow, it ſhall be no ſin in thee.

Objection. Notwithſtanding all that has been ſaid in oppoſition to the preſbyterian principles, yet God has owned the preſbyterian religion in a diſtinguiſhing manner by the effuſion of his ſpirit; therefore that religion muſt be right which God thus owns.

Anſwer. Although God might in former times (when the church was coming out of popiſh darkneſs) wink at error, and at the ſame time pour out his ſpirit on ſaid church, yet the out-pouring of his ſpirit by no means proves, that they were not chargeable with great error, neither doth it prove (that if they now refuſe to repent at God's call) that God will not fight againſt them with the ſword of his mouth or caſt them into a bed of great tribulation or kill their children with death, as he threatened ſome of the Aſian churches, if they did not repent. Therefore let ſuch as are taught to build upon this ſandy foundation, here what the Spirit ſaith unto the Aſian churches. And your attention is here called to the church of Pergamos, who dwelt where ſatan's feat was; nevertheleſs recommended for holding faſt God's name and not denying the faith; although the acknowledging of it made Antipas fall a martyr. Now it is evident that the ſpirit of God was poured out in a powerful manner upon this church; otherwiſe they would not be entitled to their recommendation. And yet God charges them with two doctrinal errors, for which they are threatened with God's fighting againſt them, it they did not repent. And in like manner the church of Thyatira was recommended for her works, and charity, and ſervice, and faith, and patience, and the laſt to be more than the firſt; nevertheleſs was chargeable with doctrinal error and threatened with judgments, if ſhe did not repent. And now we are called to hear what the Spirit ſaith unto the churches. And you have heard what the Spirit ſaith relative to the aforeſaid churches. And the Spirit elſewhere ſaith, that what was written aforetime was written for our learning and inſtruction. And if we will learn or be inſtructed by the Spirit in the word, we may learn that although the ſpirit of God might be poured out upon the preſbyterian churches as it was upon the church of Pergamos and Thiatira; nevertheleſs, the preſbyterian church may be chargeable with great error, as the aforeſaid churches were; and called to repent, and threatened with judgments if they do not repent, as thoſe churches were; conſequently the objection muſt vaniſh before the words of the ſpirit of truth as the darkneſs of the night before the riſing ſun.

I now proceed to make ſome remarks reſpecting the duty of ſupporting goſpel miniſters; but eſpecially the manner in which they are to be ſupported. And

Firſt. It is evident, that Chriſt commiſſioned his apoſtles or miniſters to go and preach the goſpel. And the apoſtle Paul ſaith that the Lord hath ordained that thoſe that preach the goſpel ſhould live of the goſpel. For ſaith the apoſtle who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? And the law of Moſes ſaith, thou ſhalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; and they which miniſter about holy things live of the things of the temple; and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar. And the apoſtle ſaith, let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. And where we find a faithful miniſter that will venture to truſt God and the people for his ſupport, the people are under the greateſt obligation to remember him and contribute towards his ſupport. But to forget their miniſters, in this caſe, would be forgetting their God who ſupports them; and have a tendency to remove the candleſtick out of its place, and make their ſouls like a barren tree in the garden of the Lord. For the apoſtle in the fixth of Galatians, after ſpeaking of the duty of communicating, ſaith, be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatſoever a man ſoeth, that ſhall he reap.

