I. INTRODUCTION: Containing a true State of the Matters judged upon by the late Con­sociation, from their Rise until laid before that venerable Body.

FROM the time of my first settling with the people in West-Stafford, (which was October 31, 1764) until the year 1778, I lived as happily with them as any Minister upon the Continent with his people, perhaps: I loved the people, and to serve their best interest in public and private, in sickness and health, was my delightful employ; while I received, in return, many testimonies of their cordial and sincere regard to me, and for the truth's sake which I preached unto them; which, in many instances, appeared to have a good effect upon them: On which ac­count I had reason to rejoice that I had not [Page 6] run in vain, nor laboured in vain among them.

In 1778 my salary, which according to agreement was sixty pounds lawful money annually, by the depreciation of Continental money, was become almost nothing; so that I found myself obliged to ask for some al­lowance to be made me. In March 1778, a meeting of the society was called to see if they would afford me any help. At this time those who were betrusted with the prudenti­als of the society were chiefly strangers, new­ly come to reside in the place, and by ren­dering themselves popular had got into places of trust: An error this in the people which I would caution all other societies against. The Committee opposed any thing's being done for me in a parish way; that which they chiefly urged, was that it would op­press the poor, &c.—The society, which had been used to peace before, seemed much surprised to see a fire kindled; and to put out the same, a number of the principal in­habitants proposed to me, at the time of the meeting, to accept of a subscription for that year, to which I consented in case it were adequate; to bring this about they desired an adjournment of the meeting, which was granted. At the adjourned meeting I signified my acceptance of what was subscribed, and so the difficulty seemed to subside for the pre­sent. [Page 7] Nevertheless I could often hear of the Committee's telling one and another, that it was unreasonable to allow me any more than the nominal sum, and whatever they did more was over and above their contract with me; that they were under no obligation to do it, and the like. Towards the close of this year, the Committee, without being de­sired by me, came to my house and told me, they understood that I was uneasy with my sa­lary and wanted some help from the people; and as there would be business enough on the annual meeting without that, they thought it best, if I was willing, to have a meeting called on purpose to settle the matter relative to my salary. I told them I was willing if they tho't best, and had mentioned it to one of them some time before, that I had thoughts of desiring an interview with the Committee; they then asked me, what my request was? I told them that they knew the whole affair as well as I, a bare support was all I asked for; I was willing to bear an equal part of the burdens of the present day, and would give up one quarter of my salary, if the parish would make the rest good, giving me forty-five pounds as good as it used to be. One of them, upon this, asked me how I would have the warn­ing drawn? I told him that it was not my business to make warnings, they knowing the affair, were quite able to do that. Another [Page 8] spoke and said, we must warn the society to come together, to see what addition they would make to the salary. I told them I thought it not proper to talk of addition to the salary, when I offered to give up one quarter of it. They told me that sixty pounds was sixty pounds, and if the society paid that, they fulfilled their agreement with me, and if they allowed me any more it would be by way of addition. I asked them, if they thought sixty pounds Continental money was equivalent to the society's agreement with me? They told me they thought it was: and two of them said they should never hold up their hands for my having any more, and added that they believed that the greater part of the parish was of their minds: The other said, it did not belong to them to determine the matter, the parish might do as they saw fit. I told them that if the society was of their minds, I should be glad to know it, that I might know what to do, and accord­ingly desired a meeting; they therefore warn­ed a meeting to see what the society would add to my salary. I wrote to the society, which was read in the meeting, shewing them that I did not want an addition, but was willing to give up a quarter part, as I had told the Committee: The event was that the society refused to act upon the warning. The annual meeting soon came; the society dropped these [Page 9] men, and put in a new Committee; at which they appeared extremely offended both with me and the people: And now they began to fault my preaching, and to form a party in the parish. No stone was left unturned to disaffect all they could influence towards my preaching; and whatever I said in pub­lic was perverted and condemned as heretical and damnable. One of them left the com­munion. A few days after, being at my house, I asked him the reason of his conduct in withdrawing from communion? He told me it was owing to his being offended with me and the church: I asked what we had done to offend him? He told me that I preached doctrines he thought were false, and the Church received them. I told him he was wrong in leaving the communion until he had given me and the church notice of his uneasiness and endeavoured to set us right, if wrong; and would never be justified in do­ing as he had, and read to him some passages in Cambridge Platform, which he professed to like, and which condemned such practice. He then told me he had done nothing with­out advice from a neighbouring Clergyman, who told him he could not be blamed for leaving the communion when he pleased. I discoursed with him two several times, and laboured to convince him of his error; but all was in vain, he supported himself upon [Page 10] the advice of this Clergyman, but refused to tell me his name, though I have since dis­covered who the Clergyman is; he lives in a neighbouring town, and was a member of the late Consociation. This delinquent member, nevertheless, has had the audacity to deny that I ever faulted him for withdrawing from communion. In June last the Association set at my house, a few days before which Solomon Bixby brought a paper to me containing ten articles of charge against my doctrines, which he said he intended to lay before the Association, desiring me to read the same, and say whether I owned them or not; I read them, and observed to him that they were generally false as they lay in the charge, and not one of them expressed as I had express­ed myself upon those matters: He then de­sired me to draw a complaint myself, that I would be willing to own, as he depended upon me for proof; I told him, I was will­ing to do it, but had not time then. The Association met, and he appeared and present­ed his complaint as he had shown it me be­fore, without any signers but himself, though in behalf of others: Upon the Association's insisting that the others referred to should subscribe said complaint with him, he pro­cured three others, viz. Samuel Fuller, Ze­phaniah Alden, and Benjamin Ellis. The Association asked me whether I owned the [Page 11] charge? I told them that in general it was wrong, but that there were some things so near the truth, that I thought it would be dishonourable to deny them. I was then desired to point out what I owned; I did so, which were four of the articles. The Associa­tion then went into the consideration of what should be done; I told them that I suppos­ed they had no cognizance of the case—one of the members told me I was mistaken, and added, "I had a hint of this, and therefore put the Platform in my pocket," and taking it out read a passage about heresy, &c.—I told him I had not the same notions of he­resy that he had: Another replied, "why all error is heresy:" I then concluded to leave them to proceed as they pleased without making any opposition at that time. They soon resolved upon a committee to meet on future time to confer on matters, and pro­posed the same to me; I told them that as I had been publicly accused, I chose to de­fend myself in public, should therefore choose that the Consociation be convoked if they judged the matter cognizable by them; but that was declined: I then told them that I would not converse with the committee, but if they desired it, would send them, in writ­ing, a defence of what I owned of said charge. Accordingly the Committee was ap­pointed to meet at the Rev. Mr. Perry's, Sep­tember [Page 12] 1.—I wrote them according to pro­mise. They advised to calling the Consocia­tion, but referred that matter to the next As­sociation, in October. The Association ad­vising a convocation of the Consociation, let­ters were accordingly issued out for that pur­pose, and their session appointed to be the first Tuesday in November, at the house of Ebenezer Gay at Stafford. A few days before the session of said Consociation, I re­ceived an open paper informing me of the approach of that venerable body to hear and pass judgment on my creed, and requiring me to appear before them, signed " Theodore Hinsdale, Charles Backus, members of Con­sociation." On the day appointed about one half the Consociation met at the time and place.

II. PROTESTATION against the DESIGN and PROCEDURE of CONSOCIATION at WEST-STAFFORD, with the REASONS of it at large.

AS soon as the Consociation was opened I desired, and with great difficulty at length obtained, leave to read them a paper, in which I denied their jurisdiction and right to judge on articles of faith, or make a creed for me; reminded them that the divine dis­pleasure had been always testified against [Page 13] those who had presumtuously undertaken to frame creeds, judge on articles of faith for others, and impose subscription. I complain­ed also of injurious and abusive treatment in the paper sent me, notifying me to appear be­fore Consociation as judges; and plainly told that venerable body, that unless they expli­citly disavowed those words judge and re­quire, ^* in their notification, I should consider myself in duty bound to publish it as approv­ed by them, that the United States of America might be sensible what they had yet to expect from the dying struggles of the man of sin. I told them I should never meet them again when required so to do; but should always be ready and cheerful to wait on them, when desired with decency as a brother and equal. That I could not submit to them as judges of my faith, without de­nying the kingly authority of Jesus Christ, until they should produce a commission, with the seal of Heaven affixed to it, constituting them infallible dictators in matters of religi­on. I desired and even challenged a public disputation with them, on any points of reli­gion wherein they were pleased to differ from me: And finally put the following questions to them, for a resolution, viz.

[Page 14]I. Have you any authority to judge of doc­trines, respecting their agreement or disa­greement with the gospel, that we have not?

II. Is your judgment, as such, in any mea­sure binding on us?

III. What authority have you to require us to appear before you, and answer to a complaint that we teach and hold doctrines contrary to the gospel?

IV. Have we not the same authority, upon report made to us by vile informers, that you teach doctrines contrary to the gospel, to require you to appear before us, and make answer to charges, that you have to require us to appear before you?

I then observed to Consociation, that such lust for power and domination, as but too evidently appeared in them, would illy suit such a free air as we breathed in this country; and that they unhappily came into existence too late for the exercise of spiritual tyranny: And then retired, assuring Consociation of my readiness to wait on them at any time, if treated with civility, as a brother and e­qual.

Consociation, before their leaving the meeting-house, where they were when this paper was exhibited, voted that it was no bar in the way of their proceedure: And ad­journed to the house of Mr. Ebenezer Gay.

[Page 15]My paper was exhibited November 2, the first day of the session of Consociation, towards night. The next day, about two o'clock, P. M. I received the following pa­per from Consociation, signed by Aaron Church, Scribe, containing a reply to my questions.

"The Consociation, taking into conside­ration the matters contained in the Rev. Mr. Isaac Foster's paper, publickly read yesterday, make answer to his questions, as follows,

"Question I. Have you any authority to judge concerning doctrines, respecting their agreement or disagreement with the gospel, that we have not?

" Answer. You as pastor and church, have a sole right to judge for yourselves what doctrines agree with the gospel; be­fore you consociated with these churches you had a right to judge for yourselves, whe­ther the doctrines we professed so far agreed with the gospel, that you could consistent therewith have christian and ministerial communion with us. You have now un­doubtedly a right to judge for yourselves, whether the laws of Christ permit you to continue in fellowship with us. We only claim to ourselves as pastors and churches the same rights with respect to you.

"Question II. Is your judgment, as such, with regard to doctrines, in any measure bind­ing on us?

[Page 16]" Answer. No further than it agrees with the word of God.

"Question III. What authority have you to require us to appear before you, and answer to a complaint that we teach doctrines contra­ry to the gospel?

" Answer. None at all that implies in us, as Pastors and Churches, any pre-eminence of rank or order above the pastor and church in West-Stafford. All the authority we claim is founded, First, In that endearing relation between all christian pastors, as fellow ser­vants of the same Lord, and members of the same body; which necessarily implies a mu­tual care for, and watchfulness over each o­ther. Second, That christian love which in­clines us to perform that duty towards you, which is required by the relation aforesaid. Third, On the right we claim to judge for ourselves with whom Christ permits us to hold communion, and from whom he charges us to withdraw for the sake of our own pu­rity and preservation. Fourth, The example of the church at Jerusalem with regard to unsound doctrine taught in the Gentile churches, Acts xv. and the exhortation given to Timothy to charge some at Ephesus that they teach no other doctrine, 1. Tim. i. 3. Fifth, Your union with us as a church con­sociated by your particular consent, founded in the foregoing christian principles, and sig­nified [Page 17] and ratified by your long practice of sitting and judging with us in similar cases: In the forms of which Consociation it is agreed, 'That all cases of scandal that fall out within the circuit of any of the aforesaid Consociations, shall be brought to a council of the Elders, and also the messengers of the churches within the said circuit. That when any case is orderly brought before any coun­cil of the churches, it shall there be heard and determined; which shall be a final issue, and all parties therein concerned shall sit down and be determined thereby.'

"Question IV. Have we not the same autho­rity upon report made to us by vile informers, that you teach doctrines contrary to the gospel, to require you to appear before us and make answer to charges, that you have to require us to appear before you?

" Answer, In the answer to the first que­stion.

