ju Patan fe Pras ete Rete Rt sO Fe mae een, eee ote ym Rory ote te! Ee (ete ton nieine intatenn Nerina aoe anne ae Rahn tete se “phe Tettp netomat ater ene! ote rete het fins Oe tm DUKE UNIVERSITY © LIBRARY ee a hy, eee rh ¥ ee Ont Phe. vy * ip,” Marnewe Obfervations ’ -"* : 2 * » 2 ae a ON THE ; “Soren” PAND + coftpyct | OF THE ‘ Bogie TY for the propagation off the Cofp r¥ in “foreign a Interfpers’d’ with a. facia brief reflections upon fome other of ad “Docror’s Writings. y 4% i ec ey eich “is added, ie Rte . ‘ i ME TIER: to a FRinnp,y Containing a fhort Vindication of the faid SocfreTy © again{t the Miltakes’ and Mifreprefentations of the Dogtor in hig hes a on the Condué of that Society. Ci Qen &. Vm “" * By one of i its Members * *. 1S JN ies w aff ‘i 4 » Where envying and ftrife is, there is Pat and every evil work Out of the fame mouth proceedeth’” bleffing and curfing. Myyy 7 brethren, thee things ought not fo to be, James iil, 16. 10, _ i ee ee, , | rs * 4 ¥ ‘BOSTON, NEWeENGLAND: ‘ Print ed and Sold by Tuomas and Joun Furet, in Cornhill and Green & Ru@terrsyand Epes & Cuts in Qneenfreets. 17638 eo ‘ ij ‘ Set See Div. S. The CONTENTS.445)5 ex foo Hn v} | ’ y tr dE reafon why Dr. Mayhew’s Obfervations were not fully anfwered before. page I- The author’s charitable defign in the prefent publication. me The method he propofes in this examination. ibid. Does not purpofe to confine himfelf to the obfervations. ibid. The Dr’s defcription of controverfial writers apply’d tohimfelf. ibid. Inftances of a candid temper in the Dr. Requefts the candor of his readers. pee | How far this is allowed. 4. The Dr’s. defign. ibid. Attempts to prove the Society have counteradted the defign of their inftitution. “a That they are guilty of a wilful abufe of their truft. ibid. Denies it again. 6. Prov’d upon him. 6. Charges the miffionaries with abufing the Society. ‘ibid. This pretence refuted. Will not allow the Society to underftand the ftate of religion in the plantations. ibid. This point examined and refuted. 10. The Society prov’d to underfland the ftate of religion, &c. and alfo their charter. 16. The Dr. beholden to Mr. Hobart for moft of his obfervations, 19. Yet takes no notice of Mr. Beach’s reply to Mr. Hobart. 20. The Dr’s interpretation of the Society’s charter examined and fhewn to be inconfiftent. ibid. His argument from King William refuted. 22. His other teftimonies in favour of bis interpretation nothing to his purpofe. e. The name and title of the Society confidered. 39. Their common feal. 41. Their fermons. 4s True defign of the charter, to which the foregoing teftimonies _ are conformable. > Ae And to the Society’s condu. 43. The word orthodox not properly apply’d to. diffenters. pis" In common ufe denotes the eftabiifhment. ibid. Eftablifhments examined. 26. New-England churches not eftablifhed. a7. Proved from their own confeffion. ibid. hie aletter of the Lords Juftices to Lt. Gov' Dummer. 28. from the Dr’s own method of arguing. Be: The church of England eftablifhed in the colonies. 43: ive proved by aural ats of parliament and particularly y the act of union. 34. An objection anfwered. HAO 4 0 6 38. From the King’s granting the ecclefiaftical jurifdiGion of the plantations to tre Bishop of London, 30. cr Soap ‘The co NTENTS. Feaee Some farther reflcAtioris on the extent of the charter and t condu& of the Society. “A0: Why few miffionaries were early fent into New-Englaad. “ibid. Obje&tions againft the Society for Pian: the Indians and the other colonies anfwered. 44. Much hindered by a party fpirit. ibid. Two or three inftances mentioned. : In many of the colonies religion fupported by the civil government. 46. Account of the firft adventurers to N. E. with their chara@ter. ibid. The Dr. no right to plead their merit, who has departed from their. principles. 47. Early adventurers of two forts. gr. Maflachufetts- Bay fettled by church of Rnglasd men. Proved from their own letter dated on board the Arabella at their leaving England. 50. Rev. Mr. Prince’s teftimony to the fame purpofe. cx: Did not leave England on account of perfecution. 52. The Dr. accufes the Ch. of England asa perfecuting church. 54. ‘This examined and reply’d to. 54. Récriminations would be eafy. * ibid. Two or three inftances hinted at. ; 55. _ TheDr’s writings have a fendency to beget a perfecuting fpirit. 57. Labours to prejudice people againft Bithops by fpeaking rudely — * \ and contemptibiy of that Order. The indecency of this’as they are an order of men eftablifhed from the beginning of Chriftianity, and received or vene- - rated by foreign prcteftants at this day. 60. Calvin's teftimony in favor of that order. 60. and Beza’s. 61. The Dr's. ridicule of the liturgy of the Ch. of England fhewn to be indecent by the opinion of foreign churches. 62. Summary reprefentation of the controverfy. 64. The Drs. ho/proper méthod to rectify ae if the Society have committed any. 66. The publifhing an open account of the fice of the other Society more proper to effect this. "67. Rev.Mr. Wheelock’s Indian charity {chool recommended. | 68. The Dr, has no right to complain of any — expreffion ufed by the “author. 69. This fhewn from a fpecimen of his own lanes taken from his obfervations and fermons. 70. Aferious addre{s to the rev.Gentlemen of the miniftry atBofton. ie The Dr. drolls upon the Song of Solomon.) _ 79. Gives countenance to the doétrine of annihilation. ibid. Til confequence of his writings to civil government.’ ibid This not the general temper ‘of people in the colonies. 80. Conclufien. : ibid ee ae ae a Fs ied Agids -' oh olelbal at 2 veg Ay rf ONT uta ita? $ 9 Jag A Candid Examination of Dr. Maysew’s Obfervations on the Chatter and''Condu& of the Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel in Foreign Parts, G0. 1:0 oved { ys ht } pl 0, © Seat ; ; 3 ains Eh DO DOO IOC OOK PPIOOOAIIOG OSORIO M aids . 4id WT is:a long time fince Dr. Mayuew publithed his modef obfervations, on the charter and con- ™ duct of the Society for the propagation of the Gofpel in foreign parts; and as no perfon hitherto has thought ir worth his while to enter into a,fpes’ cial examination of his principal argument; he pro+ bably concluded that his performance, would not pane met,with a full reply.And_ in, truth if;-he ad drawn this conclufion from: the natureyand maoner.of his writing, ‘as being too jintemperately manag’d to deferve the notice of either a Gentieman ora Scholar, he had thought as other men do.;.for this, it has been faid is the true.reafon; why he, has been fuffer’d to triumph thus longin his Saas and torboaft of tas unanfwerable. Every gentle- man who has had a liberal and‘polite education; thinks it beneath his chara@ter to enter the lifts with pne who obferves no meafures of decency,or good nners, nay who does not fcruple to facrifice the eek and gentle f{pirit of the Gofpel to the gratifi- ation of a licentious and ungovern'd temper. Nor oes the author of the prefent remarks pretend to tval him in this unbecoming talent; herein he is al- BA4YOTIO6 _lowd ( 2°9 Jow'd to reign without a competitor. But fince he is liable to “ think more highly of himfelf than he ought to think,” and is already unhappily. “ wifer in _Bis-own Conceit,” than in any ones elfe; it may be eftcem’d an act of charity to give him jufter notions both of himfelf, and of his writings in general, but sécially of his late performance, than he feems to have entertain’d. ore a ae THE method which will be ufed in difcharging this charitable office, will be to reprefent the Doétor fometimes in the meek and benevolent light in which he affeéts to be confidered ; at other times, and by ray of contraft to this, he will be produced in_ the ght in which he has really exhibited himfelf: For altho” thefe are toto ccelo different, yet without a juft and impartial reprefentation of him in both thefe refpetts, it will be impoffible to give him a true knowledge of himfelf, which is a point the author is very folicitous of; and is not without reafonable hopes of accomplifhing. is a Ab “To this purpofe the author propofes to confult ¢ Doétor’s writings in general, which, as they are fufficiently voluminous, will afford abundant matter for fuch a reprefentation, and being all of them corrected with his own hand, and fent abroad by his own appointment, may fairly be conceived to be a genuiné picture of the man. Resa vtitridat ~ It will be proper to begin with his laft and high- ly boafted piece, entitled Ob/ervations on the charte and conduct of the Society, &c. tan to which begins with thefe rema ) 2 There are fome men who write—controverf} “merely from a wrangling difpofition, without an “regard to truth, right, or the importance of th “matters conteftcd.” Now one may defy an br! cite ppal ha, @ Zz) man who fhall read this paflage, and elpecially if he has read two or three volumes of fermons publifhed’, in Bofton fince the year 1754, and fome occafionak: thankfgiving difcourfes, in almoft every one of which matters off controverfy have been dragg’d in, tho” for the moft part as it were by head and fhoulders ; I fay, I defy any fuch man, not to think of one who» ftiles himfelf paflor of the weft church im Bofton. And no doubt every one will be ready to joinwith the Dr. in the words immediately followings “ that this isa turnof mind unbecoming a chriftian.” And had _ he not been too unhappily: inattentive ‘to his own maxim as before cited, doubtlefs he would here have dropp’d his pen. .” But fome of - his “ friends” too ‘‘ partial” indeed “ in his favor” injus dicioufly prevented him from profiting by his own. admonition, having it feems “expreffed a defire that” notwithitanding “‘ his” great “ averfion to controverfy **—he would—communicate /ome of his thoughts * to the public, on the point in queftion.” + In the 8th page of his obfervations, the Doétor affects to be very candid and ingenuovs. “ He is ~ “ fenfible” he fays, “ that the Society are a very re “ fpectable Body, and to be treated with all the “ regard that is confiftent with truth and juftice— “ he declares it is by no means his intention to “ charge that venerable Body with any wi/ful known “ mifconduét, or improper application of monies.” This is very commendable, if he had but kept it in mind through the whole of his polite inquiry ;. but as though he was fenfible he fhould very foon break through the aforefaid equitable rule, ‘ he requefts * the candor of his readers, that no advantage may “be taken of any zncautious expreffion that may - efeape him in the purfuit of his argument, even aes, “ tho’ C 4) tho’ it fhould at fi? view, have the appearance of “¢ fuch an accufation.” }- This however isa reafon- ablepoftulatum) and therefore it is not propofed, nay,' the author hereby promifes the gentleman'that he will not take advantage of one or even of twa: incautions expreflions, that appear undefignedly to have efcaped him, if at firft view only they havethe baré appearance of fuck an-aceufation ; but then he cannot extend the fame indulgence to ‘very many expreffions importing a charge of wilful known mif- condué, and improper application »of monies ; _ efpecially, if nor-only at the: firfiview, but on a fecond and third view, they do mot appear to have merely efcaped him, but were manifeftly intended to fupport fuch an‘accufation. *Much tefs will he be. iittled to this indulgence, if it fhall appear tha» _ the Society are direétly charged by him with mifap- plication of the monies committed ‘to their ruft, in numerous paflages of his book, but moreover,-that the ‘gerteral defign of it was, ane hay pale: this very point. - THe Dr.’s book is cnitelba “ “Oblervations on the i eater and conduét of the Society, &ce. défigned “to fhew their non-conformity to each other.” In fupport of this title, after fometimes contracting, then ftretching and wire-drawing the fenfe of the charter, feal, &c. of the Society, he concludes’ that the /ole defi ign of their inftitution was to propagat ‘the’ gofpel among the heathen, or in‘ thofe ‘colonies ; whofe religious ftate was, and according to him; now is, little better than heathenifm. But this which he afferts ‘to be the‘laudable and only defign > infticution, aoe a he fays, nt: Prodare qn abufed. | | ae ae [Piss gu t in to sivhwo ou) ad ag ll “Tavs 4 Obfervations P. 8, (2 Tipus iin page 55, he fays'“‘ the Society have maz “ nifefted a fufficient forwardnefs to‘encourage ang “ inereafe fmalb difattected «parties: in our. towns, spon an application to them.’’. -And in-thei97th page he weprefents the Society as hoping that-thefe finall parties will by their: influence’ gradually bring on a general fubmiffion to an epifcopal fovereign ; an “affirms that this has long been>the:formal defign “ of the Society, and is the true’ plan ee a “myftery of their :operations’in New-England.” _ovEy his 106th page he tells us that the “affair of “« Bifhops in America, « has’ been a favourite obje® “withthe Society,” and°in tthe next page, that “ the Society {pare neither endeavours, applications, “nor expence, in order to effec their grand defign “ of epycapizing all New-England,” ‘and a few lines further, ‘* The Sdciety have long had a formal defign to! difflolve and root out: all’ our New-England “ churches.