Secondly, I now proceed to make ſome remarks relative to the manner in which goſpel miniſters ought to be ſupported. It is evident, from ſcripture, that Chriſt has ordained that his miniſters ſhall receive all as a free will offering of the church or people where they labour; but no tax levied for civil officers to collect by attaching property or otherwiſe. And to prove this affertion, let us attend to the law and to the teſtimony; and ſee what the ſpirit of God ſaith by the apoſtle Paul, in Philipians 4th, 10th and downwards, which contains a recommendation of the Philipians for communicating to Paul's neceſſity. Mean time Paul ſpeaks of it in the 17th verſe as a gift, and in the 18th verſe, referring to their communicating, ſays, that it is an odour of a ſweet ſmell, a ſacrafice acceptable and well pleaſing to God. Now if this way of collecting ſupport for miniſters was well pleaſing to God, then it ought to be ſtrictly attended to. Furthermore, in Paul's firſt epiſtle to the Corinthians, 9th chapter, the apoſtle ſheweth, at large, how the Lord hath ordained that they that preach the goſpel ſhould live of the goſpel; but Paul's epiſtle never was directed to the civil magiſtrate nor legiſlative body for their interpoſition: but it was directed to the church of God at Corinth, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord: from which it plainly appears, that the duty of ſupporting goſpel miniſters is a matter that concerns the church and not the civil government. Moreover, in the whole of Paul's epiſtles, when he recommends or enjoins the duty of liberality, gifts, freewill offerings, communicating or bounties either for the ſupport of miniſters or poor ſaints, he there writes particularly to the churches; and he farther ſaith, that their liberality was an evidence of their ſubmiſſion to the goſpel, as appears from 2d Corinthians ix. 13. In Paul's epiſtle to the churches of Galaria, he ſaith, that the goſpel which he preached was revealed to him by Jeſus Chriſt; and in that ſame epiſtle, Paul writes to the churches ſhowing them the duty of communicating to their teacher. Now if Jeſus Chriſt has revealed to the churches, by Paul (as hath been ſhown) that his miniſters muſt be ſupported by a freewill offering of the church, then it follows that the churches ought to pay due attention to the orders that Chriſt has given: and then their offerings will be an odour of a ſweet ſmell, a ſacrifice acceptable and well pleaſing to God. From which we may infer that no ſtrange fire of twon or pariſh forcibly taxing to ſupport miniſters, is an odour of a ſweet ſmell; no ſtrange fire of conſtables attaching property and diſpoſing of it for leſs than its real value, accepted as an odour of a ſweet ſmell; but all may be ſaid to be a ſmoke in God's noſtril, yea a fire that burneth all the day.

How criminal then muſt thoſe ſocieties be, who (deſpiſing the wiſdom of God in the method recommended and enjoined upon the churches for ſupporting miniſters) prefer their own wiſdom in taxing, as more juſt and righteous than God's. But let ſuch ſocieties hear what inſpiration ſaith; Shall mortal man be more juſt than God? Shall a man be more juſt than his Maker? Job iv. 17. Muſt the wiſdom of the eternal I AM, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Firſt and the Laſt, be deſpiſed, and man's wiſdom prefered? Be aſtoniſhed, O ye heavens! and be ye afraid, who thus build up walls with the tool of human invention, and plaiſter them with ſuch untempered mortar!

The ſacred writings give an account of Naaman the Aſſyrian who was a leper, and came to a prophet of the Lord to be healed of his leprocy; and the prophet bade the leper go and waſh in Jordan ſeven times, and be clean. The leper at firſt depiſed the word of the Lord, ſpoken by the prophet; and prefered his own wiſdom in eſteeming the waters of Abana and Pharpar better than the waters of Iſrael. Thus the leper turned away from the word of the Lord. And are we not all (by nature) covered over with the leproſy of ſin? God has inſtituted goſpel ordinances, for the recovery of our leproſy; and will you, like Naaman, diſpute the wiſdom of God relative to the method of cure? Naaman's wiſdom not perceiving God to work by what means he pleaſed, called in queſtion the excellence of of the water to which he was directed. And will you practically and profeſſedly diſpute the wiſdom, the equity or expedience of our Lord's revelation to the apoſtle Paul relative to the manner of ſupporting goſpel miniſters, whoſe labours, when bleſſed, are a mean in God's hand to recover us of our leproſy?

When God gave Moſes direction reſpecting building the altar of whole ſtone, he adds, if thou lift up thy tool upon it thou haſt polluted it; and enjoins it upon Moſes to ſee that every thing ſhould be done according to the pattern ſhown in the mount. Now if this altar would be polluted, if a tool was lifted upon it, then we may, with equal propriety, infer, that if after Chriſt 〈◊〉 what this altar pointed at (and as king in his church inſtituted laws and ordinances for his church ſtrictly to attend to, till his ſecond coming) that if the tool of human invention is lifted up to new model the laws and ordinances, then they are polluted. Furthermore, God ſays, he hates robbery for a burnt offering; which leads me to inquire when a church may be guilty of robbery, and offering it to the Lord. To which I would anſwer, when the church profeſſes a deſire to attend upon goſpel ordinances, and partake of goſpel privileges; but at the ſame time is not willing to advance all their own property to defray the expenſe. Conſequently attaches the property of others who differ with them in opinion, and diſpoſes of ſaid property for much leſs than its real value; preſenting all to their miniſter, as a reward for his miniſterial ſervice. All being thus done with a profeſſed view to ſupport the goſpel. The way being thus paved, the doors are kept open for all to meet and offer the ſacrifice of praiſe and thankſgiving to God; then it may with great propriety be ſaid, that this church is guilty of robbery, and offering it to the Lord. But God not only hates robbery for an offering, but refuſes to accept an offering of lean, ſick, torn or blind; how then can you that are thus guilty preſume to enter the door of God's houſe to offer the ſacrifice of praiſe and thankſgiving, when your own conſcience witneſſes againſt you that you have robed your neighbours, by attaching their property, and diſpoſing of it, to enable you in a cheaper way to ſacrifice to the Lord? But hear what the Lord ſaith in the matter, curſed be the deceiver which hath in his flock a male, and avoweth and ſacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing, for I am a great king ſaith the Lord of hoſt.