"With regard to the exceptions taken against the words require and judge, contain­ed in the citation sent to Mr. Foster, we claim no other respect nor authority than what is founded in the forementioned prin­ciples of the communion of churches, and expressed in the constitution of consociated churches, which you, as well as we, have adopted. Nor do we mean to impose our judgment, in matters of doctrine, in any sense [Page 18] or measure as binding on you, otherwise than as warranted by those principles, and that constitution. The Council do therefore hereby only signify to you, that they desire and expect you to attend and pay that re­gard, and no other, which is due to brother pastors and sister churches, consociated with you and the church under your pastoral care for the purposes of Christian and ministerial communion."

This is said, "A true copy from the minutes," and is attested by " Aaron Church, Scribe."

Here follow the replies to what the Con­sociation was pleased to call answers to my questions.

[Note. What is put into notes under this head of replies to the Consociation's answers to my questions, was not exhibited to Consociation, but is now added. Want of time and oppor­tunity, during the session of Consociation, obliged me to be as concise as possible in my re­plies to their pretended answers to my que­stions.]

I. Reply to your first answer.

1st. I do not suppose that any Christian or society of Christians have right, from the New-Testament, to withdraw communion from an individual Christian, whether preach­ [...] professor, or from a Christian church, except in the two instances of heresy and [Page 19] scandalous immorality; nor did I ever imagine that you was warranted by the con­stitution of Connecticut churches to deny Christian fellowship on any other accounts. Your Platform, if I can understand it, gives you no such right, but forbids any such thing. Confession of faith, chap. xxi. sect. 2. Preface p. 6. This right of private judg­ment and decision, both you and your Plat­form acknowledge. Now Christ hath ne­ver given individuals, nor churches, any right or privilege, the conscientious use of which will unavoidably subject them to the inconveniences and hardships attending a denial of Christian fellowship and commu­nion: For then it would follow, that a man, by his fidelity to Christ, would, by Christ's rules, be debarred the communion of Christians! Indeed we shall never act right, nor according to the mind of Christ in these matters, until we determine not to withdraw communion from any individual, or Church, except they either believe or act contrary to express scripture, i. e. are heretical or im­moral. If we as individuals, or in council, should have certain doctrines and tenets re­ferred to us, that were evidently not contrary to express scripture, purely that we might have opportunity to give our opinion con­cerning their agreement or disagreement with implicit or doubtful scriptures; we [Page 20] might, warrantably enough give our opini­on, and tell our sense of the scriptures re­ferred to in said doctrines and tenets: But when we say, we will not read, pray, preach or commune at Christ's table with those who differ from us in the interpretation of implicit or doubtful scriptures, we go on for­bidden ground, and treat our fellow men in­juriously. ^*

Gentlemen, if I perfectly understood what [Page 21] you intended by withdrawing communi­on; the utmost you pretend a right to do, it might possibly ease me of many present difficulties.

2dly. I never supposed, neither be­fore nor since my consociation with you, that you held any doctrines, which for­bid ministerial or Christian communion with you.

II. Question 2d. "Is your judgment, as such, with regard to doctrines, in any measure binding on us."

Answer. "No further than it agrees with the word of God."

Pray, Gentlemen, is the above a reply to the question? The question is this, Is your judgment, in point of doctrine, binding upon us? You say, or seem to say, So far as it agrees with the word of God. But who is to be judge of this agreement or disagree­ment of your judgment with the word of God? Am I to judge for myself, or are you to judge for me? Again, granting your judg­ment agreeable to scripture: Am I to re­ceive and embrace it out of deference to to your judgment, or from a sacred regard to the divine authority? And, if from a sa­cred regard to the divine authority, should my judgment respecting the interpretation of implicit or doubtful scriptures differ from yours, does this give you a right to do it, [Page 22] or would it justify you in withdrawing communion from me? ^(a)

III. Question 3d. 'What authority have you to require us to appear before you, and answer to a complaint that we teach doctrines contrary to the gospel?'

Answer. 'None at all that implies in us, as pastors and churches, any pre-eminence of rank or order above the pastor and church of West-Stafford.' If you, as pastors and churches, have no authority that implies any pre-eminence of rank or order above the pastor and church in West-Stafford; you certainly have none at all. Yet you seem to think you have some, or you would not have undertaken to give the grounds of it.

1st. For your first ground of authority. Does this 'endearing relation you speak of; or this care and watchfulness implied in it,' give one pastor a right to decide for another in matters of faith, or not? That it does, is neither self-evident, nor allowed by all men. Here you will allow me to wait for proof. If it does not give any right to decide in mat­ters of faith, then I cannot see the pertinen­cy of its being mentioned in this manner. The grand question is yet undecided.

[Page 23]2dly. Is the 'duty required,' an exercise of a right in one pastor to decide in articles of faith for another? The grand thing in question is yet undecided.

3dly. The things which are essential to Christian communion and fellowship are ei­ther left to be decided by man's judgment, or they are decided by Christ, either expres­ly or by indubitable consequences of what is expressed. If these essentials of Christian communion be left to be decided by human judgment, then one man hath as good a right to judge what and how many they are, as any other man. And if every man hath an equal right, &c. then no man hath any right to impose his judgment concerning these essentials, &c. on any other man: Be­cause the right any one man hath to impose his judgment on another, supposes this other to have no right to judge for himself. Then also no public body of men have a right to impose their judgment, concerning the essen­tials of Christian communion on any other public body, or on any individual: Because the imposition destroys the idea of a right in the public body, or the individual imposed upon, to judge in this case, contrary to the supposition. The right any public body has to impose their judgment, is certainly made up of the sum total of their individual rights. If no individual therefore has any right to im­pose [Page 24] his judgment on any man, then no public body hath: For ever so many cyphers will not amount to a sum. By this it is unde­niably evident that the essentials of church-communion are not left to be decided by men. If these essentials, &c. are decided and determined by Christ, whether it be expressly or by the indubitable consequences of what is expressed; the matter is plain, and mankind are not subjected to any of those great inconveniences attending the various and differing decisions of fallible men.

4thly. To this reply several things.

First. The doctrines taught by those who went from Judea to Antioch did not concern the essentials of Christian communion, at that time, nor of salvation, Acts, xv. 11, 21. Burkitt and Henry on the 21st verse.

Second. No withdrawing of communion was so much as dreamed of by either side in this dispute.

Third. If the doctrines taught by those men had regarded the essentials of religion, the council at Jerusalem had sufficient authority to decide upon them; verse 28. Their de­crees were of divine authority, dictated and directed by the Holy Ghost. When the Consociation, now convened in this place will be pleased to show their authority to preface their result with these words, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us," I shall [Page 25] readily acknowledge the pertinency of men­tioning the council at Jerusalem, as a prece­dent for their convention and procedure; until then I must view it altogether imperti­nent: And do really judge the Consociation would view it so too, had they scriptures to mention that were pertinent to their pur­pose. ^(b)

To the quotation 1 Tim. i. 3. Gentlemen, is it an article in the charge exhibited to you, that the pastor of the church in West-Staf­ford, entertains his people with "fables and endless genealogies," &c. I am perfectly ashamed to see scriptures thus quoted! and I beg, Gentlemen, you would never let it be known, out of your own body, that these texts were used under these circumstances.

5thly. "Answer."—I am utterly igno­rant of any union I ever formed with you, which was signified and ratified by my long [Page 26] practice of sitting and judging with you in similar cases, since I have no remembrance that a similar case ever came under the con­sideration of the Consociation since I com­menced a member: For other matters, be­sides religious opinions and articles of faith, have ever been under consideration when­ever I have attended Consociation, so far as I am able to recollect.

As to the article in the administration of church discipline you refer to, if the article has respect to cases of heresy and scandal, we object not: But would observe that it is no­thing to the purpose for which it is cited. If it has regard to religious sentiments and arti­cles of faith, we utterly disclaim it. First, Because it at once annihilates the right of private judgment; erects an infallible tribu­nal on earth; and gives men liberty to usurp Christ's throne. Second. It would in­volve the compilers of the Platform in a gross contradiction; see Confession of Faith, chap. 21. Sect. 2d. As to the third article to which you refer, respecting cases of scan­dal, &c. I would ask, How is this to your purpose? Do you suppose it is a scandal, a shame and disgrace, for a man to believe for himself? i. e. a censurable evil? Is one man's differing from another in his creed, a scandalous thing, and does it render him un­fit for Christian communion? This cannot [Page 27] be: For then we should all, in this respect, be scandalous creatures; since, perhaps, it would be impossible to find two men who believed just alike in religious matters. Yet, if we grant that two men might thus agree, they might nevertheless differ from a third man, which would be a shame to them. Further, the worthy compilers of the Con­fession of Faith did not look upon it scanda­lous for a man to be allowed liberty of con­science and right of private judgment; see Confession of Faith, Chap. xxi. Sect. 2d. Hence you see the Platform is not a volun­teer in your service, but draughted. By this the Gentlemen of the Consociation may be sensible how they have misinterpreted our venerable ancestors, the compilers of the Platform.

You are so far from taking up the words require and judge, that what you observe is rather an avowal of your right and authority to use and apply them in the form you have done. But be intreated, Gentlemen, to give yourselves time for reflection. The term require imports authority the requirer has over the required. Now I ask, Who gave you this pre-eminence in point of authority? From what source did it derive? Is it 'from Heaven, or of men?' If from Heaven, it is in the Bible; and if in the Bible, pray point me to the grant and form of investiture. If [Page 28] of men, Have not the popish and episcopal churches the same authority, and derived from the same source?

I include both terms, as the authority in exercise both in requiring and judging must be the same.

These replies were sent to, and received by, Consociation while sitting in West-Stafford; but never answered. ^*

A public disputation, oral or by writing, upon any points of doctrine, in which I dif­fered from Consociation, was often request­ed by me and a committee of the church in West-Stafford, and as often refused by Con­sociation.

WHEN Consociation were together in the meeting-house, the first day of their sessions, Nov. 2d, 1779, and had heard the paper read by the Rev. Isaac Foster, containing his denial of their jurisdiction, &c. the Rev. Dan Foster, a member of Consociation, entered his protestation against the design and pro­cedure of Consociation, and desired liberty to offer his reasons for said protestation pub­licly, [Page 29] and at that time; but was prevented offering them then, by reason of objections made to it by several members of Consocia­tion. In the evening following, however, li­berty was obtained to read the paper, contain­ing the reasons of the protestation, to Conso­ciation, though in a much more private way than that in which it was desired to be read, and in which the protestation had been made. For this reason, among others, the paper is now made public. What is in the text only was read to Consociation; the notes and quotations in them have been added since, as a confirmation of the sentiment; or at least to shew that, if the author errs in sentiment, he does not err alone, but in com­pany, and in very respectable company too.

Gentlemen of this venerable Consociation,

I had, the other day, the disagreeable opportunity to read a citation sent to the Rev. Isaac Foster, Pastor of the second church in Stafford; which is as follows,

That one ambassador of Jesus Christ should be required by another, to appear be­fore an earthly tribunal, to answer to charges respecting doctrines and articles of religious faith, certainly savours strongly of spiritual tyranny and despotism. Have these Gen­tlemen really espoused that old, trite, unrea­sonable, anti-scriptural, bloody, persecuting, popish maxim, "That the church," or any body of men on earth, "has a right to de­cree articles of faith!" No. And is it ima­gined, that the decrees of an ecclesiastick coun­cil concerning doctrines and articles of faith [Page 31] imposed upon an American, will be readily received and acquiesced in?

Will Americans, true and genuine sons of the fair Goddess Liberty; who have been for several years, and still are, struggling with all the horrors of war, facing the blazing cannon, encountering nameless perils, diffi­culties, dangers and deaths, to establish her on the throne of these United States, and confirm her salutiferous, balmy regency in this land: Will these, I ask, subscribe creeds, articles of faith, and confessionals, drawn up and imposed on them by the clergy and ec­clesiastick councils and synods! Will they, who neither fled nor submitted at the roar of cannon, and the sound of martial arms in the day of battle, be terrified and awed into submission by the baneless and innoxious thunder of the vatican! Gentlemen, I cer­tainly do not mean to speak diminutively of the clergy, or of ecclesiastical conventions: But I affim, that no clergyman, or number of clergymen, or ecclesiastick council, of whatever denomination, have right to make religious creeds, canons, or articles of faith, and impose them on any man, or church, on earth, requiring subscription to them.