—This (he fays) fully and cleatly ace counts for their being fo ready to encourage fmall ** epifcopak partics all over New-England, by fend- “ing them ‘miflionaries.” In page 110 he affirms that “the Society have been expending large fums “every year in New-England, quite beyond the defign “ of their inftitution, to {apport and increafe the epif- “ copal party as fuch.” In the fame page he charges the Society with robbing the heathen to eafe and gratify the epifcopalians here; 'and forms this conclu- fion:upon his foregoing reprefentations, that “the “ Society are’ guilty of a flagrant abufe of a noble *inftitution.” And in the 112th page, that ‘they have “alienated their revenues from a truly noble “ to a comparatively mean, narrow, party defign.” “After thefe feveral direct and plain accufations of the Society as abufing their truft, and mifapplying the Pe moncy ee 4 money put into their hands, he wipes his mouth again, and abfurdly enough aflures his reader, that: * he wonld by no means be underftood as charging ** fo refpeftable a Body with any wilful criminal “ abufe.of power, or mifapplication of monies.” i.e. he would. not have the reader believe him ; for that is the fenfe of his words, as they ftand conneéted with what went before, if indeed they have any fenfe.at all in them. — er Wu, he now have the firmne/s to. affert, that all the expreffions and paflages which have been here’ quoted (and five times as many more might have been added) are only cncautious exprefions, that inadvertently ¢/caped 4zm, that they are not de- figned as matter of accufation, and that if poflibly they have fuch an appearance, it is only at firft view ? If he fhould affert this, 1 am perfuaded his friends at leaft muft bluth for him. Is the fupporting {mall parties. in, New-England, in order to facilitate the affair of epz/copizing the colonies, the formal defign of the Society, to which they give their chief atten- tion, and to which the largeft part of their fund is applied ? Can he affert all this, and yet fay that he does not charge that venerable Body “ with any “ wilful known mifconduét, or improper application “© of monies” ? ; 153 | Pernuars this confffent reafoner will chufe to fay that the Society, are mifled, and. form their plan upon the mifreprefentations of their wicked miffio- naties., Something like.this is aflerted in a note upon .a thanfgiving fermon on the reduction of Canada, preached.and publithed by him in the year 1760. “It is probable that they [the Society] have “ been grofsly impofed upon by falfe.reprefentations * of the ftate of religion in thefe parts, le hi sii ; * been ee a a been the occafion of their employing fo much of “ their charitable care about’ thofe who fo little need * ed it, to the neglect of thofe who were perifhing “ for want of it: For which impofitions, abufes and “« mifapplications, their deceivers are anfwerable ; if “not to them, yet certainly to an HIGHER’ AUH “ rHoRITY.” But furely whatever reprefentations —thefé miffionaries have made; the Society mutt _ judge whether the complying with fuch reprefenta- tions was, or was not confiftent with their charter ; fo that notwithftanding his ftriving to palliate ‘his accufation of the Society, by cafting the odium: of a pretended mifapplication of their charity on the miffionaries, the flander will ftill remain where ‘he at. firft placed it, on the Society themfelves. Befides, the members of the Society are notall of them'utterly unacquainted with the plantations ;) fome of them have heretofore, and others do even now refide in moft of the governments upon the continent, (New- England not excepted) many of them not inconfi- derable for ‘their ftation, wifdom and ‘integrity. -Thefe gentlemen muft therefore be alfo in a combi- nation with the miffionaries to abufe the world,and: mifapply the monies entrufted with them. This feems to be the confequence of his general accufation.: >» -lolr the Dr. would fay any thing. further’ to foften the odium of this accufation which he has: caft upon the Society, it muft-be by afferting thar they did not underftand ‘their.own charter ;’ this, iff true, may ferve in fome meafure to take off the. charge of wilful abufe and mifapplication ; and that» he fuppofes. it true is clear from hence, that he has: {pent mariy pages and employed his: great learning» and penetration in explaining this intricate charter, that the Society may no longer mifapply their -cha~ ' . rity ae ot C AY fity for: want of ‘underltahding thesreal defign of ‘their inftitution. It may be queftioned however, whether his refin’d criticifm and curious explanatioti will merit the thanks of the venerable board. ‘That untoward word orthodox, which :fo-much raifés his indignation: wherever: he meets with it, will norper- haps:after all his learned: pains, fairly. comprehend the diffenters: from a national eftatdithment! | How= -eyer that be,’ there:is:certainly no method of recon- ciling his candid profeffions of juftice, decency and re{peét towards the Society, or his folemn declara tion that it is not his intention to ‘charge: that venerable Body with! welful known mifcondué: 1 fay, itis impoflible to reconcile thefé things, With the numerous abufes, accufations : and» indécencies which have been already produced, and with which he has treated that refpectable Body: phen rim plicitly, in almoft every page of his book. | Ed In fhort,: the Society; either have, or tribe not adted contrary ito the meaning and defign: of ‘their charter; that they have not, is ‘at leaft highly /pro- bable | froti te schidatteraf wifdom, ‘honor'and piety, which the world will generally allow to thofe of them at leaft, who.are chiefly aétive and intereft- ed in managing ‘their affairs: If they have! aéted eontrary to the defign of it, as the’Dr. affirms (and pretends to think he has prov ‘d) they have either done fo wilfully, or thro’ ignorance. - That they have not done it wilfully, the Dr. himfelf allows ; it remains then, according to him, that their mif- condu@: is owing to ignorance: Either they have mifunderftood the true and real defign ‘of their charter, or have not a competent knowledge ofthe! ftate of religion in the plantations, or how their: — are condutted there, being impofed-on by the reprefentation ( te) reprefentation of their miffionaries, or that both thefe things concur to miflead them, into an abufe of their inftitution. The latter feems-to be his fenfe of the thing, viz. that they are ignorant: ‘both of the true meaning of their charter, and alfo of the ftate of religion in the plantations ; for he fays in the clofe of his introduction, that “* the profefs'd de- fien of his obfervations is to fhew, that they (the * Society) have in fome refpe&s counteracted and ** defeated the truly noble-ends of their 1Ns TIT U- “ -r1oN, however contrary to their iatentton.” Whe~ ther they have done fo or not, will-fall under exa+ mination hereafter. —In the mean timeil fhall take leave of his introduétion with this fingle remark, that ‘from the paffages already “quoted, as’ well 2s from ‘many others that might have been produced from this curious book of obfervations, it appears that the profeffions of candor and ingenuity which the Dr. fet out with, and his declaration of refpect for fo venerable a body -as-the Society, are mere affe@tation and grimace, and tend only to prove that he “ knows not what-manner of -fpirit he is off.” | Tt was obferved before, that according tothe Dr's reprefentation the Society are ignorant of the true fenfe-aud meaning of their hatte: and alfo of the ftate of religion in the plantations; for he afferts that they have greatly perverted ithe defign of theit inftitution, and«yet will not allow their mifeondué be wilful; it remains ‘therefore that their mifap- slication of the trutt they have mde isow ing © ignorance, : Te willbe proper therefore to inquire firft, Whether 1¢ Society muft not be fuppofedto havea complercnt owledge of ithe flate of religion nr in’ the pi lantati- s,fo far-at leaftas relates to the defign of their in- orporation. And, B _ 2. Whether Ce : 2. Whether they may net alfo reafonably be fup pofed to underftand the true fenfe, meaning and de fign of their charter ; for if thefe two things cat be proved to the fatisfaétion of difinterefted. an: unprejudiced people, it will follow, either that th Society are not chargeable with mifcondué and mif application of their charity, or if they are fo, tha fuch mifcondu& is known, wilful and intended which the Dr. does not allow. . The firft thing to be examined is, Whether th Society have not a competent knowledge of th ftate of religion in the plantations. Dr. Humphrie in his hiftory of the Society page 22d, acquaints us that “ upon their firft engaging in this work th “ Society prefently perceived it confifted of thre great branches, the care and inftruétion of ou own people, {ettled in the colonies ; the conver * fion of the Indian Savages, and the converfior “ of the Negroes. The Englith planters had : i ~* The Society bega: ** therefore with the Englifh, and foon found ther was more to be done among them, than they ha as yet any views of effe@ting.” He then proceed to give “ a {mall fketch of the ftate and conditio: “of each catnip formed from accounts, the Go vernors, and perfons of the beft note, fent ove to the corporation.” I {hall omit what is faid o the fouthern eatheni/h colonies as Dr. Mayhes modeftly calls them, becaufe thefe he allows to b proper objects of the Society’s charity, and procee to the ftate of religion in New-England as reprefent ed in the hiftory before mentioned. After fpeakin of the firft fettlement of the country, and the ftat of religion in the early days of it, Dr. Humphric proceeds to fay,—‘ Since that time great number f : 7 66 C (74 (<4 1a) © of people, members of the church of England, ‘ have at different times fettled there, who thought ‘ themfelves furely entituled, by the very New- * England charter to a liberty of confcience in the * worfhipping of God after their owa way. Yet * the Independents (it {eems) were not of this fen- * timent, but acted as an efabli/bment.” “ The * members of the church of England in Bofton * met with fo much obftru€tion in attempting to fet. * up that form of worfhip, that they were obliged * to petition the King for protection. Their peti- * tion was granted, and a Church thereupon crect- ed, which occafioned the members of the church * of England in many other towns in New-England “ to declare their defire of the like advantage, and accordingly wrote very zealous letters to bifhop Comptoh, for minifters; and now it appeared * they were a very confiderable body of pcople.”* From thefe feveral paflages, it appears that the Society lid not proceed haftily and without due caution and nformation of the ftate of religion in the colonies which they propofed to aflift. Dr. Humphries goes on and fums up the religious ftate of the colonies na brief reprefentation of it, from the memorials of Governor Dudley, Col. Morris, and Col. Heath- ote. I fhall pafs over the fouthern colonies for he reafon before mentioned, and come to New- ingland.—* In Connecticut colony in New-England * there are about 3cooo fouls, of which when they have a minifter among them, about 150 frequent the church, and there are 35 commu- nicants. In Rhode-Ifland and Narraganfet, which is one government, there are about 10000 fouls, of which about 150 frequent the church, and there are 30 communicants. In Bofton and Pif- * Humph. Hill. p. 39. caraway ‘ ‘ 6 Co ag * cataway governments, there are about 80000 * fouls, of which about 600. frequent the church, “and 120 the: facrament.” After fuch particular information from the me- morials of thefe honorable perfons, perhaps no man except Dr. Mayhew and his voucher, will fuppofe the Society could be ignorant of the ftate of religion in this part of the world, nor confequently where it was moft proper to employ their charity. Agree- ably Dr. Humphreys acquaints us that “ the Gover- “ nors of feveral colonies, and other Gentlemen of “ character abroad, and merchants here in London, having given fuch a particular defcription of the religious ftate of the plantations ; the Society found it was high tin ne toventer upon the good work” * efpecially as “* great numbers of the in- habitants of various humors, and different tenets in religion, began to contend with great zeal, which fhould be firft fupplied with minifters of the church of England, and wrote very earneft letterssto the Society —TI hey (the Society.) thougirt any further delay now wouldbe inexcufable, after the people had preffed fo earneitly for their af- “' fiftance.”. Yet as if all this care was infufficient, and. that the Society might leave no method unat- tempted, for gaining a more perfect knowlege of the {tate of religion in the colonies, “ before they ‘t proceeded to appoint miffionaries: to particular places, (they) refolved to fend a travelling mifffo- nary, who fhould.travel over, and preach in. the feveralG overnments,on the continent of theBritifh ** America.” + Accordingly they did fend the Rev. Mr. Keith, who landed at Bofton on the 11th of June 1702, and in the courfe of two years travel’d Over & ce nw ¢ * Hmph. Hit. p. 44, 45. $ Ditto 73,748 a over and preached in all the Governments betwixt Pifcataway river and North-Carolina.inclufively,when having finifhed his miffion he returned to. England, and publifhed a full account of his labours. One thing in his_narrative I fhall juft mention, viz. That “ in divers. parts of New-England, he found not “ only many, people well affected;.to the Church, who had no. church of England minifters, but alfo. feveral New-England minifters, defirous, of epifcopal ordination, and. ready to embrace the church worthip, fome of whom. both hofpi- “ tably entertained Mr. Keith and)Mr. Talbot (who “‘ had joined Mr. Keith as, an afliftant) in. their “ houfes, and requefted them to. preach in_ their congregations, which they. did, and received great thanks, both.from the minifters and from the people.” * “ Mr. Keith in the conclufion of his narrative re- “ prefented,to theSociety, the. want of a great. num- “ ber of miniftcrs for apeople difperfed over fuch “ large countries,” and among others makes mention of Narraganfet, Swanfey, Little Compton & Rhode- Ifland in New-England, which, Places had engaged him to prefent. their humble requefts to the Socie- ty, to fend minifters among them.} | Yet notwithftanding this particular information, fupported. by many earneit petitions from the plan- tations for minifters of the church of England, “« the Society thro’ the whole managemewt of the - truft, have been fo far. from obtruding the church of England worfhip upon any fort of people abroad—that they have not been.able.to give any afliftance to great numbers of people, who have in very moving terms, with a true chriflian {pirit Saar “ requefted } Humph. Hift. p74. * Ditto 78, 79. — $ Ditto. iz4 iT) ce “ 6c “ce 6é « 39 (<4 «ec &e hee (\ 19Re a * requefted it ; and whom they knew to ftand very “ much in want of it. There remain upon ‘ their books numerous : petitions of this fort.”— I fhall omit thofe from the fouthern colontes, for the reafons before mentioned, and proceed to that of New-England, which asDr. Humphreys acquaints us (page 615 “‘tho’ before provided with an inde- “* ‘pendent and prefbyterian miniftry, -yet had great numbers of inhabitants, who could not follow that perfuafion, but were exceeding defirous of worfhipping God, after the manner of the church “ of England. I fhall give the reader (fays he) a few petitions which fhew plainly the Society did not concern themfelves here, till they were loudly ‘called upon ; and that the inhabitants in many places, did not only fend petitions for minifters, but alfo built churches before they had any mi- nifters, which is an uncontroulable evidence— that the people themfelves defired to have the church of England worfhip,with a hearty zealand true fincerity.” The Dr. then proceeds to fpecify as petitioners. feveral inhabitants of Rhode-Ifland, Narraganfet, Newbury, Marblehead, New-Hamphhire, Little Compton and Tiverton, Braintree near Bofton, and Stratford in Conneéticut.