When the anger of the Lord was kindled againſt Iſrael, and David numbered the people; the Lord ſent the plague of peſtilence among the people, and when the angel ſtretched out his hand upon Jeruſalem, to deſtroy it, the Lord ſaid to the angel, ſtay now thine hand; and David was there called to ſacrifice to the Lord, and Araunah the Jebuſite offered to give David the oxen and threſhing inſtruments for a burnt offering; but David, from a ſenſe of his own ſin, in numbering the people, and a ſenſe of his duty to his God, would neither attach his neighbour's property in order that his neighbour might bear a part of the coſt of the ſacrifice, nor even accept of it as a gift; but told Araunah that he would not offer a burnt offering to the Lord his God that which coſt him nothing. Conſequently he bought the materials, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and the Lord was intreated for the land, and the plague was ſtayed. Go thou and do likewiſe, that our ſpiritual plagues may be ſtayed, and the Lord be intreated for our land.

Objection. Thoſe offerings under the law were to be whole, without blemiſh, that they might be figurative of Chriſt, who was without ſpot; and who was to offer up himſelf as a ſacrifice to God, in behalf of ſinful man: conſequently the obſervations reſpecting thoſe ſacrifices under the law, cannot apply to the ſupport of miniſters under the goſpel.

Anſwer. If there was no goſpel in thoſe legal ſacrifices, then it is evident, that the Old teſtament ſaints obtained eternal life by the works of the law. But I preſume you will agree to the goſpel revelation, which ſays, that by the deeds of the law no fleſh living ſhall be juſtified: conſequently it follows, that there was a great diſplay of the goſpel of Chriſt in thoſe ſacrifices. And ſo far as the goſpel of Chriſt ſhone in thoſe legal ſacrifices, ſo far, and in the ſame goſpel light, will thoſe obſervations, drawn from the legal ſacrifices, apply, to our ſupporting goſpel miniſters, in this our goſpel day. Moreover, as the inſtituted way of worſhip, in offering ſacrifice under the law, could not be done without expenſe, ſo under the goſpel, God's miniſters and our goſpel religion, cannot be ſupported without expenſe: conſequently it follows, that in this reſpect the ſacrifice and offerings under the law, and the ſacrifice and offerings for ſupporting miniſters under the goſpel, are exactly ſimilar; and in that light, the obſervations that will apply in one caſe, will apply in the other; which proves the objection to be wholly groundleſs; nevertheleſs, the truth of this aſſertion will ſtill appear more evident from thoſe goſpel ſacrifices, which the apoſtle ſpeaks of in Philipians iv. 18. where the apoſtle ſpeaking of the Philipians' communicating or gifts for his ſupport, ſays that it was an odour of a ſweet ſmell, a ſacrifice acceptable and well pleaſing to God, as hath been before obſerved. And the ſame apoſtle, in Hebrews xiii. 15, 16. ſays, let us offer the ſacrifice of praiſe continually; and adds, forget not to communicate; for with ſuch ſacrifice God is well pleaſed. Now the apoſtle in enjoining theſe goſpel ſacrifices muſt have ſome reference to the goſpel that was revealed in thoſe ſacrifices under the law, which makes it evident, that thoſe ſacrifices under the law (although in ſome reſpects figurative of Chriſt in pointing directly at the ſufferings of Chriſt as our ſurety, yet in other reſpects) refered to the goſpel way of means of ſalvation thro' Chriſt. Moreover it is evident, from thoſe goſpel ſacrifices that were offered under the law. When Jonah was in the whale's belly he was incapacitated to offer legal offerings, or in that way to ſacrifice unto the Lord, yet he by faith looking toward God's holy temple ſays, I will ſacrifice unto the Lord with the voice of thankſgiving. And the Pſalmiſt in the 116th pſalm ſays, What ſhall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards me? I will take the cup of ſalvation and call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord in the preſence of all his people. I will offer to thee the ſacrifice of thankſgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord. I will pay my vows unto the Lord now, in the preſence of all his people, in the courts of the Lord's houſe, in the midſt of thee O! Jeruſalem. And what think ye that profeſs to take the cup of ſalvation; will you offer to God the goſpel ſacrifice of praiſe and thankſgiving upon your own coſt? or will you ſend an officer to attach your neighbour's property to help to pay for your ſacrifice? Query. Is it not expedient to have a princely ſpirit, and out of your own property pay your vows unto the Lord, and then come into the courts of the Lord's houſe in the midſt of thee, O! Jeruſalem or church of Pelham, and ſay with the Pſalmiſt, what ſhall I render to the Lord for all his benefits towards me? Theſe obſervations, duly conſidered, may ſerve as an anſwer to the objection.