As an evidence, yea, a demonstration of the negative of this question, let it be observ­ed, that the business of creed-making never did any good in the church, never promot­ed [Page 32] the truth, or suppressed heresy; but al­ways, without exception, had the contrary effect.

Some of the peculiar tenets of Arius were esteemed by the Emperor Constantine the Great, and some part of the Christian church, perhaps, heretical and dangerous. Upon this letters missive were issued out by the mode­rator of the first general ecclesiastick council, Constantine, to the bishops of the several provinces of the empire, to meet at Nice in Bythinia, A. D. 325. Accordingly great numbers of the bishops convened together at time and place, with great punctuality, gravi­ty and solemnity! The fulsom encomiums given this august and venerable assembly of bishops, presbyters, deacons, &c. by some partial historians of the court-party of that day, I shall never undertake to repeat: But only to enquire what good this convention did, and whether they suppressed the Arian heresy, and prevented the rising of others, or not? And I know not that I can do this better than by reciting the words of President Dickison concerning this council, as I find him quoted. "The synod of Nice did in­deed impose subscriptions; but what was the consequence, but horrible schisms, convulsi­ons and confusions, until the church was crumbled into parts and parties, each uncha­ritably anathematizing one another? Never [Page 33] was the church infested with such a swarm of hereticks and heresies, as sprang from that corrupt fountain of imposition and subscripti­on. The Arians were not only strengthened in their heresy, and increased in their num­bers by their persecution; but there was quickly added to them the black catalogue of Eustathians, Macedonians, Anomoioi, Euno­mians, Photinians, Luciferians, Anthropomor­phites, Apollonirians, Dimeritae, Massiliani, Antidicomorianitae, Collyridiani, Me [...]angis­monitae, Psathirians, Eutychians, Seleuciani, Patriciani, with a long and almost endless et caetera. All which heresies rose out of the bottomless pit, in about seventy years space, in the same church. Whence one council was convened after another, to draw up new creeds, and impose new subscriptions, until almost every article of Christianity was both condemned and established. This was the mark set by providence upon the first sub­scription of this kind, that was ever imposed in the world; and this the defence and pro­pagation that followed from it. The churches of New-England have all continued from their first foundation non-subscribers; and yet retain their first faith and love. From all this I think, it naturally follows, that sub­scription is not necessary for the being, or well-being of the church; unless hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions and here­sies [Page 34] are necessary to that end." Thus far the judicious and learned President concerning the consequences of creed-making and sub­scription practised by this venerable council. And whoever will be at the pains of search­ing ecclesiastick history for the consequences of the other six general synods, will certain­ly find, that heresies innumerable, strifes, di­visions and sub-divisions, with an endless train of evils, followed them all. ^*

[Page 35]And this was not only so before, but has constantly been the case, ever since the glo­rious reformation from popery begun in En­gland by Wickliff, and afterwards advanced in Germany by Martin Luther and John Cal­vin, &c. Only cast an eye on the history of the Protestant Non-conformists and Puri­tans, the worthy ancestors from whom we sprang; and view the intolerable grievances, hardships, sufferings, imprisonments and [Page 36] deaths they endured in England and other parts of Europe: And whoever can read their history with dry eyes and an unfeeling heart, is born of the rocks indeed! But wherefore did these worthies, these martyrs for the testimony of Jesus, suffer all this? The an­swer is ready; they were non-subscribers; the Bible contained their only credenda. They owned no other Lord of conscience but Jesus Christ. They held themselves accountable [Page 37] to no other Master, for the articles of their faith. They would not sacrifice the rights of conscience to any number of creed and confession-makers on earth.

Now why have these mischievous and de­structive consequences ever followed the practice of creed-making and subscription? The answer is at hand. It has been the in­variable sense of all mankind in every age of the world, and of the church, that they are [Page 38] born free, and with equal right to judge for themselves in matters of religion. And man­kind hath never yet found that the God of nature hath contradicted this common sense, in any revelation he hath been pleased to make to them. This right of judging for themselves therefore, mankind have agreed to hold as sacred from the Deity. When men of proud, haughty, assuming, arrogant spirits have attempted to infringe upon this [Page 39] sacred common right, men of noble minds, that dared to do it, have ever opposed and re­sisted their encroachments.

But, say some, who tremble for the ark of God, and, it is to be hoped, are more sincere than judicious, Must we not endeavour to exterminate heresy? Can we, with a good conscience, permit men to profess or preach heresy? And how shall we prevent the growth and prevalence of heresy any other­wise, [Page 40] than by bringing opinions termed he­retical, to some test or standard of ortho­doxy? ^†

For a reply to these questions, I will,

First, Enquire what heresy is?

Secondly, What is the duty of Christians concerning it?

One man is not to be called an heretick, purely because he differs from another, as to the articles of his faith. For then, either we [Page 41] should all be hereticks, or there could be no heresy among us. If my neighbour is to be denominated an heretick, purely because he differs from me in his opinions about religi­ous matters; then am I also to be denomi­nated an heretick, because I differ from him in my opinions about religious matters: For certainly I differ from my neighbour in my religious tenets, as much as my neighbour differs from me in his.

[Page 42]Again, Men of different religions cannot be hereticks to one another. A Turk is not an heretick to a Jew; nor a Jew to a Christian; nor a Roman catholick to a Pro­testant, &c. for this plain reason, that the rule of their faith is not the same. The al­coran, the law of Moses with various traditi­ons, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and numberless almost traditions of the Old and New Testament, only are the [Page 43] various and differing rules of faith, of the Turks, Jews, Roman catholicks and Protestants.

These things being premised, heresy, among those Christians who acknowledge the word of God to be their only rule of faith, is, a se­paration made in a church on account of things not expressly contained in the word of God. And this separation may be made ei­ther by the major part of a church; or by an individual. ^*

[Page 44]1. By the major part of a church. When the majority of a chuch withdraw commu­nion from the minority, or from an individual; because the minority, or individual, will not sub­scribe to certain opinions and articles of faith, not expressly contained in the word of God.

2. When the minority, or any individual, will leave the communion of a church, and separate themselves from her, because she will not subscribe, as articles of her faith, certain tenets and doctrines, not expressly contained in the rule of faith they have a­dopted, the Holy Scriptures.

These two are hereticks. And thus a major, a minor part, or an individual may be hereticks. They may make a separation in a christian society, of the same religion, adopt­ing the same rule of faith, by requiring sub­scription to certain tenets, points of doctrine, or articles of faith, not expressed in the adopt­ed rule.

And this is both the grammatical meaning of the word heresy, and St. Paul's meaning of the word heretick in his letter to Titus, iii. 10. Haireesis and haireetikos both come from the verb haireoo, capio, eligo; which signifies to choose or elect: Heresy therefore grammatically signifies choice, election, sect; and a heretick is a sectary, or one who hath made a choice or election. ^*

[Page 45]St. Paul says of the heretick, "he is sub­verted, and sinneth, being condemned of him­self." And what he here says of him is perfectly consistent with what hath been said above concerning an heretick. The Bible is the only rule of faith a Christian church hath adopted; an individual in that church, whether preacher or hearer, it matters not, hath formed certain opinions, not expressly contained in the Bible, and insists upon it thas his brethren shall subscribe them. In so doing he subverts the foundation on which the church was built, he greatly sinneth and is condemned of himself; for he subscribed the Bible as the only rule of Christian faith, and now will substitute something else, as the rule of his faith, his own dogmas and opini­ons.

The learned and judicious critick, Mr. Poole, gives the same meaning to the words heresy and heretick, as is above given. Says he, "Est ergo hic hereticus, is qui per opini­onem, [Page 46] de ecclesia partus facit; qui in id dispu­tat ut sibi discipulos paret unitate contemptâ." Poli Synopsis in locum.

II. Let us enquire what is the duty of Christians concerning an heretick? And when an heretick appears in the church, all Christians, who subscribe the Bible as their only rule of faith, are bound to avoid him, to turn away from him, and to refuse and for­bid all free and familiar conversation and in­tercourse with him. They may and ought to treat him very much in the same manner they would treat an excommunicate. St. Paul does not say excommunicate, but reject him, paraitou, pass by him, neglect him; for this good reason, that he hath excommuni­cated himself, by subverting the foundation of church communion and fellowship.

And this treatment of the heretick is agre­able to the sentiment of the learned critick before quoted. Says he, "Non ampliùs ad­mitte ad colloquium, sed aversare; in externa ecclesiae congregatione manere nec patere; ex­communica dum resipiscat; notam illi inure ut bomini qui censurae ecclesiae subjacet, & sube omnes familiare ejus consortium fugere."

"Non dicit, excommunica; nam ipsi ultrò communionem deserunt." Poli Synopsis in locum.

Now we have a fair and ready reply to the questions before put. 1. Must we not [Page 47] endeavour to exterminate heresy? Reject, re­fuse it? 2. Can we with a good conscience permit men to profess or preach heresy? In a church that adopts the Bible as her only rule of faith, if a man either profess or preach that she ought to adopt something else; for instance, several notions and tenets he has formed, in addition to the Bible, as her rule of faith; the church must admonish him a first and second time; if he still persist in professing or preaching his heresy, the church must refuse, reject and avoid him. 3. How shall we prevent the growth and prevalence of heresy, any otherwise than by bringing o­pinions, termed heretical, to some test or standard of orthodoxy? St. Paul tells us, an heretick is "condemned of himself:" If so, cer­tainly there can be no necessity for bringing his opinions to any test or standard of ortho­doxy. ^*

[Page 48]In a christian church which subscribes the Bible as her only rule of faith, no man can possibly be an heretick while he insists upon nothing else as the rule of faith, or necessary to church-communion, or essential to salvati­on: But whenever any man, in such a church, does insist upon subscription to any thing else but the Bible, as the rule of faith, or neces­sary to church-communion, or essential to salvation, he is an heretick, and must be treat­ed as such.

But some sincere conscientious people may still ask, Is there not such a thing as false doctrine, short of heresy, which is not to be endured in our churches? I am sensible a reply to this question will bring the great and important business of ecclesiastick councils, conventions, and synods, under consideration: But I am the rather willing to attempt a re­ply on that account.

And in order to a reply, let several things be premised.

1. A preacher of religion is the sole judge, for himself, with regard to the truth or fals­hood of the doctrines he delivers. If it were otherwise, and a man were obliged to preach what other men judged to be truth, he must then be obliged to do the very thing for which our Saviour condemned the Scribes [Page 49] and Pharisees, i. e. to teach for doctrines the commandments of men. Nor could he possi­bly comply with St. Paul's direction to the Christian preacher, "Take heed unto thy doc­trine." Unless it be said, that the Christian preacher is to take heed that his doctrine a­gree with human creeds and articles of faith!

2. The Bible contains expressly every thing necessary to Christian communion in this world, and eternal felicity and happiness in the world to come, 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor­rection, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works.

3. Each brother in the church, and every hearer of a preached gospel, are sole judges for themselves, with regard to the truth or falshood of what they hear; its agreement or disagreement with the unerring standard the word of God. "To the law and to the testimony: If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. viii. 20, was the direction given to the Jewish church with regard to what they heard. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: Because many false prophets are gone out into the world," 1 John iv. 1, is the directio [...] [Page 50] given to the Christian church with regard to what they hear.

4. No man, or body of men, no ecclesiastick council, convention, or synod, of whatever name, have any right to judge for any Christian on earth, but themselves, whether preacher or hearer, what he shall preach or what he shall hear; whether what he preaches, or hears, be true or false, agreeable or repugnant to the Bible. ^*

In proof of which I have already observ­ed, that no ecclesiastick council of any deno­mination, that hath ever been in the Christian church, hath ever done any good, hath ever promoted truth, or suppressed error; but al­ways the contrary; when ever they have un­dertaken to judge of doctrines for others, or [Page 51] to make creeds and formulas for the churches.

The truth of this proposition is also a na­tural and necessary inference from the three propositions just premised.

The New Testament every where sup­poses all men, both preachers and hearers, sole judges, for themselves, with regard to the truth and falshood of doctrines of religi­on, and their agreement and repugnancy to the unerring standard.

Now, to answer the question put, Whe­ther there is not such a thing as falshood, or false doctrine, short of heresy, which is not to be endured in our churches?