* “* The cafe of thefe * two laft towns he tells us was alfo further recom- mended to the Society’s care, by gentlemen of confiderable figure and intereft. Colonel Morris prefled very earneftly for a minifter for Braintree, and Colonel Heathcote, for another, for the peo- ple of Conneéticut colony ; 3 great numbers of whom were very carneft to have a minifter of the “ church of England. Robert Hunter, Efq; Go- *© vernor of New-York, in the year si I, writes 3 thus sé ce “e ec “ce a9 6s { ap) “ thus to’ the Society, concerning the people at . “ Stratford : When I was at Connetticut, thofe of - our communion at the church at Stratford, came “ to me ina body; and then, as they have fince by letter, begged my. interceflion with the vene- rable Society, and the right reverend the Lord bifhop of London, for a miffionary; they ap- peared very much in earneft, and are the beft fet of men I met with in that country.” How thefe ¢everal teftimonies which have been produc’d will operate upon Dr. Mayhew, it ts not eafy to fay; but to the fober, judicious and unpreju- diced, the following conclufions may perhaps be thought fairly drawn, viz. That the Society have omitted no proper mean$ of information concern- ing the ftate of religion in the colonies—That their religions ‘tate muft therefore be competently known to wnat venerable board—And that if they have been guilty of any notorious mifconduct or mifap- plication of their charity, it could not be owing to ignorance of the true condition of things abroad, but mult be attributed to fome ather caufe: For allowing what the Dr. has moft uncharitably inti- mated, that the miffionaries have mifreprefented the condition of things among us, and by that means endeavoured to miflead the Society to an improper application of the monies lodged in their hands; yet can any modeft perfon fuppofe that Governors of colonies, merchants, and other gentlemen of character, have all along combined with the faid wicked miffionaries, to abufe and miflead the Society into a wrong difpofition of their charity? Or is it probable that their own members, feveral of whom do refide in the colonies, fhould confpire with the worthy perfons before mentioned to carry on the’ deceit? ( v6 ) deceit’? ‘It is hoped the Dr. himfelf is *ndt fo far ‘in- volved in ’a party -fpirit as to affitm ‘the'probability of this, if he is, without doubt he is alone in fuch an uncharitable cenfure. «And therefore’ this peint may be left without any further remarks, to the public opinion. The fecond Inquity is ; Whether’the Society may not reafonably be {uppofed to underftand the true fenfc, meaning and defign ‘of ‘their Charter. Fo’thofe ‘who exantine the lift of members’ of which the Society is compofed, as it is exhibited in the yearly abftract of their proceedings, the prefent inquiry will appear very extraordinary. That a Sett- of Gentlemen,miany of them ‘highly diftinguith’d in the world ‘for their great parts,and éxtenfive know- lege, fhould miftake, or beat a lofs about the true meaning of a eharee, ‘which‘has nothing at all in‘it that isintricate or obfeurc,is what noreafonable ‘perfon will admit. -And‘notwithftanding the ‘Dr's refined critici/m, fome may ‘perhaps imagine that it ‘muft ar- gue ‘no fmall meafure of felf-fufficiericy in any-per- fon to oppofe his fingle {entiment,to that of fo learn- ed and ‘refpe@table a ‘body. Few’befidés the Dr. himfelf, will really believe that’ they needed his ‘affitt- ance for acquiring a right underftanding ‘of their charter. If we f{hould fuppofe, that'thofe very learn- ed divines, who from the beginning have conipofed a confiderable part of that body, fhould be lefs‘ac- quainted with the phrafe’ and purport of an inftru- ment in fome meafure foreign to their profeffion’; yet doubtlefs the Lord Chancellor, the’chief Jaftices of the'King’s Bench and common pleas, whofe pe- ‘culiar profeffion it is, may be fuppofed ‘to underftand the natureof inftruments of this kind. “And as the Society are obliged to exhibit an anriual Bh ico of their C me ) their proceedings to. thefe wwery learned,and |worthy, perfons,-it’s furprizing that they fhould fuffer them to-proceed above 60 years, :without once acquaint- ing them that their conduétwas not agreeable to the ‘Letter and Spirit of their charter. ‘That the Society fhould at laft be obliged toa profound .critic inNew- England for an ellucidation of this kind, after hav- ‘ing fo many years ftood the teftof .an annual exa- ‘mination, by thofe whom: the royal wifdom thought ‘proper to appoint jas their: me A aot tty i ‘they that can— Some 'fiiend of ‘the Dr's may poffibly here: cay out, what would this remarker be sat ?, The Dr. has plainly prov’d that the Society have:been ‘guilty .of great mifconduct, have acted quite inconfiftent with the jatent and defign - -of their charter, and from a- emce of charity is willing to impute. jit to! ation, or ignorance ; while this (Writer eaten ‘to defeat the Dr's ane pupal ad feems as tho’ he earn to prove: their milaceaiiet to’ be «wilful. ‘After: thanking the: cainid Dr. iia otis ceed 3 in- tention, the author confeffes it: 4s. his opinion, and he thinks it has in fome meafure been prov’'d ;,either that the Society have not acted inconfiftent with their charter, or if they have done fo, that it was knowingly, wilfally and defignedly ; cha ‘Lhe au- thor’ thinks, as all reafonable men muftthinke: that the Society do very well underftand the: defign and meaning -of their charter—Aind alfo that» they shave a competent-knowledge of the ftate of | tneligion: in the plantations. “Tf thefe two «things :are allowed, ties selinbaicin will eve be what was mentioned before, viz. i Cc ~ . 9 either (C mer) éither that ‘the Societys have wz thifoomdunted, or elfe; that ‘there has-been ho mifeondué in) the cafe—That they have wil/fully mifconduéted. the Dr. difallows, thercforc, there has been no mifcondua at all_—Hicre. then. the> argument. and ‘imputation which the Dr. has catt. — the cee ae a ‘courte. However, aha the: ‘Dr. has. ie eadich aiong! ‘to clear the Society from any intentional .abufe of ‘their charter;-poflibly others'may) not be fo ingenu. ous. Befides it may be efteemed nite toptake thi: ‘advantage of the Dr's conceffion, to theinegleé o: *thofe many curious arguments he -has brought. t “prove what he: had before given up ;. for »notwith. “Mtanding the inconfiftency of it, he has throughou: Lhis book eeismerom to prove, (that which he! gayé uf *in‘the beginning ;) that the Society have'really-beet ‘ouilty of wilful and: defigned abufe of. their, trust And therefore the author hopes: the Drewill forgive Pity if upon-a general view sof the obfervations,, he-i “‘Jed"'to queftion the fincerity of that declaration. be ‘fore mentioned, viz. “ That it is not his)i intentio of Lroocharge that. yeneriblesbody (theSociety)) wit bee any wilful known mifconduét or areas appli cation of monies.’ »wMr. Noah Hobart (w. sie bi the way the! Dr. edb’ dia bifhop, for-his heroic exploits, in this co -troverfy)shas-plainly fpoke out, and direétly char = the Society: with a defigned abufe and perverfio Soefetheir truft, at leat fince the firft ten years aft © *their incorporation, though indeed like the Dr. . ‘.afterwards fcems difpofed in fome meafure to retra ‘the charge, and chufes rather to impute it to t a of the sage of religion in New-Englan Si steed ba: “a “$ Hobart’s 2d Addrefs, p. 126. con par’d weit fellow pages. CC ge )) and to the‘impofition afd mifreprefentation of their) wicked miffi ionaries. * But:the author conceives it; has already’ been’ proved that their: condu& cannot, be imputed to'a want of knowledge, and whatever; the difpofition of Mr. Hobart or his: copier-may be,; it is prefumed that an accufation of the Society as, wilfully betraying their truft, will be received by the, impartial world, with therefentment itdeferves. It: is not the Sébiety alone; who are thus unjuftly ar-- raigned by thefe lecentisths’ pens, but the integrity: and honor of their infpedtors alfo, othe Lord chan-. cellor'and-the chicf juftices of the King’s bench, who yearly examine and approve their tranfactions, do of confequence fuffer impeachment by their ca-- lumny’;\ nay the extenfive abufe reaches to every, benefactor to that Socicty,. who, as:an arinual ac- count of their proceedings is publifhed and put into their hands,-muft be fuppofed to approve them, fince otherwife it is more than probable they would ave paibanaees their afliftance. - As.for the learned and ingenious ;Dr. I rt < certainly defeendcd very low, when lie vouchfafed oO become the tranfcriber of Mr. Hobart’s addrefs, or (excepting fome perfomal refletiotis upon. his intagonift) there appears little elfe- throughout _his obfervations, befides a fervile copying of that curious veice of defamation. The method indeed he may laim to himf{clf, and fometimes the phrafe and.man- rer of expreflion. The Dr. owns © the book has yeen of fervice to him,” aad promifed.to “ make roper acknow ledgments wherever he fhould make fe of it” yet has not perhans always becn fo good $ his word ; nor will the empty honor of. a d:/hop “hegh he arbitrarily confers on. ne sige a a, M aba Oo)2 fu fficicnt ” Vid. Hob. 2d Addrefs, p. 145. (9 fufficient compenfation for the libetties-of this-kind which he has taken. He afferts that.“ Mr. Hobart wrote fo folidly, and judicioufly upon the fubjedt, that‘it was hardly needful for him to fay-any thing,’ this is granted, unlefs he could have advanced fome- thing new, which the other had not offer’d before . efpecially as Mr. Hobart’s peice received as folid anc judicious an anfwer, which the Dr. thought prope wholly to ncgleé&. In truth, had the Dr. but care. fully read the Rev. Mr. Beach’s difpaffionate bu -miafterly reply to Mr. Hobart’s fecond addrefs, he might have feen a full and compleat anfwer to all he has written (except what is merely perfonal) without breaking in upon that peaceable difpofition which gives him fuch “ an averfion fo controverfy.” ~ The Dr. affirms p. 18. That “ nothing is to be “ fuppofed the object, or any part of the objeé ol “ this charitable and royal inftitution, but. wha “ plainly appears to be really fo, from the very ~ words of the charter’ and a. little after “* the ~ © words of the charter: itfelf muft determine and * limit the fenfe of the royal Grantor, and confe _ quently the legal power conferred on the — ** Grantees.” We fhall {ce prefently how. far the Dr. adheres to his own invariable rule of interpre: tation. He confefles “ that the Britifh plantations “ or the King’s fubjects were really the primary. “‘ more immediate object of this inftitution.” Aind pray why not the fole and entire object of it: There is certainly no other obje& “ particularly ex: ‘prefled” in the charter, . befides that of the King’ fabjects. Has he forgot what he had afferted bu ‘a few lines before, that “ nothing is to be fuppofe “° any part of the object of this infticution,but wh plainly appears to be fo from the very words Sih ear | (Abe). “ the charter,” Why then_are. the King’s, fubjects id to be the primary, more wnumediate, and not the: ole object of their inftitution,? fince, they are, the. only object exprefly mentioned im the very, words of the charters. It was a, ftrange overfight, in this. great critic, to. depart fo fuddenly. from his invariable. rule; or perhaps there was a defign to be ferved in interpreting the charter by way of implication, tho’, exprefly contrary to his own ule of a, literal inter- pretation, ; and that was to.perfwade the world, that this fociety was, creéted chiefly for propagating the, Gofpel among the Indians, To this purpofe he, has conveniently contrived two. objects of this. inftitu- tion, the one “ primary and immediate” “ (the King’s ‘ fubjects”) “ the other the grand ultimate object, « which is the Indians bordering onthe colonies.” But becaufe the exprefs words of the charter, which he had _reprefented as the folerule,of. their.condné, noluckily, make no .mention. of,“ this grand.ulti, mate defign”, therefore he found himfclf under .a neceffiry of departing from. the rule bimfelf. had contrived, in order to adapt one of greater, latitude, Indeed the Dr. affures us that this phrafe “the pros pagation of the gofpel im thofe parts,” . neceflarily “includes the grand ultiniate defign” before men- tioned ‘“ of chriltianizing the Indians.” But: pray “Dr, why fo? Is not. the defign of that phrafe the propagation of the gofpel fully anfwer’d, by preachy ing it to thofe of the King’s fubje@s who, feem.to be abandon’d to atheifm and infidelity, and to thoefe other “ inferior fubjeéts the flaves’?. many of whom eyen in New-England are yet in a ftate af Heathe- nifm. Does not the royal Grantor fay: exprcfly, we think it our dyty to promote the glory God, by the inftrudion of eur people in the chriftian Pied religion ? (\ 2 religion ? "J Is there a fi ngle word about’ the heathen, bordering on our colonies? Why will he thén’ force’ upon us a defign which the charter dées not mention? What is here faid is not intended’ to’ prove that the Society have not a power by their charter to’ propagate the Gofpel among the heathen, for they! really have fuch a power, and have accordingly made ufe of it, whenever opportunity has offer’d to do it with fuccefs ; and will continue to do fo notwith- ftanding his endeavours to mifreprefent, and leffen’ the merit of their pious labours. But the author's intention is to fhow the Dr. the fophiftry of his argument, and that the rule he lays down for inter- preting the charter, would, if admitted, exclude the Society from this good work, and confequently that his fae by proving too much, Ag nothing at a - The truth is, the Society have by their charter, not only a legal power of propagating the Gofpel among fuch of ‘the King’s fubjeéts as are in danger of lofing their chriftianity thro’ atheifm or infidelity, and among the heathen who have rot fo much as heard of the name of Chrift: But: (as miniftring greatly to thefe purpofes) of fupporting the means af religion among thofe who have already, or who ineline to receive it according to the legal eftablifh+ ment and provifion of the church of England. In’ fhort whatever legal means are found. neceflary of tonduciye to fecure or propagate the profeflion of ¢chriftian religion as it is eftablifhed in England, and all other his Majefty’s dominions (Scotland excepted) and made apart of the conttitution of the Englifh mation ; thé Society have a right’by their charter to “make ufe of, underftood in that generous view, ori- Binally Gefigned and. intended by the Grantor. - But @ a ) But .to this the Dr. further objeéts; ;that the “Grantor, “King. William himfelf. was. bred up in «“ the calviniftic principles and difcipling, quite oppo- “¢ fite in fome refpeéts to the epifcopal, and is ally. fuppos'd to oe retain'd a regard ie de “« principles of his education all along ; tho’ as King “of England, and head of that church, there was “+ a neceflity of his externally conforming to its rites and difcipline’—The. reader is defired to ftop “here for a moment, and indulge his aftonifhment- Was. this glorious deliyerer then a finith’d hy pocrite,? Was he under a neceflity of acting contrary to his .confcience.?. of ‘conforming externally to the church “of England while his heart. was not. in all this? “What blacker picture could he have drawn of thofe - whom he calls “« the infamous race of the Stewarts’”* »than he has here given of this excellent prince? A » Prince for whom he pretends a