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 [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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, [Page 6]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 [Page 7](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 [Page 8]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 [Page 9]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 [Page 10]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?

[Page 11] 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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 [Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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, [Page 20]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.

[Page 21] 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 [Page 22]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.

[Page 23] 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

[Page 24] 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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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 [Page 27]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.

[Page 28] 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 [Page 31]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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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 [Page 34]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, [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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 [Page 37]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. [Page 38]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, [Page 39]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 [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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.