I doubt not the possibility of a man's preaching false doctrines; doctrines not con­tained either explicitly or implicitly in the Bible; yea, it may be granted possible, per­haps, that a man may preach things contrary to what is thus contained in the Bible: Not contrary to what is expressly contained in the the Bible, but contrary to what may be there­in implied. Now, if a man preach nothing contrary to any express proposition of the Bible, though he may often deliver things repugnant to what is implied therein; yet, so long as his church, the people of his charge, are easy under his ministry, and do not discern the repugnancy of his doctrines to the Bible; no man, or body of men, no ecclesiastick council, of whatever name, have [Page 52] any divine right to disturb this worshipping assembly of Christians, by any of their no­tions, opinions or decrees whatsoever; for the reasons above given, viz. that the preach­er hath a sole right of judging, for himself, with regard to the truth or falshood of his doctrines, and their agreement or disagree­ment with the unerring standard: And that his hearers have also a sole right of judging, for themselves, with regard to the truth or falshood of the doctrines they hear, and their agreement or disagreement with the unerring standard.

I have put the case now as favourably as possible on the side of those who hold the popish tenet above with reference to the au­thority of ecclesiastick councils. For it hath been generally the case, that a man charged with preaching false doctrine, and things disagreeing with the implications of the Bi­ble; hath been guilty of delivering some things contrary to long prescription, and hoa­ry creeds and confessionals, made by men, and unjustly and injuriously imposed on man­kind! And I greatly fear, yea, I know, if au­thentick history does not lie, that both preach­ers and professors of religion have oftner been persecuted, proscribed, imprisoned, deprived and slain, for preaching and professing doctrines and opinions contrary to sacred creeds and confessions of faith, and the established religi­on, than for contradicting any thing implied [Page 53] in the Bible! Witness the cruelties and hor­rid sufferings of that part of Christ's church which fled into the wilderness, and endea­voured to shelter themselves in the low countries and vales of Piedmont—of the Wickliffites in England—the Protestants in Germany—the Non-conformists and Puritans, our pious and illustrious ancestors, in Great-Britain, and numberless others, in all parts of Europe. Were these worthies always persecuted and tormented to death, because they departed from the Bible-creed in their preaching and professions! Pride, ambition, lust of power, instigating men to practise upon that exploded popish maxim, were the formal cause of the sufferings and deaths of these faithful witnesses of Jesus; who, long since, wear bright, glorious and unfading crowns, in the kingdom of his father and their father.

When the case is really such in any church or worshipping assembly of Christians, that they universally, or very generally, disapprove of, and are disgusted with, the doctrines and tenets of their preacher, as judging them in­consistent with reason, and repugnant to the word of God; I know not of any power on earth that has a right to oblige that church, or worshipping assembly (after they have taken all reasonable pains rightly to inform their own judgments, like the noble Bereans of old, by searching the scriptures) still to live [Page 54] under his administrations. But yet no ec­clesiastick council hath any business here; so far at least as the matter relates to opini­ons and doctrines preached and heard in this church. If an ecclesiastick council be called in by the church and people in this situation, purely to advise as to the expediency or in­expediency of dismissing the pastor; I have not so much to object against it: Though I confess I know not that even this measure is warrantable, from any thing that is either expressed or implied in the New Testament.

Put the case, that a very few individuals in a church, or worshipping assembly of Christi­ans, are dissatisfied with some particular te­nets and doctrines of the preacher; whilst however the pastor and nine tenths of the church and people are agreed and satisfied as to these tenets and doctrines. Neither the pas­tor, nor majority of the people, pretend to impose subscription to these obnoxious tenets, as they are called, on the minority, or any individual. Neither of these tenets is con­trary to express scripture, nor expressed in the scripture, and therefore not essential to church-communion and salvation; nor necessary to be believed by any Christian, nor denied. For every thing essential to church-commu­nion and salvation is expressed in the Bible; and every thing necessary to be denied and rejected by a Christian man is contrary to ex­press [Page 55] scripture. This is evident upon the least reflection, for certainly a good and gra­cious God designs the present peace and fu­ture happiness of mankind: He would not therefore leave things so in his word, the on­ly rule of the Christian's faith, as to endan­ger the present peace, much less the future happiness of mankind: But if every thing ne­cessary to be received or rejected by the Christian man, were not expressed in the Bi­ble, or plainly and indubitably contrary to ex­press scripture; both the present peace and future happiness of men would be endanger­ed; for scarce two men can be found who agree in their interpretations of implicit or doubtful scriptures, or in any articles or points of doctrine neither expressed in the Bible, nor indubitably contrary to what is there ex­pressed: Therefore we may depend upon it, that the spirit of God hath expressed, and ex­plained expressly, every necessary article of the Christian creed. Therefore the tenets and doctrines complained of, are not of the es­sentials of religion. However, representati­on is made to the Association of these obnoxi­ous tenets; the Association take pains to in­form themselves in the matter, and advise to the convention of the Consociation to hear and judge on the premises. The preacher is desired and even required to appear before this venerable body of clergymen and laies, to [Page 56] answer to charges exhibited against him, for preaching and holding such dangerous doc­trines!

Now, Is not all this mighty stir perfectly right? What will the poor criminal preach­er do? And what will this august assembly of divines and philosophers do?

1. To the question, Is not all this stir per­fectly right? I reply, This convention of Consociation is, in my humble opinion, wrong, mistaken, unadvised, anti-scriptural, and oppressive. ^*

[Page 57]In proof of the truth of this reply, I ap­peal to the wretched and destructive con­sequences of all such conventions which have ever been in the Christian church; to the sentiments of the purest and best part of the church of Christ, ever since he was on earth; to the sentiments of our worthy and illustri­ous ancestors, who fled from oppression and ecclesiastick tyranny in their native country, and first settled this land; and, what is more, I [Page 58] appeal to the New Testament. And in vin­dication of this reply I stand solemnly bound, in point of honour, to appear: For I am not a son of the "bond woman, but of the free."

2. As to the second question, What will the poor criminal preacher do? I cannot certain­ly determine what he will do, though I am satisfied what I should do in a like situation. I should certainly deny the jurisdiction of [Page 59] the Consociation, and insist, that they shew­ed their warrant for sitting, from reason and the sacred oracles: And, until this was done to my own, and the reasonable satis­faction of the impartial world, I should de­cline to answer a single question concerning the doctrines impeached.

3. For the third question, What will this august assembly of divines and philosophers do? The following things may be received in reply. ^* Since they have met together in this solemn manner, they will doubtless advise the complainants, that, as the doctrines in dispute are neither expressed in the Bible, nor indubitably contrary to any thing therein ex­pressly contained; having been constantly disputed in the Christian church, for upwards of 1500 years; as they have been constantly held and denied by different divines, purely on account of their different interpretation of [Page 60] implicit or doubtful scriptures: And, as nei­ther the pastor nor church do pretend to re­quire subscription to them of any individual in said church, or in the world; but leave all men to search the scriptures and judge for themselves, concerning the truth or falshood of the doctrines, and consequently to receive or reject them, as they shall finally deter­mine: I say, they will doubtless, in conse­quence of these considerations, advise the complainants, that they carefully and prayerfully search the rule of their faith, the Bible, endeavouring to form their religious tenets and articles of faith upon the expressions of scripture; leaving their minister and the church to which they belong, to enjoy their own opinions relative to the interpretation of implicit or doubtful scriptures: And, that they, by no means, attempt to make a schism in the church on account of opinions not ex­pressly in, nor expressly contrary to, the only rule of faith adopted in their church; lest they commence hereticks and be treated as such. Heresy being, as before explained, the making a separation in Christian communion, on account of opinions not expressly in the rule of faith, nor contrary to any thing ex­pressly contained in it.

A short animadversion on the citation shall finish my present design. ‘The Association, having taken opportunity for enquiry and [Page 61] information in the case, have advised that it is highly expedient that the Consociation of this district be convened as soon as may be with conveniency, TO HEAR AND JUDGE ON THE PREMISES.’

‘This is therefore to desire and REQUIRE you to APPEAR before said CONSOCI­ATION, &c. to answer to the CHARGES contained in the paper beforementioned.’

We need look no further back into eccle­siastick history than the reign of Queen Mary of England, of glorious memory! to find great numbers of citations which run in the same language, sent to the laborious and painful servants of Jesus Christ, to call them into the high-commission court, to answer to charges of heresy. "Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad," says Solomon.

I plainly discern charges of heresy, citations, trials, censures, imprisonments, if the civil go­vernment would permit, deprivations, ga­thering thick around such courteous papers as that under consideration. I mean that the spirit of the paper, not the Gentlemen who composed it, gives me these ideas. O! this odious business of creed-making and sub­scription! it hath shed more human blood than all the civil wars since Christ!

Be pleased to look yonder, and behold your neighbours, your dearest friends, your sons and brothers, braving every danger, [Page 62] struggling with countless hardships, difficul­ties and deaths, in order to ease off from you and their dear country, the intolerable weight of oppression and civil tyranny! whilst you at home, in your easy chairs, are, in my humble opinion, fast riveting the more gall­ing and intolerable chains of ecclesiastick ty­ranny, on their necks, and the necks of their children and their children's children!

As to the second name to this paper, Charles Backus, his youth, inexperience ^* and want of sufficient reading and discernment, might possibly plead a little in his favour, and mitigate somewhat the severity of cen­sure. But my tongue cannot express the amazement of my mind, upon sight of the name, Theodore Hinsdale, set to such an un­christian paper! A man of upwards of 40 years, of maturity of judgment, reading and discernment! What will not hoary prescripti­on do, when men do not sufficiently exam­ine for themselves!

These, Gentlemen, are the reasons of my protestation against the present procedure of Consociation in the second society in Staf­ford, Nov. 2, 1779.

III. STRICTURES on the REPORT of a cer­tain anonymous COMMITTEE.

ALTHOUGH I repeatedly requested a copy of the result of Consociation at West-Stafford, before they left the ground, and was as often promised one as soon as it could be prepared; yet after waiting about a month, and when I had almost concluded the Gentlemen had forgot their promise, or made it with some mental reservation, I received, very much worn and defaced, a Manuscript, indorsed on the back in the following words, " A copy of the Re­sult of Consociation at West-Stafford, Nov. 2, 1779." I unfolded it, and found it attest­ed by Theodore Hinsdale, and Aaron Church, Scribes; Scribes of what I could no deter­mine, unless of the Committee. I then look­ed for the beginning, and found none, or rather that it began in the middle.—I then looked for its regular form and found it had none; I then began in the middle and read it through, and void and darkness was on the face of it throughout, like the original chaos represented Gen. i. I then looked to see who were of the Consociation, at what time, and in what place they held their session, and found no place, time nor person; I then looked to see who was the Complainant, what the complaint, who the Defendant and [Page 64] where residing, in fine who the parties were that appeared to implead each other, and found no body and nothing. I am obliged therefore to call it the copy of a Result or Report of a certain anonymous Committee, at­tested, as such by the two men before named, and must still wait that their promise of a copy be accomplished, while I repeat my re­quest of a true, full, and properly attested copy, not of the Report of a nameless Com­mittee, but of Consociation, that identical Con­sociation that set in judgment upon my creed last fall, at West-Stafford.

The following is the Report of this anony­mous Committee.

As the reader has the report before him, I think it needless to repeat the articles in the following strictures.