refpect;. at. Icaft as : “much re{pect. as he. is. capable of paying to any “crowned head: For he.affures us in a yery folemn manner, that, “‘ the greatelt. part of mankind now fe ¢ treOEs and almoft always have been oppreffed by : wicked tyrants, called civil rulers, Kings and _“ Emperors’.t So this perhaps is to-pafs for ,a light. cenfure:upon the memory of our glorious _liverer, And this fuppofitious reflection upon King | William: was introduced it feems to prove that he could not look upon the miniftry in the church of “England as orthodox, in oppofition to thofe who ‘diflent from the eftablifhment. But he might have _. found a better argument to proye that he could and _ did look upon it in that: ‘light ; for certainly better _ evidence could not be’ given of his regard. for the B church, of. hi brand, ape, his defire, to fee. it take . place » * Vid. Than. Serin. ak i. 48. t ‘Wid. Serm. 12. p 426. Vol. i. — a C 2 ) place and floutith in New-Englatid , thah his “gir see pounds fterling ‘per anni Bah privy purfe for fupporting-a minifter-of the ‘church ‘Of England in Bofton, ‘and “his beltowing a ‘valuable | Fibraty of ‘books on King’s ‘chapel in that town ; to which’(tho’ ‘not immediately relative to N. Bng- and) ‘gratitude -will oblige ‘all ‘true fons -of ‘the ‘church “of “Fngland: in America to ‘add, ‘his ‘reyal foundation of a-college at Willia in Virginia for ‘the ‘fame noble ‘purpofe. If the King “himfelf ‘could fo ‘liberally part with ‘his owt ‘thoney' to fur port what the’Dr. ‘calls the peculiarities of es abopiady; ‘tea hardly be doubted ‘but that’he’'would readily encourage the charity of ‘others in -doing the like. *So'that ‘itis not quite fo “unnatural” asthe Dr. ima- gines “to fuppofe that that noble {piritedPrinee ‘had ‘“ ‘fachan intention.” Indeed it would be whnatural “to fappofe the contrary; viz. that in ‘making a grant in favor ‘ofa corporation of the churth’of England, “he fhould make ufe of a word in fome peculiar fenfe -of his own, and different from thatin which he knew “they had ‘been accuftom’d to underftand it.” Tt-may ~ therefore very reafonably be admittéd ‘that by oftho- dox minifters in this ¢Harter, theGrantor did “intend “ thofe‘of the Englith church, not in diftin@ion from © 4llother churches in the world,” but in diftinétion * from ‘all thofe churches in the Englif’ dominions, “(Scotland excepted) who ‘diffent from the legal-con- ~ ftitutional eftablifiment of England. = t - > ‘As pertinent to what has ‘been here faid, ‘the fol- “owing paflage is inferted, with whichDr. Humphries ~worthily concludes his hiftory of the Society. “In *' pratitude to the memory of ‘the founder “of this * «Society ‘King William‘the third, it* may not be ~“ 4mproper to conclude this treatife with remarking a tee = e+ & ‘; ta a “to the reader, the erecting of this corporation, “was among the laft public aétions of his heroic ‘life: After having refcued. the proteftant religion “in Europe, and faved the church of England here, “ he did by this laft a@t, as.it were bequeath it to his American fubjects, as the moft valuable legacy, “ and greatelt blefling.”. But the Dr.adds—* to fay « that the Grantees underftood the term orthodox. “ in this narrow exclufive fenfe, is to reflect upon their “ underftandings.” As to their underftandings, it would become him to {peak with reverence of them, as what he is not qualified to take the meafure of : Nor is it any reflection upon them, that they fhould underftand the term orthodox in fuch a limited fenfe. For as the words orthodox and heterodox do in. their literal fignification: import, the one. a-righs, und the other a wrong or different opinion, in mat- fers relative to religion, fo, they who adhere ta he legal eftablifhed provifion, are ufually termed paaled-ct perfons who hold a right opinion, and hey who diffent from fuch eftablifhment are faid - o be heterodox, that is, perfons who hold a wrong- yr different opinion, whether their diffent arifes from loctrinal points, or ritual injunctions. Nor had the . Yr. any occafion to wonder that : his jantagonift hould underftand the word orthodox as well capable if the fenfe he had put upon it, fince it is ufed in he fame fenfe ‘in the hiftorical account of the So- jety as quoted by himfelf.+ | With.as little reafon oes he charge that gentleman with not diftinguith-, ¢ between here/y and /chi/m, for he was not talk- @ of herefy, but of heterodoxy, between which feems this learned critic : knows no difference. Y DD» *: 9 OTS LO AND - pt } “se Obferv. p. lor. toy. 7 (6 . AnD this feems to be a proper place to take notice of another miftake that both the Dr. and his vouche have gone into, relative to eftablifhments. The Dr does not indeed feem quite fo clear as his voucher that congregationalifm or independency are eftablifh ‘ed in New-England ; yct he has faid enough to fhev his inclination that the reader fhould believe it. Thu: in his 16th page he calls the minifters and churche _of New-England, the “ eftablithed minifters ane ehurches ;” anda notable proof of their eftablifhmen he gives us at the 42d page, where he fays, that th sae of the Maffachufetts-Bay made a lav _for the fupport of a learned and orthodox miniftry and this the Dr. calls a “ civil eftablifhment of reli. _ pion.” I fuppofe the government will fearcely than! _ him for this interpretation of that law, which reall; is charging them with invading the King’s pre _ fogative and eftablifhing themfelves: No fays thi _ Dr. in the next page, for the “ aéts which relate 1 “ the fettlement and fupport of the gofpel miniftry _ & here, received the royal fanétion, and thereforeou “ churches /éem to have a proper legal eitablifhment.’ _ I believe if the Dr. held an eftate upon atitle fo pre _ ¢afious, as that of its being merely overlook’d, hi _ would be folicitous of obtaining a better confirma: tion of it. Indeed he is fo modeft as only. to affer that “ they /cem to have a legal eftablifhment ;” bu _ fince hé knew that this was no eftablifhment at all. . it was perhaps not quite ingenuous to tell his rea ders that it /eemed to be one. . . - In his 72d page heafferts, that the Church o! England “ is not eftablifhed here,” which appears t¢ . be introduced as another reafon why the New-En land churches are eftablifhed: But now if it fhouk appear, that the church of England really ee ‘Caz >) -blithed here, and has been fo from the firft fettkement of the country; and that the churches(as he affe&s.to call them) of New England fubfift here as the diffent- ing congregations do in England, upon no other foot than that of a toleration: I fappofe the world will nor Jook uponit very modeftin him to {peak of the church of England in thefe colonies, as a party, a faction, little epifcopal parties, /mall difaffected and difcontent- ed parties.{— It will be proper therefore to fhew, ~. 1.-TuHat what the Dr. calls the churches of New England are not eftablifhed in the colonies. And ° 2. THat the Church of England is, and all a Jong has been eftablifhed here. _ Tat the New-England churches had no eftabs lifhment till the a& of toleration took place, is eyi* dent from their own confeffion ;. for fuch I take to be their fending an addrefs of thanks to King James the 2d. fora toleration of religion. Thus the affait is related by Dr. Douglafs. ‘ Anno 1687. The _ minifters of Maflachufetts-Bay colony, jointly fent an addrefs of thanks to.K. James 2d. for his ime “« dulgence, or general toleration of religious opinians ** and congregations; this was fent over and pfe- _“ fented to K. James by Mr. Increafe Mather, he “ and his conftituents, were not polineae fufficient “ to penetrate into the wicked and, pefnicious con- “ trivance of that toleration.” The Dr..adds in a | mote that “ by. this general indulgence popery wa’ _ “ craftily to be introduced; the colony of Plymouth ** unadvifedly fent an addrefs of the fame nature.” t If previous to this they had apprehended themfelves to be an eftablifhment, we can hardly fuppofe they would have fent a perfon a thoufand leagues to com- »pliment that prince upon his granting the bleffing of atoleration. — fiat : j Vid. Obferv. p. 55. 56. 57. 110. and im many-other places. Sum. hit. & pol. p. 440, vol I.” vod bs ( 28 ) “A fecond reafon to prove thatthe’ churches are not eftablifhed here, fhall send walker from a letter of their Excellencies the Lords Juftices to the Hon. William Dummer, Efg; which is handed down to us by the hiftorian above mentioned, * and is as follows. / ; Whitehall, Ot. 7.1 72 2 ¢ Sir, © Tue Lords Jolhices being informed fons fach “good hands, as make the truth of this advice not to “ be doubted, that at a general convention of mini- ‘fters, from. feveral parts of his Majefty’s province © of the Maflachufetts-Bay, at Bofton, on the 27th of * May laft, a memorial and addrefs was framed, di- * rected to you as Lieut: Governor and ¢ouiteandet *in chief, and to the council aid houfe of reprefen- *tatives then fetting, defiring that the general aflem- * bly would call the feveral churchesin this province ‘'to meet by their paftors, and meflengers, in a fynod, *ewhich memorial and addrefs, being accordingly ‘prefented by fome of the faid minifters, in the name, “and at the defire of the faid convention, was con- *-fidered in council, the 3d of June following ; and ‘there approved, but the houfe of reprefentatives * put off the confideration of it to the next: tethion, ‘in which the council afterwards concurred. } £ Their. Excellencies were extremely farprized, ‘ that no account of fo extraordinary and important ‘ tranfa@tion fhould have been tranfmitted by you, * purfuant to anarticle in yourinftruétions, by which * you are directed upon all occafions, to fend unto ‘ his Majefty, and to the commiflioners for trade and * plantations, a particular account: of all your pro- ' SEBRDS, and the ‘egndition of affairs within your " BOvernDy: nb ‘* Sum. hilt, & pol. vol. iI. p, 337. < CD “government.” As this matter doth highly concern “his Majefy s royal prerogative, their Excellencies ‘referr’d the confideration of it, to Mr. Attorney ‘and Solicitor General, who after mature delibera- ‘tion, and making all proper enquiries, reported, “ That from the charter and laws of your colony, they cannot collect that there is any regular eftab- “ lifhment of a NATIONAL or provincial church ‘< there, fo as to-warrant the holding of convocations or fynods of the clergy, but if fuch fynods might * be holden, yet they take it to be clear in point of * Jaw, that his: Majefty’s fupremacy in ecclefiaftical ‘affairs, being a branch of his prerogative, does take “ place in the plantations, and that fynods cannot * be held, nor is it lawful for the clergy to affemble “as in fynods, without authority from his Majefty.” “« They conceive the above mentioned application of “ the faid Minifters, not to you alone, as reprefent- “ing the King’s perfon, but to you, and the council * and the houje of representatives, to be a contempt of * bis Majefty’s prerogative, as it is a public acknow- ““ ledgment, that the power of granting what they “ defire, refides m the legiflative body of the provinee, wubich by law is vefted only in his Majefly. And . * the Lieut. Governor, council and aflembly inter- meddling therein, was an invafion of his Majefty’s royal authority, which it was your duty as Lieut. Governor, to have with{tood and rejected, and that the confent of the Lieut. Governor, the counciland “ houfe of reprefentatives, will not be fufficient au~ * thority for the holding of fach a fynod.” A “Their Excellencies, upon confideration ‘of this a of the attorney and: folicitor general; which they have been pleafed to’ approve, “have Sys me to acquaint you with, and to ex- aXe: ne * prefs: CPR | “prefs to you their furprize, that no account of { © remarkable a tranfaction, which fonearly concern: * the King’s prerogative, and the welfare of his Ma ‘ jefty’s province under your government, has beer ‘received from you, and to fignify to you their di ° e&tions, that you do put an effectual ftop to an} £ fuch proceedings, but if the confent defired by * the minifters above mentioned, for the holding o * the fynod, fhould have been obtained, and thzs pre: § tended fynod fhould be aétually fitting, when you “ receive thefe their Excellencies direétions, they do it ‘that cafe, require and diret&t you, to caufe fic! ‘ their meeting to ceafe, acquainting them that thezi * affembly is againft law, and a contempt of is Ma _‘ gefty’s prerogative, and that they are forbid to mee “any more; but if notwithftanding fuch fignification * they fhall continue to hold fuch an affembly, yor ‘are then to take care that the principal a¢tors there * in be profecuted for a mifdemeanour. But'yowar * to avoid doing any formal aé to diffolve them, le! “it be conftrued to imply that they had a right t faffemble. ‘Lhis Sir, is what I have in comman ‘from their Excellencies to fignify to you. > '-© And T mutt obferve to you, that the preceden “quoted in the above mentioned memorial of fuc’ ‘a fynod being held 45 years ago, falls in with th “ yeat 1680, and that the former charter, upon whic * the government of your province depended, wa * repealed by fcire facias in the year 1684, and th ' “new charter was granted in the year 1691, fror © whence it appears, that if fuch fynod was holde as is alledged, it happened a fhort time before 'th ** repealing of the old charter, bur none has bee * firice the granting the newone. wr. 1am Sir your moft humble fervant. » CHARLES DEVAFAYE.’ y (31) © Let us-now compare Dr. Mayhew’s opinion with that of the attorney and folicitor general as given usin the foregoing letter; and to make the matter more plain to the reader, I will place them appofite to each other (as they are truly in them- felves) in feperate columns thus, | _ Dr. Mayhew’s affertion that the The Attorney and Solicitor New-England churches are eftab- | Generat’s opinion, and the deter- lifhed here. - | Socnpe of the Lords Juitices fachufetts-Bay, in the th of Wil- | of your colony (viz. Maflachufetts , thereupon. 1. The government of the Maf- | 1. From the charter and Jaws Bay) they cannot colle&, that there iam and Mary, madea law for the fupport of a learned and orthodox minifiry ; itis needlefs therefore to look any farther back, for a civil eftablidhment of religion here. : # : Se _.