Objection ſecond. If all are left to their own free will relative to paying miniſters, we ſhall ſoon have no miniſters among us, and religion rooted out of the land.

Anſwer. This objection ariſes from unbelief, as it calls in queſtion the word and power of the divine Spirit; for when Chriſt had accompliſhed all that he came to do and ſuffer, he promiſed to ſend the comforter; and after his aſcenſion (according to his promiſe) the power of his ſpirit came upon them: conſequently religion was planted where the civil authority oppoſed and tried to root it out. And inſpiration ſaith, not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, ſaith the Lord of Hoſts. Who art thou, O! great mountain before Zerubbabel? Thou ſhalt become a plain; and he ſhall bring forth the head ſtone thereof with ſhouting; crying grace, grace, unto it. Mean time I grant that the goſpel way, pointed out for ſupporting miniſters, may have a tendency to root out thoſe miniſters whom God never planted; but there is no danger of rooting out thoſe whom God hath choſen and called to the miniſtry. Paul had but a ſmall inncome of the world for his miniſterial labours: yet being choſen, qualified and called to preach the goſpel, he ſaith, wo is me if I preach not the goſpel. Jeremiah, under reproaches and bad ſucceſs, ſaid that he would not ſpeak any more in God's name; but he immediately replies, that God's word was in his heart as a burning fire ſhut up in his bones, and was weary with forbearing. And in the 32d of Job we have an account of Elihu's ſaying I am full of the matter. The Spirit within me conſtraineth me. Behold my belly is as wine which has no vent; it is ready to burſt like new bottles. Theſe paſſages of ſcripture manifeſt the power of God's Spirit in the hearts of God's meſſengers: and you may as well think to root out God's ſpirit as to root out God's miniſters. Thus preſſed with the power of God's ſpirit influencing them to cry aloud and not ſpare; yea, to lift up their voice like a trumpet, ſhewing the people their tranſgreſſions, &c. Mean time they know that God claims a prerogative over the flax and wool, the beaſts of the foreſt and the cattle upon a thouſand hills, the fowls of the mountains and wild beaſts of the field, yea, the world and the fulneſs thereof, and the hearts of all that poſſeſs it are in his hands and he can turn them whitherſoever he pleaſes, even as the rivers of water. And the good miniſter knowing this is willing to truſt his God, knowing that God can and will influence the people voluntarily to give to their miniſter that degree of ſupport which God ſhall ſee moſt conducive to his glory and the miniſter's good: for no good thing will he with hold from them that walk uprightly. Nevertheleſs, if any of God's miniſters ſhould, in a peeviſn fret, like Jonah, run away from the preſence of the Lord, they may expect God's judgments to follow them, as they did Jonah, until they return to their duty as Jonah returned to his, by preaching the word that God bid him; and as to religion's being rooted out of the land as mentioned in the objection, I would obſerve that a deviation from the goſpel rule is the moſt probable way to root religion out of the land.—Saul deviated from the law of God, which rooted him and his out of the land. Solomon in his old days turned from the law of his God, for which the principal part of his kingdom was rooted up, and the law not being attended to by the people, religion depreciated greatly out of the land, till by ſucceſſive deviations from the law of God, they were rooted out of their own land. The Jewiſh church by ſucceſſive deviations from the law of God, rooted out not only religion, but themſelves, as a church or nation; and the apoſtle in firſt Corinthians, 10th chapter, illuſtrating the privileges of the Jewiſh church, and the errors which that church run into, with the puniſhment which enſued; ſays, that thoſe things were written for our admonition. Now if we will be admoniſhed, we muſt know that a deviation from the rules that God has preſcribed, incurs his wrath, and has a tendence to root religion out of the land. Therefore, if you wiſh to avoid thoſe evils againſt which we are admoniſhed, and to have the power of religion among us, the ordinances being no more like dry breaſts, then give due attention to the divine precepts; ever remembering that the wiſdom of man (to new modle God's laws, in order to preſerve religion in the land) is fooliſhneſs with God, and only ſerves to root religion out of the land. Theſe obſervations duly conſidered, may ſerve as a ſufficient anſwer to the objection.