ART. I. &c.—Voted dangerous and con­trary to gospel, according to charge, and dis­approved for the following reason: 'The word of God, say they, is full and express in asserting that men are born into the world with corrupt and depraved natures.'—Very confidently said, but where are these full and express scriptures to be found in the word of God? Why, Gen. vi. 5, is one; speaking of the wickedness of man, it is said, the imagi­nation of the thoughts of his heart are only evil [Page 72] continually.—But what would they infer from these words? Was the wickedness of the antediluvian world referred to in Gen. vi. 5, their natural corruption and depravity? If it was then this natural corruption is not universal, since Noah must be excepted who was a just man, perfect in his generations and walked with God, see the 9th verse: Or was this wickedness an evidence of their natural cor­ruption? If so, then by parity of reason Adam himself was naturally, or as he came into existence, corrupt, for he eat the forbidden fruit; and the angels, at least many of them, were created vicious beings, for they revolted from the Almighty: Or, does the evidence of the natural corruption of the human race depend upon the universality of the corruption and depravity of mankind referred to? Then certainly Adam and Eve were naturally de­praved; for, when they only were existent, mankind were surely universally depraved and that without any exception; whereas there was one man righteous in the age referred to. Hence it is very apparent that the corruption of mankind in the age referred to, was nei­ther natural corruption itself, nor an evidence of it. It is the unhappiness of some Gen­tlemen, that they ascribe to human nature simply as existing, what belongs to it only as men have corrupted it by a long course of continued impiety: Thus they make all men [Page 73] children of wrath by nature, from the Apostle's words to the Ephesians, ii. 2, 3. which evidently relate to their former state of Heathenism, when they lived in gross idolatry and under the government of the prince of darkness, as the context plainly shows. Is it a just and conclusive method of reasoning, to argue from the state of human nature, when corrupted by actual sins and rebel­lions, to its state and condition as it comes into existence? Because human nature is capable of being viciated, and is in fact viciated, by personal wickedness, therefore it is vicious as it proceeds from the finishing hands of its maker? Because the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of a moral wicked agent are evil, therefore the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of one who is not a moral agent, viz. an infant, are evil? Because the scriptures inform of a man, or number of men, who by a con­tinued course of wickedness, had contracted fixed habits of villainy to that degree that all their thoughts and imaginations were evil, shall we take this to be a full and express scripture assertion that men are born into the world vicious and depraved? If a man in a long course of open impiety, is finally left of God to commit murder, and dies on a gibbet, is this an indubitable evidence that he was born into the world a wicked wretch, with a murderous disposition? It seems so, or Gen. [Page 74] vi. 5. would never have been cited in proof of the state of mankind by nature, or as they came into the world. If such reasoning is not to be allowed, then the text cited is not to the purpose.

The next scripture cited by the committee as expressly asserting that man is born into the world with a corrupt and vicious nature, is Job xiv. 4, 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.' Let the reader only turn his attention to the preceeding verses of the chapter, and he will find that the cleanness and uncleanness referred to in the words as they stand connected with the context, have no reference at all to moral evil, but only and simply to the shortness, vanity and afflictions of the present life— that we are liable to many evils in the pre­sent state; our days are few and trouble­some, we are cut down like a flower, and flee as a shadow. As parents are frail and mor­tal, so they propagate a frail and mortal na­ture, for nothing can be more perfect than its original: This is Job's reasoning, and the evident design of the words: How then is native corruption and viciousness expressly as­serted in these words, when they have no manner of relation to any such thing.

The next full and express scripture for na­tural depravity used by the Committee, is John iii. 6. 'That which is born of the Flesh [Page 75] is Flesh.' i. e. that which is born in the sense you Nicodemus speak of, is but a mere man constituted of body and soul, or the mere con­stitution and powers of a man in their natural state, and so not fit for the vision of God be­cause not holy; therefore our saviour informs him that a different birth was necessary in order to qualify for the kingdom of God, viz. a spiritual one: But not a word is there here about original depravity, or that we are born vicious.

Another express scripture is Eph. ii. 3. which we have mentioned already to have reference to a state of heathenism, and needs nothing further said upon it.

The committee proceed—"That man de­rives a corrupt nature from Adam is abun­dantly plain from Gen. v. 3. And Adam be­gat a son in his own likeness, after his image; not after the image of God, in which we read man was first made, Gen. i. 27, 'God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him,' but in his cor­rupted fallen likeness." Powerful reasoning! Adam begat a son in his likeness, and what would they infer from this? So the in­feriour orders of creatures, according to a di­vine establishment, beget their young in their likeness: Is this an evidence of natural viciousness? No more, I fancy, is intended by the words, than that Adam, as a worker, [Page 76] together with God, begat an human reasona­ble creature, and therefore in his likeness; i. e. he begat a man like himself, having the same nature that God had given him. That it has no reference to the qualities and pro­pensities of Adam's mind, or his son's, is evi­dent, unless minds are propagated as bodies are, by natural generation, and Adam was the father of Seth's spirit, as he was of his flesh: And if this be the case, I see not why one moral quality may not be propagated as well as another; holiness as well as sin, vir­tue as well as vice; for viciousness is no more of the essence of the mind than virtue. If then minds are propagated in the same man­ner as bodies are the qualities of these minds are in like manner propagated, for they are not to be separated in any given instance; by consequence an holy mind will propagate an holy mind, and vice versa: In the same manner that a vicious moral quality may be propogated, in the same manner a virtuous moral quality may be propogated. If this reasoning be not good, let the fallacy be shewn. But the truth is, moral viciousness has its seat in the mind, and the Almighty is the direct and immediate author of the hu­man mind, and therefore stiled in the scrip­tures the father of our spirits, Heb. xii. 9. ^* [Page 77] and said to form the spirit of man within him, Zech. xii. 1. Hence if Adam's son had any vicious qualities in his mind connate with the existence of it, God placed them there, from whom his mind immediately derived, which makes the pure and holy God the au­thor and prime source of all the wickedness that ever existed among the human race: But, 'are not my ways equal?' saith the Al­mighty. May he defend us from such a blasphemous imputation!—I would here just observe that the word own, which the Com­mittee appear to place the stress of their rea­soning from Gen. v. 3, upon, is not in the original, but supplied by the translators, and the text ought to be read thus— 'And A­dam begat in his likeness, in his image:' To make it therefore an emphatical word is quite unjustifiable.

From what has already been observed, is not this consequence unavoidable, viz. that mankind are not corrupt and vicious as they come into the world? It is capable, I think of demonstration that whatever viciousness there is in the human mind, as it comes in­to existence, must proceed from God equally with the mind itself. Does it not appear vain then for any man to reason from those words Gen. v. 3, to prove derived viciousness, when agreeable to such reasoning this vicious­ness must derive immediately from the [Page 78] deity? Further, are these Gentlemen of the Committee absolutely certain that Adam, when he begat Seth, was not a convert, a truly religious and holy man? He was now 130 years old, and had lived nearly as long under the gospel dispensation; if he ever em­braced the gospel and became a virtuous man, as has been always believed in the church, it is in the highest degree probable he was now a virtuous and godly man. And if moral pravity may be propagated by natural gene­ration, as the Committee suppose, why not moral virtue also? And if moral virtue may be thus propagated, why is it not quite as likely Seth was born virtuous as vicious? I think it lies upon the Committee to make it evident that virtue cannot be propagated as well as depravity; or that Adam, when he begat Seth, was not a virtuous man. Until then I must look upon the argument from this text, in favour of the natural viciousness of mankind, as absolutely inconclusive and prodigiously uncharitable.

If the Gentlemen I oppose will avow the opinion, that minds are capable of division and multiplication, and therefore, like the ani­mal part, are propagated by natural generati­on, they might give a better account of their derived viciousness; although in this case to impute guilt to the posterity of Adam, and pu­nish them on account of this derived vicious­ness [Page 79] would be unjust and unequal, since it was by virtue of no act or choice of theirs— to which they had never given their assent or consent.

The next scripture they have seen fit to produce as express proof of our being born vicious, is Psalm li. 5. 'I was shapen in ini­quity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' The words, agreeable to the Hebrew, ought to be rendered— 'I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse, or nourish me,' which words have no reference, I conceive, to his simple formation in his mother's womb, but import no more than that he was a great sinner, early went astray, and had contracted strong habits of vice. Job speaks of guiding the widow from his mother's womb, Job xxxi. 18. The wicked are said to go astray from the womb, as soon as born, speaking lies, Psalm lviii. 3, and the house of Jacob is called a transgressor from the womb, Isaiah xlviii. 8. These scriptures are of like import with the words of the Psalmist under consi­deration, and intend no more than that they did these things very early, as soon as capable; not that Job guided the widow, the wicked went astray, and the Jews transgressed as soon as born, even in an infant state, for this was utterly impossible. If we take the words in the literal sense of our translation, it is mani­fest David chargeth his sin and wickedness, [Page 80] not upon himself, but upon some other per­son; for, it will be granted on all hands, he did not shape and conceive himself: Who then shaped him? Answer, God, Psalm cxix. 73, and Job xxxi. 15. That God made us, is an unanswerable reply to all reasonings from such scriptures as these, or any other, to prove natural viciousness, and is an incon­testable evidence that they are grossly misun­derstood and abused, while strained to pa­tronize such a blasphemous sentiment.

The next scriptures advanced as being express in the case of derived viciousness, are " Rom. v. 12. Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—and 18, therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation—and 19, by one man's disobedience many were made sin­ners." The Committee mean to prove from Rom. v. 12, that man derives a corrupt na­ture from Adam, i. e. a nature morally cor­rupt, or vicious—' Wherefore by one man, sin entered into the world:' Here the Apostle affirms that sin entered into the world by one man, i. e. Adam. 'And death by sin.' What sin? Whose sin? Evidently Adam's sin, his one sin of eating the forbidden fruit. 'And so death passed upon all men." That is, by the one sin of the one man Adam, the whole hu­man race became mortal. 'For that all [Page 81] have sinned.' How is this? Does the Apo­stle here affirm, that all men have sinned, contradistinguishing sin from suffering? This would be to contradict himself in the same verse. He had just affirmed, that one man sinned, and that death came upon all for, or in consequence, of that one sin: Now to make him affirm in the last clause, that all have sinned, would make him palpably contradict himself. Further, it would not then be by one sin 'that death hath passed upon all men;' but by many sins, even the sins of all men, directly repugnant to the express words of the inspired writer. That mortality came into the world, and passed upon all men, by Adam's one sin, is proved from the text: But that mankind derive a corrupt na­ture from Adam is not expressed in the text most certainly; nor can it be inferred from any expression in the text, with the least sha­dow of probability, except the last clause: And that the Apostle doth not mean to be literally understood in this clause, is undenia­bly evident, unless he contradicts himself, which we may not suppose. He evidently means suffering by the word sin, suffered by sinned, as is very usual in the sacred writings. Further that St. Paul does not mean to af­firm that all mankind sinned in Adam, is e­vident from this, that he affirms all are liable to death, on account of Adam's sin, which [Page 82] he would not have done, had he meant that all mankind had sinned, and so became liable to death on account of their own sin; which they would have been, had they all sinned in Adam.

As to verses, 18th and 19th, cited by the Committee, I shall observe nothing upon them, the above being a full reply to any thing they can gather from those verses to prove what they undertook to establish from ex­press scripture, viz. that man derives a cor­rupt nature from Adam; ^* but would here express my astonishment that any man, or number of men, unless professed Deists and Infidels, should thus abuse scripture, by a designed partial citation of it, as the Com­mittee has done; I say designed, for I can­not but suppose they were conscious, that a fair and full citation of the 18th and 19th [Page 83] verses of Rom. v, would have made it appear to any one of common understanding who should read their report, that these scriptures were not to their purpose. I must entreat them for the future to pay a little more res­pect to inspiration, than to abuse it in this manner, lest they fall under the heavy charge of handling the word of God deceitfully.

The Committee then proceed to propound two questions, viz.

I. If children are not polluted why then are they baptized?

Answer. Baptism is a seal of the covenant, the badge of Christ's disciples; and infants are baptized, to distinguish them from the world as such, by divide order: And not to wash away original sin as the Papists dream.

II. Why necessary that infants be regene­rated for the enjoyment of God?

Answer. Because infants are not personal­ly and inwardly holy as they come into be­ing, though many of them are federally so, and therefore not fit for the enjoyment of God, or the kingdom of glory; for with­out holiness no one shall see the Lord.