° Obfv. p. 42. | _ 2. Theaéts which relate tothe | 2. Theacknowledgment offach fettlement and fupport of the gof- | a power in the legiflative bedy of pel mimiftry here, received ‘the | the province is a contempt of his royal fanaion, and therefore our Majelty’s prerogative. ) great neceflity of amiffionary in theNarraganfet,parti- cularly in South and NorthKingfton, at a time when there was no fettled miniiterof any denomination ; fent thither Mr..Guv, Mr. Bridge, and afuarwenele Dr. Macfparran to officiate among them. To give a check’to theie gentlemen fuccefs, and left the in- habitants fhould’ receive religion, as itis taught in the church of England ; one Mr. Torrey was dif- patched thither, ior nad fo' little pretenfions, and fo few adherents, that he could not find five perfons to give him a call (which I think the platform requires) and yet is officioufly continued there ‘to this day, tho’ his congregation, ‘as I am informed by thofe who live in the neichbourhood, ufually confitts of fearce twenty people. Again, The Society Satie miffion at Provi- dence about the year 1722 or 1723, where at that time there was no fettled {wnitiifter of the) congre- gational perfuafion. But for fear thofe people thould receive the benefit of religion agreeable to the church of oe a’ congregational minifter was foon feat thither, and as it is faid, even forc’d upon the people, who efafed to’ pay any thing towards his fupport. lO OWee Mibre”'ae UCharleRtdwa: in the Narraganfet, an‘attempt was made by feveral church families in that town, to eftablith a miffion for the benefit of themfelves, and the tribe of Indians in that neigh- bourhocd (at that time about4co) to which attempt the Indians were fo well difpofed, by the labours of Dr. Macfparran a neighbouring miflionary. that the Sachem gave a piece “of groun nd to ere@ a chure Epon, and a confiderable quantity of land befides, as glebe for a miionary. Accordingly a- church as fet up, and the laudable defign ina promifing fay, when one Mr. Parks was, fent thither, to give a ( 4h a check to the attempt, who by drawing off a part and kindling a fpirit e sco both Ex glifh & Indians in that town, totally difappointed ané fruftrated the above defign.* Let the Dr. now refleé whofe fault it is, that this colony has been no better provided with miffionaries, and lay his hand upon hi: mouth, when it appears how indefatigable fome peo: ple have fhewn themfelves to fruftate the Society’: attempts, even in thofe places where he allows the} might laudably have employ’d their charity. Let i farther be obferved in anfwer to the Dr's principa objection, viz. “ that the Society do not allow ; “ due proportion of their charity to the foutherr “© beatheni/b governments,nor to the Indian miffions.’ As to the former, feveral of thofe governments, hea then as they are, to their great honor be it fpoken have made a handfome provifion among themfelve: for the public worfhip of God, and therefore do ne longer need the Society’s help. And as tothe lat ter, he is certainly a very improper judge what ob- ftru@tions and difcouragements they have met with in their attempts to convert the Indians ; he there. fore fpeaks at random, and with great want of cha. rity when he fays they have negleéted that part o! their inftitution in order to propagate the church ir N. England. ; The Dr’s fifth {&Gion contains his account of the ftate of religion in N. England, before and fince thi the incorporation of the Society. But this accoun in many things, can by no means be approved. - It is not the author’s intention to call in queftior the religious character of the firft adventure s to N ; Engjand * This lift might have been greatly enlarged, but itis an invidious fi ) jeat, which the author by no means delights in ; nor would b mentioned at all. if the Dr. had not cry’d out fo much about a par Spirit, and faulted the Society for neg'eéting this colony. C. 47 ) England, he doubts not in the leaft but that they were ferious well meaning people,and altho’ labour- ing under fome miftakes and prejudices, yet many of them perfons of great wifdom and underftanding as well as piety. Nor will it be difputed that they made “ early provifion for the public worfhip of God” * But how far their coming hither was occafioned by their fufferings and perfecutions at home, as alfo what their fentiments were as to religious matters may deferve farther inquiry. In the mean time it may not be improper to take fome notice of the great veneration the Dr. profef- fes for the memory of thefe our pious fore-fathers, who firft came into this country, for the fake of en- joying (as he fays) purity of faith and worthip. Could the Dr. have mentioned thefe good fathers without blufhing, if he had reflected how widely he has departed from the faith which thefe good men profeffed, and that as to the moft effential do€tines of chriftianity ? Or muft we take his appeals and harrangues of this kind to be mere grimace, or ra- ther a defign calculated ad captum vulgi, to raife a ferment in the minds of the people, who cannot help retaining, and that very jultiy, a value for the memory of their progenitors?) Whatever their noti- ons of liberty, or purity of religion amounted to, they certainly had no great opinion of the learned Socinus ; they entertained thofe orthodox opinions, at leaft concerning the divinity of the Son of God, which the Dr. has treated in fo bold, as well as lu- dicrous a manner ; and had he lived in their days, he ‘* Obs. p. 40. $ See his fermons,on the terms of falyation—Of being found inChrift— Of joftiGcation by faith—and particularly his 2d fer. on cbriftian fo- ~ briety+——Compare thefe with the doctrines taught by the ecarly_ Writers aad diyines of N. England, C48). )) he muft either have enlarged his cteed, or felt the effects of their honeft refentment.. But tho’ he has no right )to take. fhelter under the merit of thofe good men who are fuppofed to have firft come hither for the fake of enjoying a pure religion according to their confciences, fince he is departed from that purity of faith, whatever it was, which they pro- feffed, as far as darknelfs is from light. Yet becaufe this {tale pretence concerning the defign of the firft adventurers as to religious matters is artfully and in- duftrioufly propagated among the common people who have not fuflicient opportunities of examining this matter, it will be neceflary to give it a more particular confideration. _Sphit Dr.Douglafs acquaints us that “ Robert Brown,a hot-headed young enthufiaftical clergyman, began anno 1580, to preach again{t the ceremonies and difcipline of the church of England; he was per- fecuted or baited and teazed by the bifhops courts, “ he with fome difciples left England, and formed “a church at Middleborough of Zealand in the ** Dutch low countries ; after fome time this effer- “ vefcence or ebulition of youth fubfided, he re- turned to England, recanted, and hada church of ** England cure beftowed upon him, and died in “S that communion, anno 1630. “ A congregation of thefe Brownifts was form- “ in Yarmouth 1602, being harrafs'd by the efta- “ blithed church of England, with their paftor they “ tranfported themfelves to Leyden in Holland ; ‘ here they. became more moderate under the di- “ reéion of their paftor Mr. Robinfon ; and ftom “ Brownifts changed their denomination to that of “ Independents : Being of unfteady temper, they * refolved to remove from amongft rangers after a : ten 174 66 it 6¢ 49 C 49 ) “ten years refidence, to. fome remote country in “ fome wildernefs, where without moleftation they “ might worfhipG od in their own devotional way.” Dr. Douglafs adds, that they “ obtained an inftru- ** ment from K. James I. for the free exercife of “ their religion in any part of America”; but in this article he is contradiéted by Mr. Prince in his chronology ; who fays the utmoft they could obtain was “ that the King would connive at them, and “ not moleft them, -provided they carry peaceably : “ but to tolerate them by his public authority, un- * der his feal would not be granted.” Thus the firft effectual fettlement in N. England was clearly made upon a religious account : But as o the firft fettlers of the colony of the Maflachufetts - 3ay, underftood as pofterior to, and. diftin@ from hat of Plymouth, they plainly aéted as other men ifually do upon like occafions, from hopes of in- reafing their eftates, and providing an ample inhe- itance for their children. , Having for thefe pur- ofes negotiated a fettlement for fome time, by a sovernor and Company refiding in England, they at ength thought it moft for the intereft of the pro- riety, that the feat of government fhould be re- noved to the country they were fettling. Accord- agly Mr. Winthrop was chofen Governor, and he ith his aflociates embark’d on board fundry fhips, f which the Arabella was admiral, with a defign to roceed tq America. | ‘As it was now pretty generally known, that the lymouth adventurers had fet up a way of worfhip ifferent from the public eftablifament of the nation, began to be fufpeéted and reported, that this new G company T Sum. Hift Polit, Vol. I. p 369. t Prince’s Chronolo p 57. See alfo p. 52. -6o. oy Ne ed ( 5° ) emer rm company had a purpofe of the fame nature, ‘abo as they fhould arrive ii America. This came to th ears of Governor Winthrop and his affociates, whi | they lay wind-bound at Yarmouth, and it gave the reat uneafinefs, as well it might, to lie wnder ‘th odium of this flander, and o¢cafioned their writin the following letter for their own exculpation bi fore they put to fea, viz. Extract of -a letter diretted to the B ifbops and Clerg and people of the Church of England, from ¢ board the Arabella, April 7, 1630. | ’ For ootaining their prayers, and the removal « ffficions and mifconftruétion of their intentions.* —'* "E befeech you therefore. brethren by tl “ mercies of the Lord Fefus, to compat us as your brethren, flanding in very great net of your help, and earneflhy imploring wt. And bov “ ever your charity may have met with fome occafie " of di cour agement through the mi ifreport of our i) “* tions, or through the difaffection, or indifcretion & Jome of us, or rather among us ; ( for we are n « of thofe Phat aoe, of verfetbion 3 in this world ) y “wwe defire you would be pleafed to take notice of tl “principals and body of our company, as thofe wh eftcem tt our honour to call the church of Englan. “from whence we rife, our dear mother ; and cannot part from our native county, aber’ fhe Jp “. cially refideth without much fadnefs of ‘heart ar many tears im our eves ; ever acknowledging, th uch hope and part as we have obtained im the cot mon falvation, we have received in her bofom, a “ fucked from her breajts. We leave her not-ther “fore as loathing that milk, wherewith we w ¢ eis “ec J Cr hie) * neuitfbed there, but bleffi ng God.for the parentage “ and education, as members of the Jame, body, Joall “ always rejoice im her good, and unfergnedly grieve “< for any forraw thgt may ever betide her,and, while “ we have breath fiscerely defire and endeavour thecon- “* tinuance, and abundance of “ber welfare, with the enlargement of her bounds, in the kingdom of “ Chrift Fefus. —Be pleafed therefore rev'd fathers and brethren to belp forward this work now in «band. &e. Signed by, ' Jon WINTHRop, Govr. y THOMAs DUDLEY, Dep. Gov. ae a Sir RicnarD A oe a Isaac JOHNSON. Rey. GEorGr PHILLIPs. WILLIAM CoDDINGTON, ? ye. CHARLEs Finks, is sas ps Previous to any application of the foregoing let-, et it may be proper to obferve, that Mr. Prince in is chronology gives teftimony that thefe pious peo-, le were profeffed members of the church of England.. * For the information (fays he) of the prefent. age. “as well as pofterity, they (this colony of pious: “speople) were of a denomination fomewhat diffe- rent in thofe early times from them of Plymouth: ‘ —they were ‘till now,” (that is, after their arrival n N. England) “ * profelled members of the church ‘ of Encland.” From the eivaios letter and teftimony it is. evi- lent, that w hatever the cafe was at other places, and vith regard to other adventurers, the firtt fettlers, of he Maflachufetts-Bay at lcaft,thofe pious good men, vho left “the fair cities, illness and delightful fields of Britain, for the then inhofpitable thores, ‘ and a “* Prince’s chronol. p. 213. C\. sa% OM * and defarts of America” did not do it bd any difguft they had taken at the eftablifhed religion of their country ; but from quite other motives._—— They pofitively declare their veneration for the eftab- lifhed church, that they efeem at their honour to call her their dear mother, that they cannot part from the place of her /pecial refidence without much fadne/s heart, and many tears in their eyes, they acknowledge that the hope they have obtained in the common: falva- tion, they received in her bofom, and fuck'd from her breafts. They declare they do not loath the milk wth which they have been thus nourifhed, but ble/s God for this their faerie and edycatien, that their. in- tentions have been mijreported ; that while they have breath, they will stNCERELY endeavour the conti- nuance and abundance of her wel are, with THE ENLARGEMENT OF HER BOUNDS, im the kingdom of Chrift Fefus. After fuch an explicit declaration as this; written and figned with their own hands, how can the Dr. pretend that thefe men were aggricved.at home,that they “carne hither chiefly on account of their faf- “ ferings for non-conformity,” that “ they fled: hi- “ hither as to anaflylum from epifcopal perfecuti- ‘on’ *? Is the foregoing the language of the per- fecuted, of men fuffering for confcience fake? In an honeft and ferious view, what foundation had» he for calling upon people to “ refle& on what their “ forefathers fuffered from the mitred lordly fuc- “* ceffors of the fifhermen of Galilee”? What truth in faying that this ‘ occafioned their flight into this * weftern world”? Did our pious fore-fathers “‘ throw themfelves into. the arms of Savages and * Barbarians, to be delivered from the unholy zeal and * Obs. p. 39. i’ Ch se) * and oppreffions of thefe lordly men,countenatic’d by fcepter’d tyrants”? * And would they at the fame time eatneftly afk the affiftance and prayers of thefe lordly oppreflors, and openly acknowledge the fpiritual benefits they had received from them? Read my dear countrymen, read the words of our pious fore-fathers, in the above letter; and compare them, with this author’s licentious harangue, and pretended vindication of them, and {ce with your own eyes” whether the Sirit of the one and the other have the leaft fimilitude. In hort cither thefe pious good men, were honeftly attach’d to the church of Eng- land, and ferious members of her communion, or they were not ; the Dr. affirms ‘they were differ: ters, they chew felvds declare, that they were faithful fons and’ children of the church, educated in her bo- fora, nourifh'd at ber breafts, blefing God for this their education, pronujing to feek her welfare, with the enlargement of ber bounds : From hence then one of thefe two things mult unavcidably follow ; either that'they were dreadful prevaricators w ithGod and'man, ‘or elfe that they are fadly abufcd and flan- dered, when contrary to their own exprefs declara- tion they are faid to have been diffenters, driven hi- ther by the oppreflions and perfecution of the church of "Bngland: if the former was the cafe, let us no more boaft of them as pious good men ; If the lat ter, let the Dr. confider, what eam pele he can ake to the memory of thefe men, for abufing them with the opprobious charge of feétarifm and | bypo- rify And this feems to be a proper place to take no- ice of a refleGtion which the Dr. very liberally be- ows upon the eftablifhed church of England, which he : . Obs. pP- 155, CO gag he calls “ a cruel perfecuting ehurch”* and Gy “ the firft fettlers of the country were perfecutes “ out of England by the efobaihes church.”