As I am drawing near to a cloſe, I would remark, that probably two characters will in a ſpecial manner ſtigmatiſe the other with all his performance—to wit:

Firſt, The traditionated bigots who always think that their religious principles are right, and all others wrong.

Secondly. The peaceable who have ſuch a great love for peace, that they can ſtand and ſee truth trampled on and laid in the duſt, and peace as a tomb ſtone laid on truth's grave, leſt truth ſhould ariſe from the dead and make a diſturbance in the church; this laſt character not appearing to me as dangerous as the former. To ſuch I would ſay, that God's attributes conſiſt of truth as well as peace: and where we find great regard for peace and truth, not equally regarded, we may then be aſſured that ſatan appears dreſſed in the garb of peace preaching peace to the people. Mean time like a canker worm, is eating out the very vitals of truth, which is one eſſential attribute of God; conſquently eſſential to true religion. Moreover, Chriſt ſaith, I am the truth: and the true church having Chriſt, they have the truth. Furthermore, Chriſt ſays, my peace I gave unto you. Now as Chriſt has bequeathed his truth and peace to the church, they cannot be divided by the church. Moreover, this peace that Chriſt bequeathed, will cauſe diviſion in the world: for Chriſt ſaith, ſuppoſe ye that I came to ſend peace on the earth? I tell you nay! but rather diviſion: but ſatan is always oppoſed to Chriſt; and if Chriſt came to ſend diviſion in the earth, then it follows that ſatan ſends peace; Conſequently we find univerſal peace in the Gentile world, till Chriſt; the truth was preached by the Apoſtle; and then tumultuous confuſion enſued; and if truth made ſuch a diſturbance, then no doubt it will now have the ſame operation. Take heed then ye lovers of peace, and ſee whether your love for peace deſcends from truth; for they always unite together; yea, marcy; truth, righteouſneſs and peace have met and kiſſed each other, and you cannot love one of God's attributes without loving the whole; neither can you be influenced by one only, but by the whole. For as they all met in Chriſt, ſo the benefits reſulting therefrom influence the ſoul to love equally all that is in Chriſt, and all that deſcend from Chriſt: conſequently, if the ſpirit of God deſcends upon the Preſbyterian, congregational, or baptiſt churches, it will influence thoſe churches to love each other, even although they do not ſee ſo near alike as to join in full with each other; for every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him alſo that is begotten of him, and will unite all together as brethren of one family, and ſo far as any poſſeſs this love, ſo far they enjoy God and poſſeſs heaven. For God is love; conſequently all heaven is love: and this love is a diſtinguiſhing characteriſtic between the heirs of heaven and the heirs of hell. For Jeſus ſaith, by this ſhall all men know that ye are my diſciples, if ye love one another, and this love takes faſt hold of truth, and will not let it go; yea, the ſpirit of truth as proceeding from the father is promiſed as the comforter. And where we find the ſpirit of truth thus walking our ſtreets, and frequenting our aſſemblies, there we ſhall always find love and peace.

Finally, and to conclude, although they in this militant ſtate, can ſee but in part, conſequently may differ injudgment reſpecting religious ſentiments, and be diſtinguiſhed by preſbyterian, congregational, or baptiſt, &c. yet this love, peace and truth cemented together, will incite to honour, and prefer one another; and in a word, will unite all in aſcribing bleſſing and honour, and glory and power, to him that ſits upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever, which is the deſire of him, who, for the reaſons herein contained, has abſented himſelf from your aſſemblies.