Thus after misinterpreting and misapply­ing the above scriptures, and propounding two questions; as if conscious of victory and that truth was with them, they close their observations upon this first article in the fol­lowing words—"Thus EVIDENT it [Page 84] is ^* to every candid and impartial mind, that man is born into the world with a sinful na­ture, not in the moral image of God, conse­quently not free from guilt or desert of pu­nishment" !!!—But where is the evidence of these conclusions? Where the premises from [Page 85] whence these unaccountable consequences result? "Man born into the world with a sinful nature." If this be true, God is the au­thor of this sinfulness, as he is the author of man's nature; this I have shewn. "Man not now made in the moral image of God." If by the moral image of God, these Gentle­men intend holiness; I am not their oppo­nent, never supposing that we were born, in this sense, holy.—I know of no scripture that says that any man was ever born, or ever made in the image of God in this sense, that he was made holy: If the Committee will pro­duce one express scripture (as, upon this sub­ject they deal altogether in express scriptures) to prove that any one man ever came out of the hands of God an holy creature, the sen­timent shall, at once, have a place in my creed Perhaps Gen. i. 27, will be cited as an express scripture in the case— 'So God made man in his own image, in the image of God made he him.' Very true, so man was made in the image of God after the flood, which is given as a reason against murder, and that the murderer should be punished with death, see Gen. ix. 6, 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man,' Both in Gen. i. 27, and ix. 6, the original word translated image is the very same: To say therefore, that the image of God in Gen. i. [Page 86] 27, intends holiness, and in Gen. ix. 6, in­tends something else, essentially distinct and different, is altogether without evidence, and is taking a licence to say any thing; especially when the inspired historian, in those words, plainly refers to the manner and condition of man's first creation, and founds his reason against murder upon this supposition, viz. that mankind were then made in the image of God in like manner as he was at first, which, upon a different supposition, would be utterly inconclusive. However, it lies upon the Committee to prove that the image of God, Gen. i. 27, was holiness; and upon such an important point, I shall receive no­thing, as proof, but express scripture; for I do not suppose that such a cardinal point in the system of some men's divinity, is left to be spelt out, and inferred by way of conse­quence from implicit and doubtful scriptures; which, when they shall have produced, these express scriptures will equally prove that men in Noah's time, and by consequence to the end of the world, were made, in like manner, in the image of God, i. e. holy.—That men after the flood were in the image of God, and his favourites, as they came in­to being, equally with Adam, is further ma­nifest from the original blessing being repeat­ed, without any variation, except a little en­largement, and pronounced on the future [Page 87] formation of the human nature see Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3. And is established by the Apostle James, who informs us, chap. iii. ver. 9, that men indifinitely are made in the similitude of God. "Man not free from guilt or desert of punishment." What, pray are they guilty of as they come into existence, and why guilty? What punishment are they liable to, and why liable? Did they ever transgress any divine law, or give their suffrage that any body else should in their name, and on their behalf? Have they any quality either of mind or body, as they come into being, that they did not receive, while themselves were altogether passive and inconscious? Does the Committee mean to adopt the 9th article of the 39 ar­ticles of the church of England, viz, "That original, or birth sin, is the fault or corrup­tion of the nature of every man, that is na­turally engendered of the offspring of Adam; and in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation?" Ori­ginal sin, one of the most learned bishops of the church of England, hath frankly declar­ed "to be a contradiction in terms; for as the word sin implies an act of the will, so the word original implies the direct contrary; and supposes the criminal act to have been committed by another, to which act that person to whom the sin is imputed, nei­ther contributed by thought, word, or [Page 88] deed." ^* Says another famous writer upon the above article—"To affirm that every mem­ber of the human race, upon the account of Adam's sin, doth really merit God's wrath and damnation, i. e. that infants are no soon­er born than they become just objects of God's heavy anger and deserve to be damned: To be damned for an act in which they had not the least share; an act committed six thousand years before they came into being. That the all-perfect and blessed God is an­gry even to wrath, with the work of his own hands, who never have done, were never ca­pable of doing the least thing to offend him. This will be pronounced a doctrine so abhor­rent to nature, to justice, to truth (may it not be said, so impious and prophane) that it is can­didly presumed, that there is not one sen­sible and sober clergyman in the kingdom who believes it." ^†

ART. III. &c.—Voted dangerous by the council: It must undoubtedly be dangerous if voted so: But what reasons do they offer to prove this article dangerous, besides their vote? Why truly they have found more express scriptures— Rom. iv. 5, 6. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness—Even as David also describeth [Page 89] the blessedness of the man unto whom God im­puteth righteousness without works;' and then go on to observe upon the words—"In these words the blessings of the covenant of grace are expressly suspended on faith, but they could not be, if obedience in dictinction from faith were the only condition."—But, pray, who are these Gentlemen contending with? Not surely with me, but with their own shadow—with a man of straw of their own manufacture. Did I ever contradistinguish obedience from faith, either in public or pri­vate? Would this anonymous committee hold the public in hand that I fancy obedience, in distinction from faith, is the only condition of the covenant of grace? It seems so; and herein they have abused me, and imposed upon the public. Could they imagine me so weak and childish? A just cause needs no such measures to support it. ^* Faith is an act [Page 90] of gospel obedience, equally with repentence, or any other religious exercise whatever, and declared to be such in the sacred pages, see John vi. 29, 'Jesus answered and said unto them, this is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.' And 1 John iii. 23, 'And this is his commandment, that ye should believe on the name of his son Jesus Christ." When I say obedience is the only condition, &c. I do, and ever did, include faith as an act of obedience equal with any exercise whatever, either of mind or body, and in­deed the first act in the series; for I never supposed that men would obey the gospel while their minds did not assent to the gos­pel as true, and from God. The Committee seem to suppose that the blessings of the new covenant are suspended on faith, as dis­tinguished from obedience, and would father this distinction on St. Paul in the words by them cited; but this is an evident pervertion of his obvious sense and meaning: The plain design of the Apostle in this chapter is to convince the Jews that they had no pre­tence to glory, or exalt themselves above the [Page 91] Gentiles, now in the time of the gospel be­cause descended from Abraham: But how does he do this? Why first, by shewing them that their father Abraham was justified by faith, and so had not whereof to glory, since he received righteousness as a gift, and not a debt by obedience to the legal dispen­sation. Secondly, Because neither they of the circumcision, nor they who had the law, but they only who had faith were the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was made. Therefore the blessing of justification was intended for the Gentiles, and bestowed on them, as well as on the Jews, and upon the same ground. The opposition therefore the Apostle makes between faith and work, in the 5th and 6th verses, is not an opposition between faith and work in obedience to the gospel of Christ, as the Committee would feign have it; but between faith and work in obedience to the Jewish law, to which the Jews were surprizingly attached, and in obe­dience to which they looked for righteous­ness and life. To impute righteousness in the 6th verse, and not to impute sin in the 8th, intend the same thing, as Locke well ob­serves, the Apostle in these two verses using these two expressions as equivalent; which import no more than that God does not reckon, or put sin to the account of any one. By thus mistaking the design and meaning of [Page 92] St. Paul in those verses, the Gentlemen have unhappily ran into the error that we are justified by a faith distinct from, and no part of gospel obedience; and this unlucky mis­take was the only reason why they fell out with the article, and voted it dangerous. I could wish this Committee would give us a description of their faith as contradistinguish­ed from gospel obedience, that we might know what it is, and how it looks; for I freely confess I can obtain no idea of such a faith, nor in any measure determine what it is the likeness of.

After observing that holiness is necessary to happiness, and that the gospel contains the most weighty arguments to universal obedi­ence, they observe, "That this obedience is the fruit of an union with Christ, and it can no more exist without this union, than the branch severed from the vine can bear fruit," and cite Rom. iv. 5, and xi. 6. What these two verses are cited for, it is utterly beyond me to discover, unless cited with an "how­ever they are to be understood"—as a text of scripture is cited by the Rev. Mr. Buck­minster, in a late pamphlet, p. 38, which is quite a modern method of citation, and ad­ducing proofs from the Bible in this manner, one scripture will answer the purpose as well as an [...]er: However, agreeable to what the Committee say above, faith and saving union [Page 93] with Christ are antecedent to obedience, or any good influence gospel motives can have upon the human mind: Therefore believ­ing is no act of obedience, though a com­manded duty: Therefore those weighty gospel arguments to universal obedience are motives to none but those who are united to Christ: Therefore the unregenerate, with respect to religion and eternity, are not free agents: Therefore the gospel is of no advan­tage to them. Are these notions according to Godliness?

ART IV. &c. Owned and defended: Voted unscriptural and dangerous according to charge. My defence, it seems, was their only evidence; but let me ask this Commit­tee, did I ever own and defend the above ar­ticle in the words in which it stands? This you have asserted in your condemnatory re­port although what you assert is utterly be­side the truth, and openly abusive: Doubt­less you had my defence in your hands, or at command; in which defence I maintain the proposition, not in the words of the ar­ticle which you have had the boldness to say I owned and defended, but in the words following—"That we have all power ne­cessary to do what the gospel requires of us in order to our taking benefit thereby, is what I affirm." These words convey a very differ­ent idea from the words of the article, and [Page 94] import no more than that ' God is not an hard master, reaping where he has not sowed, and gathering where he has not strewed.' Matth. xxv. 24. The only sentiment I meant to maintain in the above sentence out of my defence, in my public discourses, and private conversation, was and is simply this, that the father of mercies does not require any of his creatures to exercise a power they have not, or perform an impossibility as a condition of his favour, or of their taking benefit by Christ's gospel; and if the Com­mittee, or any other man, will avow the contrary, they alone must bear the sin and shame of it; as, if I have any consistent ideas of the divine character, it would be a most vile reflection upon the equity and goodness of the great parent of men and angels, and a reproach to the benevolence of the saviour, and the design of his gospel.—The Com­mittee proceed; "Mr. Foster wholly ex­plodes the distinction between natural and moral power as foolish and ridiculous, and in his defence expressly asserts that we have all power necessary to do what the gospel requires of us, in order to inherit its blessings." I said, 'we have all power necessary to do what the Gospel requires of us in order to our taking benefit thereby:' These are my words verbatim as they stand in my defence. Now are these words, in order to inherit its bless­ings, [Page 95] an express repetition of these words, in order to our taking benefit thereby? It is evidently the case that these gentlemen have struck up a new meaning to the words ex­press and expressly; this I had much rather suppose, than to imagine they meant to tell lies. The distinction between natural and moral power, as understood, applied, and defended by some modern continental writers, whereby they have grossly injured the di­vine character, and even made the holy God the author of all wickedness, I disclaim: If any divine is pleased to call the power and exercises of the mind, moral power and mo­ral exercises; and the power and exercises of the body natural; and will make and apply this distinction in such a manner as not to bear hard upon the moral character of the deity, I am not disposed to contend about words: But this I maintain, that whatever defect, either in mind or body, we brought into the world with us, and is coeval with our existence, is properly a natural defect. If there be an inability to holiness, and a pre­vailing propensity to sin in the very nature of man as existing, so that he cannot will, nor act otherwise, until a physical exertion of di­vine power upon his mind; I think this in­ability, and this propensity, and the necessity resulting herefrom, is, to all intents and pur­poses, natural, as it springs from his nature [Page 96] and the very condition of his being. And as we are but the passive recipients of this na­ture, which, with all its endowments and qualities, comes from the finishing hands of its divine author; so these two consequences, I think, will naturally and necessarily follow, viz. 1. That human nature in every man as he comes into the world, is not possessed of vicious and hateful qualities. 2. That God requires no more of us than the nature he has given us will enable us to perform. Therefore to say, we have a natural ability to do all the gospel requires of us in order to our taking benefit thereby, but not a moral; that a natural inability excuses, but a moral does not, is, I humbly conceive, evidently impertinent, and, which is much more, an insult upon the divine wisdom, justice and goodness; and not only so, but it is, I fancy, making a distinction between the powers of nature, that the bible knows nothing about. If the man, as an intelligent, accountable creature of God, is unable to perform a cer­tain thing, let his inability be what you please, and give it what name you please, I would ask, First, Whether God requires the man to do this thing as a condition of his favour and grace, and will punish him eternally for not doing the thing, while he does not grant him power sufficient to overcome the resist­ance to be met with in the doing of it? [Page 97] Second, Whether an avowal of the affirma­tive does not involve in it this proposition, viz. That the Almighty has suspended his favour and grace upon an impossible conditi­on, and inflicts a penalty upon the non-per­formance of this impossible condition? And Third, Whether this is not a gross reflection upon the divine character, by making God an hard master, reaping where he has not sow­ed? &c.

The Committee disclaim the notion of God's requiring natural impossibilities as they are pleased to call them, yet seem to suppose that God requires impossibilities in some sense, or other, for they go on to say—"But at the same time, must believe that man's inability to holiness is such as fully to justify those words of our saviour, John vi. 44, 'No man can come unto me, except the father which hath sent me draw him.' And of the Apostle, Rom. viii. 7, 'The carnal mind is not sub­ject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." But are impossibilities required of us in ei­ther of these scriptures? Far otherwise, I think: It is true, we cannot come to Christ in the sense of our saviour's words, without the drawing of the father; and it is as true we are not required to, without and separate from this drawing: We are capable of be­ing drawn, we can be workers together with God, and neither more nor less is re­quired [Page 98] of us in this affair: How then does the thing required exceed the ability to per­form? As to the words of St. Paul, every body, I suppose, will grant that a carnal flesh­ly mind, that is in pursuit of the things of the flesh, is not subject to God's law, and in­deed cannot be remaining so; so our saviour informs us, that 'no man can serve two ma­sters;' but what is all this to the purpose? Because a man cannot convert himself with­out divine help; because a carnal fleshly mind is not, and remaining such, cannot be subject to God's laws, i. e. because a man can­not serve two masters: Does it therefore follow, First, That such scriptures are a proof of the distinction between natural and moral power, as the Committee would under­stand and apply it? Second, That man is ut­terly unable to do what the gospel requires in order partake of its benefits? And Third, That God requires impossibilities of his crea­tures as a condition of the bestowment of his grace? It is surprizing that men should use Bible and reason in this manner!