§ Anc again, “ is it not enongh” (fays he) “ that they “¢ “* perfecuted us out of the old world? will they pur ‘ fue us into the new”? | And a few lines after hy fue of the danger of being “ confumed by the “ flames, or deluged in a flood of epifeopacy”. / ftranger would perhaps be led by this ‘manner o. expreflion to conceive, that not only Ste and faggo were plentifully employed in England for extirpating diffenters,but alfo that the Dutch method of knuting was uled towards them for thelame purpofes, Thefi that have been mentioned are but a few, out of ma. ny, very many bitter terms he has thought prope to beftow upon a proteftant church, univerfally ve nerated abroad, and generally cfeempstlis bulwarl and glory of the reformation ; a church remarkabl. for its tendernefs, and kind reeeption of foreign pro teftants, when thet have been obliged to fly fron their native countries on account of real perfecution I am forry the Dr. has made it neceflary to ente: upon a fubject fo invidious as this, and which lie fo open to abundant recrimination. The author i: unwilling to renew the memory of thofe feverities that were too commonly praéticed by all parties il the laft century, and which feem rather owing tc the temper of the age, and the miftaken maxims o. policy then prevail:ng, than to have been the con f{equence of religious principles. The church o England, confidcred as fuch, has nothing in its con flitution, that either neceflitates or warrants a per fecuting temper 5 ; and if any improper feverities have at any time been ufed by the government, in fup porting * Obes. p. 40. § p 46, fp 156.° fap | porting the cftablithed feligion of the nation’; they certainly were as foreign to the principles of that chutch, as they are to chriftianity in general. Will this gentleman allow that the perfecutions and op-. preflic ions exerciféd by the Prefbyterians, Indepen- dents, of by what name foever he chufesto have-them diftinguithed, at a time when they had the govern- ment in their hands, were the natural and proper ‘effect of the religious principles of thofe denomina- tions? And yet a great number of the moft cele- brated preachers of thofe times, warmly inveighed againft allowing even a toleration to fuch as pro- felled the church of England, expoftulating with the civil government upon ” that account, reprefenting fuch an indulgence as a great fin, a betraying the éaufe of ‘Chrift, and frequently ufing, or rather per- verting that expreffion in the Gofpel, compel them to.come in. Nay did not the violation of liberty and the rights of confcience rife to that height, as to prohibit by an ordinance under the penalty of five pounds fterling, the ufe of the common prayer, even in the moft private manner, in a perfon’s own houfe? For’ a fecond offence ten pounds, for the third one years.imprifonment. * Should the feverities , exercifed ‘* And it is forther hereby ordained by the faid Lords and Commons, that if any perfon or perfons whatfoever fhall at any time er thmés hereafter ufe, or caufe the aforefaid Book of Common Ptayer to be ufed, in any Church, or Chappel, er publique Place of worthip, or in any private place or family, within the Kingdom of England, or Dominion of Wales, or Port & Town of Barwicke, that then every fuch perfon fo offending therein, fhall for the firft offence forfeit and p2y the fumme of five pounds of lawful Englifh money. for the fecord offence the fumme of ten pounds, and for the third offeace ‘thall fuffcr ofe whole year’s imprifonment without baile or mainprize. Vid. Ord. of Lords and Commons 23d Avguft 1645. printed at the end of the Directory. The not ofing or depraving the faid Directory is by the - fame Ordinance made penal. And it is further hereby creamed ‘that every minifter which fhall not henceforth pu:fue and obferve the Di- CR exercifed towards the Quakers in the Maffachufetts- Bay, (whom by the way the Dr. by an awkward peice of flattery endeavours to complement with his good opinion+) when by. fines, imprifonment and death of fome, { the reft were obliged to take refuge in a neighbouring government ; fhould thefe feverities be attributed, not to particular indifcrete aaen, but charged as a confequence of congregatio- nal principles, would this be thought a-fair or ge- nerous conclufion? yet thefe and a thoufand in- ftances befides, the effects of an indifcrete and wrong pointed rectory for publique worfhip, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, in all exercifes of the publique worfhip of God within this Realme of England, &c. fhall for every time that he fhall fo offend, Jufe.and forfeit the fumme of fourty fhillings of Jawful Englifh money, And that what perfon foever fhall with intent to bring the faid Di- retory into contempt and negleét, or tosraife oppofition againft it, preach, write, print, or caufe to be written or printed any thing in the derogation or depraving of the faid Book, or any thing therein ‘cofteyned, or any part thereof, fhall lofe aod forfeit for every fuch offence, fach a fumme of money, as fhall at the time of his conviction, be thought fit to be impofed upon him, -by thofe before. whom he fhall have bis trial, provided that it be not lefs than five pounds, ~ nor exceeding the fumme of fifty pounds. + Obf. p. 50. { Anno 1656. By a law of the province of Maflachufetts-Bay it was enakted ; None of that curfed fed of hereticks lately rifen up in the world, which: are commonly called Quakers, are to be imported : Penalty upon the mater £100 per peice, and 40/ per hour for any other perfon hirbouriog or entertaining them. 1658 a Quaker con- victed fhall be banifhed upon pain of death. Sum. Hilt. Polit. Vol. I. P- 430. Againinp. 448 Some laws were made again{t the im- portation of Quakers and their proceedings— they were fubjected to fines, imprifonments, whipping, cropping of ears (1658 three Quakers had their ears cropt) and banifhment, and by act of affembly upoo their returo from banifhment 1659 and 1660, three or four Quakers fuffered death. This. in courfe occafioned a national clamour, and _ the pains of death were exchanged into thefe of beisg whipt, only through three towns at the carts tail: But upon furrher complaints home King Charles I. in Couacil, by order, Sept. 9h 1661, requir- ed the accufed to be fent home for trial, and all penal laws Aclauing to Ouakere ta be fulnended. Cg pointed zeal, might be mentioned by way of recri- mination. Will the Dr. allow that if any of the denominations, Prefbyterian, Independent, or Con- gregational, had now the power of government in their hands, they would put on the fame oppreflive temper ?—furely he will not—Nor does he find the church of England at this day praétifing any of thofe feverities wherewith he labours to affright and prejudice people againft her. No eftablifhment in- ~ the chriftian world, is more gentle, or allows greater liberties to thofe who diffent from it, than the church of England. Even the Dutch, who are thought to afford as great liberty to confcience as any-chriftian ftate, are never known to admit any perfons into civil offices, who do.not conform to the legal worfhip, which, altho’ it be a reafonable caution, is yet more than the Englifh government are nice in exacting. WHATEVER may be the temper of particular — men, it is pretty certain that at this time of day, all parties difclaim thofe feverities which have formerly been too much indulged ; the people of New-Eng- Jand in particular, have fpecial reafon to be careful how they countenance thofe who would promote fuch a difpofition (to which fome may think the Dr's manner of writing upon this occafion has no | {mall tendency) left the fame effet fhould -refult from it, which has once been\ the confequence of fuch a condué in the province of the Maffachufetts Bay ; perfecution of their fellow chriftians having been.one principal article which occafioned the va- cating their former charter.¢ | It was obferved, that this Gentleman’s writings have a tendericy to ftir up mifaffection and a party fpirit (which are the G natural ; + Sum, hift. & pol. vol. L. p. 4z2 * natural foresnitiners of perfecution, where there is power to execute it) this was not fpoken at tandom, as will appear isin the following paflages— ok! When we-confider—what might probably be the “fad confequence, if this growing party” (the church of England) ‘“fhould once get the upper hahd here, “and a major vote in our houfes of affembly: (in & ‘which cafe the church of ik es might become “ the eftablithed religion here ; tefts be ordained as ih ‘* England, to exclude all but conformifts from pofts ‘of honor and emolument ; and all of us be taxed “ for the fupport of bifhops and their underlings)’ Now not tomention that the Church of England is already eftablifhed here, and teftsalready ordained ‘and in many cafes required, as they are in England; “without any of thofe frightful confequences with which he labors to terrify the vulgar ; let it only be obferved that the plain import of this whole paflage is to perfuade people to unite in excluding thofe of the Church of England, not only from all pofts of honour and emolument, but even from the common rights and privileges of natural born fubjedts; a fcheme { notorioufly faétious and unjuft, fo evi- dently tending to divide and alienate the minds of his Majefty’s good fubjects from each other, that all wife and good men muft look upon it with indigna- tion and contenapt. Dr. Douglafs tcllé us in his Summary, that “ by “an ancient law of the Maffachufetts province, none “were allowed to be freemen but thofe who were ; sche rch members, that is (fays he) of the indepen- “‘ dent or congregational religious mode; and that ** only freemen were capable of voting in civil af- * femblies.” Upon which he remarks. “* This was Asian’ 4 “ too $ Obferv. p. 155, 156. ‘ *‘ too narrowand confin’d, perhaps more fevere than “ ever was practifed by the Church of England in its “ moft bigotted and faulty periods.” To be fure a greater infringement upon Englith liberty was never attempted; fuch a law might well therefore be re- pealed,as it foon was upon the King’s letter in 1662. And yet this is the very thing which the Dr. in the foregoing paflages feems di firous of eftablifhing, not by a law indeed, the legiflature are too wife and juft to hearken to infinuations fo fatal to liberty, but by raifing fuch a violent fpirit of oppofition in the peo- ple as may anfwer the fame end. Let any man read the virulent paflage now under confideration from page 155 to 157,and having weighed the temper and {pirit of it, let him turn to pape 175, and obferve the fame man declaring, that “‘ he is far from de- “ firing to inflame the paffions of any one fect or “ party again{t ancther:” and when he has done this let him wonder. It is not expected he fhould reconcile them, the author would not put the Dr. himfelf upon fo impoffible a tafik as this. SHouLD the Church of England prevail in New England he is afraid we fhould “ ail be taxed for the ** fupport of Bifbops and their underlings.” ‘This was certainly too weak an infinuation for one who writes himfelf D.D. and rather difcovers the writer’s paffion than his judgment. Even the loweft of the people, are too much of phylofophers and divines, to be taken in at this time of day, by fuch mean artifice as this; but it was defigned to beget a prejudice in the minds of the people againft epi{copacy, at which he takes all occafions to exprefs his diflike ; and in- deed his beft friends muft wifh that he had done no G2 more ; f Sum, hit. & pol. p. 432. + Tho’ the Dr, fays no aéts.of unifor- __mity ever took place here, fo far as he has learnt, p. 94 of Obferv. ( 68 ) more ; but when he fuffers himfelf to treat that whole venerable order, with an indecency of expréffion, - which would be quite unbecoming if it were offer- ed to the loweft of mankind, let the impartial reader judge from what temper it muft proceed. 87 - Tue Dr. could not be ignorant that epifcopal go- vernment generally obtamed thro’ all ages of the chriftian church ; that it takes place at this day in al- moft all the chriftian world; that the proteftant churches abroad, who are not fo happy as to live un- der this form of church government, do yet exprefs the higheft reverence and efteem of it; it would therefore doubtlefs have been more becoming to “have exprefs’d his diflike in terms of greater modefty than he has ufually done in this and many other of his writings, of an order fo generally held in vene- ration. Even the admired Calvin and Beza Rave highly applauded the epifcopal hierarchy of England, as appears by their lettcr to Queen Elizabeth, the Archbifhop of Canterbury, and others. They pray heartily toGod for the continuance and prefervation of it, bewail their own unhappinefs in the want of it, and mention it as thcir unavoidable misfortune to be without it. As to Calvin, altho’ he juftly ob- jects to that univerfal fupremacy claimed by the fee of Rome, as. ufurping the prerogative of Chrift, he would not believe that any man could oppofe the epifcopal hierarchy; but (fays he, {peaking of the Romifh church) “ If they would fhew us fuch an * hierarchy, in which the Bifhops might fo prefide “ as not to refufe fubjefion to Chri, but depen “ upon him as their only head, and refer themfelves “to him, then truly I will confefs that they de- * ferve to be anathematized, if any fuch men fhall “be, who. refufe to reverence.it, and fubmit ah * aa yt ( § “ with the utmoft obedience.”+ To the fame pur- pofe alfo does Beza exprefs himfelf: “ Bur if any “ there be (which truly you will fcarce perfuade me “ to believe) who rejeé&t the whole order of Bifhopsj “‘ God forbid that any man in his right mind fhould “‘affent to thcit madnefs.”{ And particularly de- clares that it was never his intention to oppofe the hietarchy of the Church of England which “ fingu- Jar blefling of God he defires fhe may ehjoy, arid “ wifhes it may be perpetual.”