But they proceed—"Should we admit that man hath full power to do all that the gospel requires of him, in every sense in which he might be said to possess it, we conceive we must then admit a principle of holiness in him naturally, in his fallen state, contrary to the word of God, or utterly deny the force of [Page 99] moral obligation."—Only add the words, 'in order to our taking benefit thereby,' which words, I must think, they have designedly suppressed all along, in order to give them­selves scope, by misrepresentation, to cast an odium upon me and my sentiments before the world; ^* I say only add the words, in or­der, &c. and their reasoning as it respects the case in hand, will stand thus—Should we admit that man hath full power to do all that the gospel requires of him in order to his tak­ing benefit thereby, in every sense in which he might be said to possess a full power to do all that the gospel requires of him in order to his taking benefit thereby, we conceive we must then admit a principle of holiness in him naturally, &c. The public may judge whether such reasoning is to the case, or not, or even to the credit of those who use it.— I would ask this Committee, are we under obligation to yield the same obedience that Adam was, as a term of the divine favour? Are we required to exercise holiness in order to holiness? And by the force of moral obli­gation, are the unregenerate bound to yield [Page 100] this obedience, and exercise such a principle in order that divine grace be confered? If such opinions as these are couched under the above dark and ambiguous citation, it is de­sired they would emerge out of obscurity, and in day-light avow the opinions, and not hide themselves in clouds, and darken counsel by words without knowledge. They conclude thus—"For to adapt the rule of duty to the bias of the depraved heart, is to make it what we please—and it is repugnant to all our notions of the perfections of the deity, that he should give his rational creatures such mutuable variable laws, for his laws are all like himself holy, just, and good immuta­bly." Then God cannot publish a law of grace through a mediator, and suspend a pro­mise of saving blessings upon the faithful and persevering endeavours of his sinful creatures as the condition of their bestowment: I say, God cannot do this, unless he renders his laws mutuable by adapting them to the bias of the depraved heart? He cannot in and through the great redeemer, publish liberty to captives upon a condition possible for them to perform, and not destroy the immutable holiness, justice and goodness of his own laws? What would they insinuate but something like this? The Gentlemen appear to me to be greatly confused in their notion of things, owing, I am persuaded, to their not making [Page 101] the following necessary distinction, viz. be­tween what is God's work, and what is ours in the affair of our salvation: To renew the mind is the work of God, divine grace is his gift,—Our business is to improve our ta­lents in the best manner we are able; to exert our faculties in endeavouring after di­vine grace in the way of God's appointment; to seek for divine wisdom as for silver, &c. God does not require us to exercise a princi­ple, power or faculty we have not, in order to the obtainment of any blessing whether temporal or eternal. For as Wollaston well observes, "If he has no such power, then his power of that kind and degree is nothing; and it is nothing that is required to be appli­ed: Therefore nothing is required to be done." ^* And Dr. Oswald—"A connection betwixt obligation, and power to fulfil the obligation, is apparent; and so inviolable, that if you set aside the latter, the former va­nishes of course. In all contracts, and with­out an express contract, it is understood, that whoever fails in fulfilling his obligation, lies under the penalty: But whoever thought any person under an obligation to do what he hath not power to do? Mad men, and tyrants, who are often mad enough, may insist on obligations to perform impossibilies; but that learned men should maintain a sub­tle [Page 102] debate on any such supposition, is unac­countable. There is not only an apparent and inviolable connection betwixt power and obligation; but the last is commensurate to the first: Which, by the bye, lays the learned under an obligation to make mankind acquainted with the extent of their powers; because, in proportion to them, they shall be accountable to him from whom they are de­rived." ^†

ART. V. Owned and defended: Voted unscriptural and dangerous: This vote is an unanswerable reason; I shall not therefore enter the list with it, but let it stand in its ful. force, and go to the law, and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. I shall do little else here but consider the evidence they have advanced in defence of the nega­tive. After observing that I appear openly to defend the article, they say, "But to us it appears directly opposite to, and subversive of the gospel method of salvation." A very heavy charge surely, and not to be exhibited against a fellow Christian, much less against a fellow labourer in the kingdom of the prince of peace, without direct and indubitable evi­dence from the unerring standard of religious truth, the holy scriptures. But what evi­dence [Page 103] have these confident judges and con­demners of my creed produced in defence of this their weighty charge? How have they made the article appear opposite to, yea, even subversive of the gospel method of salva­tion? Why their evidence is ushered in with a self-contradictory assertion in the following words—"No doctrine is more plain and frequently taught as a foundation principle in the holy scripture, than that the believer's justification before God is wholly on account of Christ's righteousness." ^† Respecting this remarkable period, I would ask the follow­ing questions, First, Whether something is not required to be done by us in order to our justification? Second, Whether, when a favour is confered upon me wholly on account of what another has done, any thing can be required of me as a condition of its bestow­ment? Third, Whether the above citation is not self-contradictory, by supposing that faith is a qualification or condition in the sub­ject, prerequisite to justification, and yet that we are justified wholly on account of Christ's [Page 104] righteousness? But let us look into their scriptures, " Rom. iii. 28, A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." It is desired that the reader would particularly bear in mind what this and some following scrip­tures are brought to prove, viz. "That the believer's justification before God is wholly on account of Christ's righteousness." The Apostle's Words are, as cited by the Com­mittee, 'A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.' The consequence they would draw, and indeed it must be drawn, for it will never follow, is this, therefore we are justified wholly on account of Christ's righteousness: Because the Apostle tells the Jews that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Jewish law, in obedience to which law they were seeking to be justified; that therefore we under the gospel are justi­fied without obedience to the laws of Christ, though justified by faith, as the Apostle de­clares in the words, which faith is an act of personal obedience to the Christian law, with­out which no one can ever be justified. The Committee first contradict themselves, and then, to keep themselves in countenance, haul in St. Paul as favouring their absurdity. The next scripture cited by them is the 20th verse of the same chapter— 'By the deeds of the law there shall no Flesh be justified in his fight;' i. e. by obedience to the law as meri­torious [Page 105] no man can be justified in his sight. But is this plainly caught us in the words, viz. that we are justified wholly on account of Christ's righteousness, without and separate from obedience to the laws of Christ; es­pecially when the same Apostle, in the same chapter, verse 28th, asserts justification by faith, which faith is an act of gospel obedience? They proceed—" Titus iii. 7, That being justified by his grace, we shall be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." i. e. we are justified by the grace and mercy of the gospel through Christ, and not by virtue of our own works as meritorious of so great a favour; though none but the obedient be­liever is, or can be justified upon the gospel plan.—But from these words are we " plain­ly taught that the believer's justification be­fore God is wholly on account of Christ's righteousness"—i e. are we plainly taught a palpable contradiction? A gift bestowed upon me wholly on the account of another person, and yet suspended on a personal act of my own, as a prerequisite or condition of its bestowment, I look upon as a contradiction in terms They go on to cite " Rom v. 19, So by the obedi­ence of one shall many be made righteous." A­nother instance of their abuse of scripture, by partial citations; whereas had they been honest enough to have cited the whole ve [...] any one conversant with the bible, wou [...] [Page 106] have seen at once that this scripture was nei­ther expressly nor implicitly to their purpose. But to take them on their own ground—If the Committee imagine St. Paul to speak in this and the preceeding verse, of that righte­ousness, and that justification which is to life eternal, why will they insist upon making St. Paul contradict himself, by dreaming that this justification, and this being made righte­ous, must exclude all reference to, and connection with, our personal obedience, when faith, which is an act of personal obedience to an express command of the gospel law, is expressly made a condition of our justificati­on by St. Paul himself; yea, even in the words these Gentlemen themselves have had the hand [...]ing of? They proceed next to give us the sum total of the above scriptures in the following words; "Can any thing be more evident from these and similar texts than that the matter of our justification be­fore God is not our own personal defective obedience, but the all-perfect righteousness [...]f Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone?" i. e. Can any thing be more evident, &c. than that the matter of our justification before God is not our own personal defective obedience, but the all-perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by an act of personal obedience. How is it possible that men can reason thus, and drag conse­quences [Page 107] in this manner; men who look upon themselves divinely authorised to be the judges of other people's creeds, and to justify or condemn them at pleasure? But perhaps what follows will relieve the diffi­culty; "This righteousness of Christ is the sole and exclusive ground of our pardon and acceptance with God and justification at the Redeemer's bar." ^* But how do they make [Page 108] evident the above anti-scriptural notion? Why, " Rom. x. 4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that be­lieveth" i. e. the design and end of the law was to bring men to Christ, that by believing in him, in obedience to his gospel, they might obtain justification. Is this scripture full and express evidence, that the righteousness of Christ is the sole and exclusive ground of our pardon and acceptance with God, and justifi­cation at the redeemer's bar, when not a word is said in the text about Christs perso­nal righteousness; not a word about our par­don and acceptance with God, and justificati­on at the redeemer's bar? Our final justifi­cation and acquittal at the redeemer's bar is a subject as foreign, I conceive, from the design of St. Paul in the 10th chapter to the Ro­mans as any subject can possibly be conceived to be, and any text within the limits of the sacred canon would have answered the pur­pose just as well. Shall such profound reason­ers [Page 109] as these set up the trade of creed making and creed-condemning! But we have not done with them upon this opposing and sub­verting article yet: "Saints in glory, say they, are described as having their robes made white in the blood of the lamb, Rev. vii. 14. These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the lamb." Would they, from these words, infer that we are not finally justified and acquitted at the re­deemer's bar by our own works, contrary to the plain declaration of the redeemer himself, and the Apostles who spoke in his name? I also cite Rev xxi. 7. 'He that overcometh shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son;' and infer that we are not finally justified at the redeemer's bar by the righteousness of Christ, solely and exclusively, but by our own works; and this inference is, at least, implicitly contained in the words; whereas Rev. vii. 14, is far from appearing either expressly or implicitly to their pur­pose. They close; "If our works are the matter of our justification at the redeemer's bar, it is difficult to say for what purpose Christ died, or how he is mediator between God and man."—There is no difficulty at all in the affair, if men would not try to em­barrass the most plain subject. Is it not in and through Christ as mediator of the new [Page 110] covenant, that God, consistent with the ho­nour of his laws and the glory of his name, can and does accept sinners to his favour in consequence of their faithfully seeking him in the way of the gospel? And is it not through Christ that our works of righteous­ness in obedience to the gospel, though im­perfect, meet the divine approbation and the reward of life? yea, is it not through Christ that we are granted even a state of trial for a future happy life? We are not absolved at last by virtue of our works, but with an eye to Christ as our daysman in whose advocate­ship we are interested, and through whom our persons and imperfect services find ac­ceptance: Nevertheless, whatever Christ has done for us, and whatever interest we may be supposed to have in him, or his righte­ousness; it is a truth according to godliness, and obvious to the reason of mankind, that if we are not found at last to have obeyed the gospel, we never shall be justified at the re­deemer's bar, nor rewarded with life; he will say unto all such, I know you not: On the contrary he who obeys the gospel in this world, shall meet a divine reward in the kingdom of his father, Rom. ii. 7, 8, 9, 10. 1 Peter iv. 17. John xii. 17. Personal righteousness cannot be transferred; we can­not, in any propriety of language, be said to be righteous with another's righteousness, [Page 111] 1 John iii. 7. 'He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous.' Which words I wish may be particularly noticed by the reader, and especially by the Committee, who, to maintain their strange, anti-scriptural notion of our being pardoned and justified both here and hereafter wholly, solely and exclusive­ly by Christ's righteousness, have been guilty of vilifying and speaking evil of the very righte­ousness the Apostle is speaking of in those words; which they, I hope, will reflect on with a great degree of shame and com­punction. Agreeable to all the representati­ons we have in the sacred pages, of the so­lemn transactions of the last day, when all the sons of men are to be tried at the re­deemer's bar for eternity, the final sentence, fixing the doom of every one, will pass ac­cording to the deeds done here in the body: Those who obey the gospel are finally justi­fied and acquitted; those who disobey it are condemned; while not one word is spoken about our interest in the righteousness of a­nother, or its imputation (which is inconsistent with the nature of things) being the matter of our final acquittal: And indeed the sup­position, that the righteousness of another is the sole and exclusive ground of our final ju­stification at the redeemer's bar, is directly subversive of the divine moral government; if this be the case, how can the moral gover­nor [Page 112] and righteous judge of the world have any regard to personal merit and demerit in distributing rewards and punishments among his creatures? And by consequence, how can he have any regard to moral worth and ex­cellency, though a particular regard to perso­nal merit and deme it, to moral worth and excellency, are inseparable from the idea of the moral government, and a state of trial? This is to subvert not only revealed religion, but natural religion also, and to demolish at one blow the whole government of the deity, whether natural or moral. For these rea­sons, with others that might be mentioned, I am still constrained to believe, with Christ and his Apostles, that our works in obedience or disobedience to the gospel will be the ground of the divine procedure at the great day, and according to which our final state will be determined; especially as the gospel is God's rule of government at present with respect to all those under the light of it; for I cannot persuade myself to believe that God, whose rules of government are perfect regu­larity and right, will have one rule of govern­ment, and another and different rule of judg­ment and final retribution. As to the reasons you have offered, and the scriptures you have adduced in support of the negative, they ap­pear to me utterly inconclusive, and nothing to the purpose; and it is surprising to me, as [Page 113] well as to many others, that you should, with such a preremptory air, pronounce the article unscriptural and dangerous, opposite to, and subversive of, the gospel method of salva­tion, upon such slight evidence, which in reality is no evidence at all! But what lengths will not indiscreet zeal and bigotry carry men! If you have heavier artillery to bring up, pray exhibit it—let the truth ap­pear; I engage for myself to yield to scrip­ture and reason, and appear on the side of the truth as it is in Jesus, though I mean not to be dragooned into a creed, or out of one. With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment; he who judgeth me is the Lord.

ART. VI. &c. Voted, proved according to charge: "For the reasons, say they, we re­fer to the texts cited under the preceeding ar­ticle." For the reasons of what, pray? For the reasons why Christ righteousness is not sufficient, &c. Do they mean to deviate into truth by avowing the article? Or are we re­ferred to the texts cited under the preceeding article for the reasons why it is voted proved according to charge? But perhaps they de­signed to vote the article unscriptural and dangerous according to charge, agreeable to con­stant usuage in this case; but it slipped their minds through a multiplicity of creed judg­ing business: Or perhaps it was lapsus pennoe [Page 114] of the scribes; or perhaps — However, if they suppose the article contrary to express scripture as the others are, I would propound this simple question, viz. Whether the suf­ferings of Christ and his righteousness are designed to save people in their sins? But as it is entirely uncertain what the Committee's design was, we can do no more than for the reasons to refer the reader to our observations upon their defence of the negative of the preceeding article, and wait until the obscu­rity is removed from this part of their report by another oracular response.

ART. VII. &c. Proved by vote. "It is proved in the opinion of the Consociation that Mr. Foster explodes the idea of personal election, particularly in a Sermon delivered at the ordination of his son Daniel, pages 50 and 51." The words referred to in my Ser­mon are as follows; "Did I believe and teach, as some do, that God from all eternity elected to glory by an absolute decree, a cer­tain number of men, whom he foresaw un­done by Adam's fall, appointed his son to un­dertake their redemption, who was to satis­fy justice, merit glory, and make them phy­sically mete for it, leaving the rest under the dreadful decree of reprobation, to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath, without possibility of help," &c. In this view of the decrees, I did, do still, and ever shall explode [Page 115] them, while I believe there is a God, and that his ways are equal: And it is in this view of them the committee must avow them, if they would oppose me.

As to the article as it lies in the report of the Committee, it was known I denied it. They go on to say: "This doctrine," ( i. e. the doctrine of election as represented in the above citation out of my sermon, for it is in that sense they avow the doctrine) "is plain­ly and fully taught in divine revelation"!! What! is it plainly and fully taught in divine revelation that God from all eternity elected to glory, by an absolute decree, a certain number of men in such a manner as to de­note a leaving the rest under the dreadful de­cree of reprobation, to perish without possi­bility of help? It seems so, or they are not my opponents: But where are the scriptures in support of such a gloomy, fatal doctrine? Have these men the confidence to appeal to the Bible for proof of such a suggestion? Yes, they can first charge God foolishly, ^* by charging him with making intelligent crea­tures to damn them and then go to his word for proof of it—" Eph. i. 11. In whom also [Page 116] we have obtained an inheritance, being prede­stinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will—Verse 4.5, According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world— having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ. Rom. viii. 29, He did predestinate—moreover whom he did predestinate," &c. &c. It happens very un­lucky to the Committee that these citations from the Bible, in proof of personal absolute election, have no reference at all to any e­lection of that nature, but only and simply to the call of the Gentiles in the kingdom of the Messiah by the publication of the gospel among them, as might easily be made to ap­pear, and is fully shown by LOCKE in his Paraphrase, &c. It is strange there cannot be the words predestinated, chosen, elect, ordain­ed, &c. in a text of scripture, but it is at once taken as proof of a personal, eternal, absolute election, whether they have reference to any such thing or not. In truth the notion is absolutely without Bible and reason. For further satisfaction I refer to my reply to the Rev. Mr. Buckminster, where the affair of the decrees is treated more at large.

ART. VIII. &c. "This article, say they, is proved according to charge in the judg­ment of this council in the sermon Mr. Fos­ter preached at Mr. Joel Foster's ordination," [Page 117] and then proceed; "This Consociation doubt not the sufficiency of the merits of the saviour for the whole world; but it will not hence follow that Christ died for all intention­ally alike, or that one as much as another is given to Christ." To say that the merits of Christ are sufficient for the redemption and salvation of the whole world, yet that it was the divine purpose that but a remnant should be redeemed and saved; and therefore the benefits of our Lord's salutary passion, in the divine counsel and design, and in the applica­tion of them, are restrained to this remnant, appears to me inconsistent with the diffusive goodness and beneficence of the father and friend of men, and not coincident with the character God has seen fit to assume in rela­tion to the human race; as a God who tak­eth no pleasure in the death of him who dieth; who would have all men be saved, &c. and is in effect to say, that Christ died no more for the non-elect, or those who, even­tually, are not saved, than for the devils them­selves who are reserved in chains, &c. It leaves those for whom he did not die, under an impossibility of pardon and salvation; faith in Christ must be restrained to those for whom he intentionall died, the rest having nothing to believe respecting Christ, unless that his death was sufficient for their pardon and happiness, which is only to believe that God [Page 118] could have saved them if he would; and what comfort would it be to a condemned male­factor to know, that his prince could have pardoned and saved him, a price sufficient therefor having been paid, but he would not? The Committee proceed to cite "John xvii. 9, 20. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall be­lieve on me through their word." 'I pray for them: I pray not for the world,' &c. i. e. "I now offer up my prayer particularly for my Apostles who are designed for so great a work as preaching the gospel of the kingdom to both Jews and Gentiles, and therefore will stand in need of special divine assistance and support; but I do not now intercede for the world in general:" Though at other times we find him praying for the world both Jews and Gentiles; yea, even for his perse­cutors and murderers, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." "The sphere of his beneficence extended back­wards to the foundation of the world, and reaches forward to the last conflagration; so that nothing, which is capable of being saved, is hid from the heat thereof. He be­came the saviour of all ages, from the first birth of time to its last period; the father of mankind, from the rising up of the sun, to [Page 119] the going down of the same. The blessings of his coming into the world, are as extensive as the world, and as lasting as eternity. Our saviour laid down his life for the si [...] of the whole world. He came, that a [...] in Adam all die, so in Christ should all be made alive.—View leisurely the stupendous scheme; a whole world redeemed from misery; a whole world made happy, if their own impenitence doth not prevent it." ^‡ How no­ble and sublime these views of Christ's re­demption! But how debasing and dishonora­ry the views of those who would confine the redemption and intercession of Christ to a small remnant of the human race! As to John vi. 37, the phrase to be given of the father does not signify the actual faith of those who are thus given, but only their pre­paration and qualifications to believe, by be­ing convicted by the wonderful works our saviour wrought, that he was the true Messi­ah, and embracing him as such, laying aside their prejudices and carnal affections, which obstructed their coming to him; and by being persuaded of the truth, design and importance of the gospel and therefore receive and attend upon the duties of it: And all are given to Christ, who thus receive him and his gospel; but it is left with them whether they will be influenced by these means or [Page 120] not, no force being put upon their minds, or their liberty of choice in the least infring­ed; though as Chrysostom informs us, the Manichees made use of these words to de­stroy man's free will; and therefore this fa­ther, with St. Cyril, and others, observe, in opposition to the Manichees, that Christ in­tends no more by the giving of the father, "but his revelation from above to a soul disposed to receive it." But what is this to the purpose of particular redemption? They conclude with the following remarkable rea­soning; "If Christ died for all, as much for one as another, then if all do not actually par­ticipate of the benefits of his death and at last arrive to heaven, his purpose and inten­tion must be frustrated." Christ's intention to die for all is one thing; his intention to save all is another thing; what I maintain is, that Christ, of set purpose and design gave himself a ransom for all, and tasted death for every man, and therefore that his redempti­on is equally extended with the race of man; and this his intention to die for all was abso­lute; but his intention to save all, or any, is not absolute, but conditional; universal salva­tion, and universal redemption are very dif­ferent things, the former I deny, the latter I maintain. If the reasoning of the Commit­tee is founded upon Christ's intention to die for all, it will stand thus; If it was Christ's [Page 121] intention to die for all, and all are not saved, this his intention must be frustrated; but all are not saved— Ergo, The sophistry is minifest. If they refer to Christ's intention to save all, their reasoning is very foreign to the purpose, and effects not the truth of what I maintain.

The two last Articles, it seems, they got over without much difficulty.

The conclusion of the report of the Com­mittee is in the following words and style— "Therefore we think ourselves holden in faithfulness on this occasion, to bear our open testimony against the abovementioned doc­trines held and taught by Mr. Foster, as be­ing not only contrary to the gospel, and of dan­gerous tendency, but some of them at least even subversive of the Christian institution, and to say that we cannot but look upon these errors persisted in, as utterly unqualifying for the Christian ministry; and therefore that we cannot in conscience hold communion with the pastor who persisteth in them."

Reply— ‘We allow infallibility to no man, to no set of men, however dignified or distinguished. Assemblies and Convoca­tions, antient Councils and modern Synods we think to have equal authority in the affairs of faith and religion; that is, none at all, to bind the Consciences of others We maintain that no two things can [...] [Page 122] more contrary to one another than faith and force; that to employ authority against enquiries, and to punish, for mere opinions, for opinions, that do not affect the safety of civil government, is a sin against reason and revelation: It is Popery: It is Hob­bism. We plead for equal, impartial li­berty; not meaning hereby a licence to trample on religion, and to laugh at reve­lation; but a liberty for every man to ex­amine with care the opinions of religion he embraces; a liberty to judge with our own understandings, to believe with our own faith, and to worship God according to the dictates of our own consciences. O sacred liberty! Thou soul of happiness! Tecum vivere amem, tecum moriar libens.’

‘Our duty to God, to Christ, and to our excellent religion, obliges us to renounce in ourselves, and to oppose in others, spi­ritual tyranny, and all human impositions, as terms of communion; the source of schism, and the bane of the church's peace. Stand fast, ye beloved in the Lord, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made you free. Know your principles, and never by an inconsistent conduct de­base your glory. An imposing non-con­formist is as contradictory a character as a non-resisting rebel.’

[Page 123]The report is thus authenticated—"A true copy, Attest, Theodore Hinsdale, Aaron Church, Scribes."

"A true copy."

Question. A true copy of what?

Answer. —

"Attest, Theodore Hinsdale, Aaron Church."

Question. Who ordered you to attest this report?

Answer. —

"Scribes."

Question. Who were you Scribes for?

Answer. —!!