§ If foreigners could {peak with fo much refpect and reverence of this vene~ table order; how great a want of decency does it imply in a fubject of this nation, who owes his liber- ‘ty and every privilege he enjoys to the indulgence _of that very conftitution which appoints them, how indecent is it, I fay, to {peak of them in fuch oppro- ious terms as he has done in thefe obfervations, and in many other of his writings, of which the readef will hereafter find a {pecimen ? Nor is it the vencrable order of Bifhops only, which this writer has treated with fuch unbecomin freedom. Every part of the eftablifhed ecclefiaftica conftitution feems io provoke his difpleafure ; but uothing raifes his anger more, than that the Society fhould encourage the ufe of the liturgy in New Eng- land ; his contemptuous ridicule of which, makes the greateft part of his 14th feétion. THIs, 7 ‘Talem fi nobis hierarchiam exhibeant, in qua fic emineant epif- copi, ut Chrifto fubefle non recufent, et ab illo tanquam unico capite pendeant, et ad ipfum referantur, tum vero nullo non ana- themate dignos fatear, fi qui erunt qui non eam revereantur, fum- maque obedientiaobfervent. Calvin de neceffitate ecclef, reform. ++ Si qui funt autem (quod fané mihi non facilé perfuaferis) qui om- nem epifcoporum ordinem rejiciant, abfit ut quifquam fatis fanz mentis furoribus iHorum affentiatur. Beza ad Tractat. de minift. _-ev, Grad, ab Hadrian, Sarav. Belgaeditam. c. 1. § Fruatur fand ifta fingulari Dei beneficentia, que utinam fit illi ' »perpetua, ibid c. 18, byt 2, ( @) Tuis, fo far as it is an argument has been urged. by him, ofteftimes before, and implies that he thinks the Society, have no right by their charter to fup- port a public religion in New-England, efpecially to the neglect of the Indians and the fouthern heatheni/h governments ; for if they have a right to fuppert re- lgion in New-England at all, he allows it is natural to expect they fhould do it in their own way, and according to their own fentiments.f To this it has already been replied, that New-England containing a great many negro flaves that are ftill heathen, a great many freethinkers and other mifbelicvers, be- fides a great number of people from Europe educated in, and {erioufly attach’d to the Church of England, is directly in the moft literal fenfe, one objcé of the Society’s charity agreeable to their charter. And that they have alfo given their attention to the bor- dering heathen, and to thofe other governments which he efteems little better than heathen, in fuch proportion as they (whom he allows to be proper judges in this cafe) have found encouragement to hope for fuccefs. As to the liturgy confidcred in another light, and as the objcét of his particular averfion, without en- tring into any direét vindication of it; it may be no improper rebuke to his licentions freedom upon this fubjeé, to remark, that the whole chriflian. church from the beginning has made ufe of liturgies in the public worfhip of God, as appears from the feveral forms of this kind which are fill extant : And the foreign reformed churches at this day, have not only each of them a public liturgy, but have. given ample teftimony to the excellency of that in . ule Obferva. Pp. 12. ; : ( § ) ufe in the church of England ; which confidera- tions ought at leaft to Pie dhe his unfeafonable ridicule, and have taught him to mention with an air of greater ferioufnels, a fubje@ which the chriftiaa world have agreed to venerate.. | T HE + In the year 1 y Dr. Durell publifhed a fermon in deience of the Englifh liturgy, fome copies of which he fent to feveral the moft eminent miniiters of the reformed churches in France. From whom he received the following anfwers. f From Monfieur del’ Angle, mini- ‘fter at Rouen, Roiien, ce 5, Decem. 1661. Monfieur et tres honoré frere, Je ne fai fi je vous ai remercié de voltre excellent fermon--c’eft un fexcellent prefent que vous m’aves fait, vous le deves faire imprimer en mefme volume cue voltre Li- thurgie Frangoife afin qu'il lui terve d’Ange Tuteiaire, et qu'il Vaccompagne, infeculafeculorum. From Mr. de l’Angle, miaifter at Rouen. Rouen, December 5. 1661, Sir, my moft honoured brother, 1 know not whether I have thanked you for your fermon—it is an excellent prefent yor have made me; you ought to have it printed with your Liturgy in French of the fame volume, to be as its Angel Guardian, and to accompany the fame forever. From Monficur Bochart, mjni- | From Mr. Bochart, minifter of fter of Cacn, Caen. De Caen, ce Decemb. 1661. Caen, December 1661. Monfieur & tres honoré frere, Sir, my moft honoured brother, Je vous fuis tres oblige des ex- 1 am very much obliged to you emplaires de voitre fermon | for the copies of your fermon— Vollre texte eft tres bien choifi, | your text-is very well chofen, very Qien-expliqué, bien appliqué. well expounded, very well applied, From Monfieur Gaches, minifter | From Mr. Gaches, minifter of of Paris. Paris, A Paris, ce 8. Decemb. 1661. Paris, December 8. 1661. | ——Je pafle a voltre fermon,qu’on | —1 pafsto your fermon, which \m’apporta il y a trois jours, et | was brought to me three days que je leu d’abord avidement. | ago, and which I forthwith read Si vous avies befoin d’approbation | with great greedinefs. If you apres celle du Chappelain de | ftood in need of an approbation, voftre Eveique, j’y joindrois tres | after that of your Bifhop’s Chap- yolontieres la mienne. lain, I would moft willingly add mine to the fame, Thefe were followed by letters of the fame purport from MeMietirs Paillé, the father and fon, both minifters of Paris, from Mon- fieur Tricot, Monfieur Rofel, and Monfieur du Vidal, all three minillers of the reformed church of Tours. ( Oh) ‘Tur. author has now gone thro’ every thing vir the Dr's book which he looks upon to be material, i. e. which relates to the profefled defign, or prin- cipal argument of it. If any thing has inadvertently efcaped him, which the Dr. thinks to be of confe- quence to his main argument, upon proper notice of it, he will readily wait upon him again. There are indeed fundry incidental reflections to be met with, ‘but as they are foreign to the general argu- ment, and efpecially as they havé been honour’d with fome proper remarks in a pamphlet lately pub- lifhed at Portfmouth in New-Hampfhire, the author does not at prefent think it worth his while to take notice of them. Leen | “Fo fum up the argument on both fides——-The Dr's book is entitled “ Obfervations on the charter “ and conduct of the Society, &«. defigned to fhew their nonconformity to each other.” In.profecut- ing this defign the Dr. has given us his, or rather Mr. ‘Hobart’s fenfe of the charter ; this fenfe he has endeavoured to fupport, by adducing the title and feal, and fundry fermons of the Society in confima- tion of it. After which, comparing the conduct of the Society with the defign of their inftitution, a: he has plann’d it, he finds them to be inconfiftent, or to difagree with with each other. This isa fhort (and it is fuppofed) a juft reprefentation of theDr’ management of the-prefent argument, which if -h had purfued in a modeft manner, without feurrilir or abufe, no -body would have blamed -him? h would have been intitled toa modeft and gentec reply. Whether he has obferved this method, lc the unprejudiced reader judge. i A THE prefent reply is intended to fhew that th conduct of the Society is not inconfiftent with thei charter, nor yet with the title or feal, or the anni C 6 ) verfary fermons preached before them. | To prove this the author has endeavoured to fhew, Firft, That the Society have always had fuch means of infor- mation, both in refpeét to the true meaning of their charter, and alfo in regard to the ftate of religion in the plantations, that it is morally certain they. could not have been deceived in regard to thefe points. 2dly. The members of which that Society . is compofed, are in general perfons of fo refpeétable a character, that it is utterly improbable they would act contrary to their inftitution with defign ; and further that if they were inclined to do fo, it would have been impoffible to have fucceeded in fo iniqui- fous a purpofe, becaufe their charter obliges them annually to fubmit their whole tranfactions, to the examination of the Lordchancellor and chief juftices of the King’s bench and common pleas, who are surpofely appointed by the Crown to fee that the rue intent and meaning of the grant be complied with. 3dly, The author has examined the charter tfelf, and compared the fame with the aétual con- luét of the Society, and finds that they have pur- ued the feveral objects therein recommended, agree- ble to their title and feal, and to the general purport yf their annual fermons. In examining the charter he thinks it appears, that he Dr’s interpretation of it cannot be juft, inas- nuch as it renders it inconfiftent with itfelf ; fo alfo is explanation of the feal and title of the Society nilitates with his interpretation of the charter, and erves to prove his miftakes as to both. His quo- ations from the anniverfary fermons of the Society, s they relate to one object only of their inftitution, nuft be look’d upon as a partial reprefentation, how- yer they do not at all interfere with what is ec) I € ( @ Y ed to be the fenfe of the charter, ofewith their ge neral conduét, and confequently are nothing’ at al to the purpofe for which they were introduced. \ Befides this, the author has made a few cafua firi@turés upon fome of the Dr’s incidental reflect Ons, as they happened to fall in the way of th principal argument ; and he was the rather incline to do’this, becaufe the Dr’s quarrel with the So Ciety, feems really to take its rife, not fo much fron any thing he faw amifs in their: conduét, as fron his inveterate hatred, and. unreafonable difpleafur towards the church of England, which he flatter himfelf could not fubfift long in the country with out the Society’s countenance and fupport. «An yet in this perhaps he is \miftaken, fince the pro vidence of God has. more ways than one of fup: porting his own caufe ; fo that if theSogiety fhoulc think fit to withdraw their affiftance: (which’ they will hardly do the fooner for fuch: obfervations a: - his) it is not doubted but that God would raife ur other. helps, or fome way direct to fufficient mean: for the prefervation of his church. It was the ad- Vice of a wifer man than perhaps either of us, ‘tc the jewifh council, when they were confulting how they fhould put a ftop to the preaching of the apoftles, and the early propagation of the gofpel “Refrain from thefe men, and let them alone: fot “if this council, or this work "be of men, it will ** come to nought : but if it be of God, ye can- “ not overthrow it; left haply ye be found even tc ** fight againft God.” | if the Society, either through mifreprefentation or by any other means, have been led into an miftake in the management of any part of theit truft, no man will think that the Dr’s indecent an abufiv (@) abufivé treatmrent of them is the way to incliie them to amend it. Had it not been better to have improved upon the hint which he has quoted fron» -ifhop’Burnet, and by this means have excited their emulation’? or as the bith exprefles it “ have pro? voked them to jealoufly” ? Mr. Hobart referring’ to the fame paflage mentions fome ‘great things thab have béen’done in regard to the pein ballicks of the Indians by the Society i in Scotland: for propagating chriftian knowledge, (it is fuppofed-by the care and management of their commiffioners at Bofton) with a {mall expence. * Suppofing the truth of this; (which the author has no inclination to’ call in queftion) every good chriftian will fincerely- rejoice at it, and pray God that they may ftill meet owith more abundant fuccefs. But then would it not have been infinitely more ufeful, and have difcovered more of a chriftian fpirit, if the Dr. inftead of abus fing the Society for the propagation of the gofpel; had employed himfelf in giving a particular account of that pe! which ea been thus remarka+ bly fuccefsful, ec. g. What has been their certain fund; — what their cafual lat faBionss from whom they receive their money, and how it is expended, what miflicnaries they employ, at what places they are fixt, and what are their refpective falaries, and laftly, what accounts have been received from them as to the fruit of their labours : Had he done this, in fome fuch plain open and honeft method as the Society for propa gating the gofpel have done,it might poflibly not only have provoked them! to emulation, byt have opened to them fome new or more efféStual methods for rendring their pious defigns fuccefs ful. Certain it is, that no Society, whether incorporated or merely : voluntary, « Mr. Hobart’s 1ft Addrefs 5 p. £29. C aoe voluntary, whofe fingle aim and intention it is to promote the glory of God, jin enlarging the king- dom of the Redeemer, have any reafon to be afham- ed of publithing their tranfaétions to the world: On the contrary it feems to be a duty to do fo, not only to prevent fufpicion of ill and improper defigns, but-alfo that their light /bining out with a clear unfullied brightnefs before men, others may be induced either to join with them and ftrengthen their hands; or be led to fet on foot fome other pious and charitable work of a fimilar kind to the further advancement of God’s glory, » As to Indian converfions the author's opinion is, that the Rev. and worthy Mr. Wheelock’s judicious {cheme of educating fuch of the younger Natives, as may be obtained, among the Englifh at a diftance from their own homes, and then fending them back to their friends and countrymen, whether as miffi- Onaties or otherwife ; if it may. be done in any confiderable numbers, would have the beft influence in civilizing the favage temper of thofe people, and preparing them for the reception of the golpel ; This good defign therefore, as it deferves all encour- agement, fo it is pity but it fhould be univerfally known. Mr. Wheelock has indeed publifhed an open and undifguifed,as well asa modeft account of his plan, and of the progrefs he has hitherto made! Amit, but fince it has not yet circulated fo far as it might be withed, this little intimation is defigned to promote its being more generally known.* _ But to return from this fhort digreffion.—If the Dr. fhould complain, or rather (fince he has no . | . right * The pamphlet referr’d tq is intitled, A plain and faithful narrative : the original defign, rife, progrefa and prefeat fate of the Indian chas ‘tity fchool at Lebanon in Connecticut. Printed by R. & S. Drape Bolton, 1763. : ] , CRG" 9 | right to complain) if his friends fhould complain in his behalf, that in the foregoing remarks, the author has fometimes ufed too great a feverity of expreffion, let them confider the provocation ; let them reflect on the indecent language, and various abufe, that the Dr. has poured out, not on fingle perfons only, but upon public bodies, upon the moft re{pectable characters, upon the eftablifhed religion of the na- tion, upon thofe who come over to, or embrace it in N. England in general as men void of ail piety and goodnef, * upon. the moft facred doc- trines of our holy religion — let them I fay reflect upon thefe things, and then fay whether there was not an occafion for fome kind of rebuke. The author is very far from being fond of harfh and fevere epithets, he had infinitely rather examine fab- jects of controverfy with that meekne/s and jear which is prefcribed by the apoftle ; but even’ the meck and gentle fpirit of the gofpel not only allows, but-alfo requires in regard to fuch licentious free- doms, as the Dr. has thought proper to ufe, that they fhould be rebuked /harply. If any one fhall ftill think that the Dr’s foible is reprefented in too ftrong a light, that he has not been guilty of all that indecent abufe in his writings with which he feems here to have been charged ; let fuch perfon examine the following fpecimen taken from his own writings, meft of them folemnly de- livered from the pulpit. It is hoped that it will ferve to fatisfy the moft incredulous, and befides it may ferve to /hew the Dr. to himfelf, and let him fee how far he is departed, I will not fay from the ignity of the facred office only, but from the piric of the gofpel, 5 By: | And —* OF pcg. to his deftruction by the | EEE Sa (rg -And fist obferve the} — It is HOt impto “4 bi modefty of his expreflions | obferve that the in regard toKings whom | fometimesin a better tei he calls | per than what is imply’d Scepter’dTyrants. Obs. p. | in the oppofite column ps5. and fays that “” The greateft part of mankind now are and al- : | moftalwayshave been op- | particularly when he de- refled by wicked tyrants, | clares that called civil rulers, Kings and Emperors. Vol. Ser. printed 1755. p. 426. 2ndly. Expreffions in he would not willingly regard to the eftablifhed | and unneceffarily give church of England, its | offence to any perfons conftitution, Bifhops and | of that perfuafion (the clergy church of England) Obs. An enormous hierarchy | p. 175. afcending by various gra- That the main atid he dations from the dirt to | had in view (in writing his the fkies. Obs. p. 155. | Obferyations) was— that An hierarchy refem-| of ferving the caufe of bling that of the romifh | truth and rightcoufnels—~ church, where one great | in diftinétion fromall pri- prelate prefides over the | vate party opinions wnat whole, with all the infe- | foever.. Obs. p. 174. rior religious orders, the loweft of which are as it were aah in the dirt. Obs. 7. Brg He ee that one of our | He declares that he is Kings far from defiring to in- was Mae aad and duped | flame the paffions of an; one fect or party again, C6 Far 3 furious epifcopal zealots | another : fo’ far from ‘it of that day. Obs. p. 157. _that he’ would fincerely And mentions the bi- | rejoice to be in the lealt thops before the revolu- | degree’ inftrumental of tion uniting them in the bonds The perfecuting anti- | of Chriftian charity, on chriftian {pirit. of many | the true plan of theGof- prelates before the revo- | pel. Obs. Pk es lution. Do. 157. And in the foregoing page {peaks contemptu- oufly of Bifhops and their under- lings. p. 156. In the page before they are ftiled The mitred lordly fuc- ceffors of the fifhermen of Galilee. Obs. p. 155. | . In the 39th page he fays | ~ Hasa great averfion to that before the revolution | controyerfy. Obs. p. 7, Epifcopal perfecution [ | “A was feconded by royal } power ; which condef- | cended to be fubferyient to the views of domineer~ ing prelates. Obs. p. 39. In another paflage he When once providence fays that fhall have put it in our Their unholy zeal and | power to live thus (peace- oppreflions, were counte- | ably that is in refpe& to nanced by fceptred ty- | our enemies) — we are fants, p. 155. wholly inexcufeable—if In which latter expreffi- | we fhould turn afide ta 0p as well as many others | vain jangling amongft our of | felyes (P98 of like kind he has reafon | felves, doting about quef he fays to think vhat He fpeaks the fenfe of the far greater, wifer and better part of the people in N. England. p. 154. As to this I have bet- ter reafon to think that he is widely miftaken,and that the greater, wifer and better part of N.England do entirely difapprove his cenforious indecent and uncharitable temper. Having thus treated the bifhops, the church itfelf could notexpect bet- ter quarter, and accord- ingly he has charaéteriz’d the church of England, the eftablifhed church of the nation, of which the King himfelf is, under » God, the head, which he loves and has {worn to defend, to be, A cruel _perfecuting church,—Obs. p. 40. to which that he might pre- ferve himfelf from the cenfure of civil authority he fubjoins, As that was before the revolution. We I tions and ftrifes of words, whereof cometh envy, ftrife, railings, evil-fur- mifings, and perverfe dif- putings, inftead of ftudy- ing the things that make for peace, and the things whereby we. may edify one another. If we fhould heneforth live as becomes fellow- fubjects and fellow-chri- ftians,in the fear of God, and brotherly love, &c. Serm. on the reduétion of Quebec, p. 59, 60. The 7! Ji. We may now pafs to {ome expreffions deliver'd by him from the pulpit, as | contained in afermon on! the anniverfary of King Charles's martyrdom. In the preface to which he {peaks of Bifhops and the clergy in general under the title of | Imperious Bifhopsand! The oppofite expref- reverend Jockies. fions are the language of And in the fermon it- | one who fays he would felf they are ftiled not bring a railing accu- Reverend and right] fation even againft the reverend drones ; who| devil, tho’ he were con- preach but once a year, | tending with him, much and then, not the gofpel | lefs would he bring fuch ° of Jefus Chrift, but—| an accufation againft his fome favourite point of} brethren. church tyranny and anti- Vol. I. Ser. X. p. 354. chriftian vfurpation. p- 21. 22.! Tam far from intend~ Speaking of the King, | ing (fays the Dr.) to de- he fays that bafe preaching by f{cold- _ He fupported that more | ing, or bringing a railing - than fiendarchbifhopLaud | accufation, even againit and the clergy of his | wicked andungodlymen. {tamp, in all their church | Nor will I forget the apof- tyranny andhellifh cruel- | tle’s admonition toTimo- plies. . “p42. thy, Rebuke not an elder [or aged perfon] but in- ; treat him as a father: as T hope I have not forgot- ten what he immediately fubjoins, There K : (34.2 fubjoins,and the younger men as brethren. Prac. Difc. on the earthquake, i Serm. IX. p. 263, 264. There feems to have| Theoppofiteareftrange been an impious bargain j'expreffions, to fay no {truck up betwixt the {cep- | worfe, for one who calls treand the furplice for en- | himfelf a minifter of Jefus flaving both the bodies | Chrift. . and fouls of men. The ‘King appeared to be wil- _ ding that the clergy fhould do what they would— fet up a monftrous hierar- chy like that of Rome— a monftrous inguifition | like that of Spain or Por- tugal—or any thing elfe | which their own pride, and the devils malice could prompt them to. p. 52. | Take a further fample of this Gentleman’s meek fpirit and temper. Somecontendand/foam: Would not any ferious and curfe their brethren | perfon imagine that the for the fake of the atha-| oppofite paflage would nafian trinity till tis evi- | have been full as defcrip- dent they do not loveand | tive (know it wouldnot fear the one living and | have been quite fo rheto- true God. Others you | rical) if the words foam- will fee ragzng about their | ing, raging, quarrelling peculiar notions of origi-| fury and bitternefs ha nal fin, fo as to prove | been omitted, or at leaft themfelves guilty of actual | if fome fofter terms ha tranfereffion. | been Cre D tranfgreffion. Aboutelec-| been fubftituted to ex- tion till they prove them- | prefs his glifpleafure at felves reprobates. About | thofe who en the doc~ particular redemption till | trines he there mentions. they fhew thatthey them- felves are not redeemed | from a vain converfation. You will hear others guar- relling about imputed righteoufnefs with fuch Jury and bitterne/s, as to fhew that they are defti- tute of perfonail. About {pecial grace, fo as to fhow that they have not even common. About faith while they make fhip- wreck of a good con- {cience. | Serm. XI. Vol. I. p. 403. It will doubtlefs be dif- agreeable to the reader to be any longer entertained with expreffions and ob- fervations fo utterly un- becoming a minifter of Jefus Chrift, or in truth any other difciple of that divine mafter. Theauthor will here therefore put an end tothe fpecimen with | the mention of a trifling inconfiftency which this | otherwife accurate Gen- |! jtleman has fallen into in| :} f the heat of his argument. | Mr... C7 a Mr. Apthorp had ob-| It has been too com» ferved' that th religious | mon for people in New-' ftate of the country is ma- | England to exprefs them- nifeftly improved as to its | felves in a manner juftly fpeculative doétrines,not- , exceptionable upon thefe withftanding the immo- | points (i. e. the principles ralities we lament and | he fuppofes the Gentle- wifh to reform. After | man had referr’d to) Obf. {pending feveral pages! p.92.and in Serm. I. Vol. (viz. from 83 to 92.) to| 1. p.16. He fays it is one confute this pofition, the | of the chief honors of the Dr. concludes as in the ; prefentage, that the prin- oppofite column— ciples of religion, particu- | larly of religious liberty, are better underftood and more generally efpoufed, than they have perhaps been fince the days of the apoftles ; it were to’ be wifhed that pra@tical chrif- tianity, had made progrefs in the fame proportion. Tus littl contraft is left to fpeak for it felf ; but as to the forgoing fpecimen the author prefumes the Dr’s. beft friends, muft ferioufly wifh that he had expreffed himfelf, not only with more decency and refpeét, but more agreeable to the temper of the gofpel: Others perhaps who have lefs tendernefs for him, will alfo have lefs charity, and be liable to fuf- pect that he deceives himfelf, when he profeffes a regard for that divine religion which difclaims all evil {peaking, railing and reviling, and whofe princi- pal charatteriftic is love or benevolence, a principle which they may think he notorioufly violatee—— Be that as it may, the author is of opinion that the Dr. CPR.) Dr. has no'room to complain of harfh or fevere treatment, no not altho’ it fhould be more difagree- able than any he has yet met with ; unlefs he will be pleafed for the future at leaft to treat mankind with more refpe& than he has ufually done, not only in his book of obfervations but even in many of his fermons. THe author cannot perfuade himfelf to conclude thefe retle@ions without expreffing his aftonifhment, that any gentlemen, tho’ of congregational princi- ples, and much more that the reverend gentlemen who are the fpiritual guides of that denomination, overlooking the Dr’s attempts to undermine the fundamental principles of their faith, fhould exprefs their approbation of this his performance, which in the conduét of it difcovers fo little of the meeknefs and gentlenefs of the gofpel. Can you, gentlemen, be fo far blinded by prejudice ora party fpirit, as tamely to give up thofe eflential doétrines for which you have hitherto laudably contended, and which once you efteemed your glory? Can you, I fay, cherifh. and flatter the man, who has been labouring from pulpit and prefs to demolifh the do@rines which yout fore-fathers have handed down to you? (while yet he pretends to venerate them) thofe doétrines, which by way of eminence, you have been wont to ftile the doétrines of grace? + Are thefe things of lefs confequence than an oppofition to the church of England? How is it then that you have com- plimented the Dr. with your thanks (for fo I hear many of you at Bofton have done) for his- book of obfervations, who by his other writings, has been _deftroying the fundamentals of your faith? Has he not been undermining the dignity and divinity of ae the } Vol, of Serm, printed 1755, pallim. C.F the fom of God?+ Does he not deny-and ridicule: the doétrine of juftification by faith? calling it: confufion and an unintelligible rant, + nonfenfe, t gibberith, || mere: jargon, § a means of beguiling unftable fouls to their deftruétion, {} an irrational unfcriptural doétrine, of pernicious tendency with» regard to the lives and manners of men.ff Does he not difcard the notion of original fin, and brand the doctrine of imputed righteoufnefs with the re- proach of nonfenfe? And have you not, gentlemen, implicitly countenanced thefe, and the numerous, other errors in doérine which are fcatter’d up and down his writings, by your unfeafonable compli- ments for his late obfervations upon that venerable Body of men the Society for the propagation of the gofpel, &c. Will not ftrangers, will not every one who fhall read the errors which this gentleman has: publifhed, naturally conclude, that you, gentlemen,. do abet and approve them, who have thus given your fanction to this his laft, but not leaft injurious performance ?—I fpeak it with grief and concern, are you fo carried away with a party fpirit as to countenance fuch abufe and mifreprefentation of the church of England, while you have not the courage to rife up in defence of the Lord Jefus Chrift, and the truth of his gofpel Remember who has faid, “ he that is afhamed of me and of my words, &c. “ of him fhall the Son of Man be afhamed when he * cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy “* angels,” | | Bur t See vol. I. ferm. IX. p. 267, 268, 291. Serm. X. p. 341, 342. Serm. XII. p. 417, 418. note, but particularly Serm. I. oj Chriftian Sobriety, from p. 57 to 68. + Serm. VII. vol. I. p. 173, note. jt Serm. VIII. p. 237. : VUI. p. 249. §Do.p. 251. {f£Do. p. 244. BY ( yo )) _ Bur to-return from this digreffion, if it may be called one.—Befides the‘errors in doétrine hinted:at in the foregoing remarks, the Dr’s reflection’ upon ‘the Song cf Solomon is fufficient to fhow how eafy itis for him to difcard even the facred canon ‘of feripture itfelf: Or perhaps it was introduced mere- ly for the fake of the witticifm. It would difcover however both more wifdom and ferioufnefs to re- ferve his drollery for fome lefs important ‘fubjed. But no witticifm, nor any thing elfe, wil sjuftify the pernicious tendency of the doétrine of annihi- Jation, to which he has given'too much countenance in the following paflage. Speaking of fuch as die in their fins; “ The utmoft they can hope for (fays he) is tobe annihilated after {uffering unutterable “torments: Tho’ I donot affert, that they can, ac- cording 'to the {cripture account, hope for fo great “a favor as even this would be, viz. to be utterly ~ “blotted out of being! ‘However it muft be con+ “ feffed that fome expreffions of {cripture feem, ‘at “ firft view, ‘to: countenance this fuppofition.”’t This will too greedily be catched at by thofe whochave lived in:fuch a manner, as to have'no’better hope in their death. It might not be amifs for the Dr. to take a review of. his works, and expunge this and many other paflages which certainly have a threat- ning afpeét upon the religion of Jefus Chrift. _ BuT befide the ill confequences to religion, . and efpecially among the rifing generation, which may not improbably follow from the principles he is labour- ing to propagate: If the goyernment enjoy any pri- vileges by virtue of their charter, which they are fond of retaining; one may be confident that the fpirit and temper of the Dr’s writings, fo far asit can be : fuppofed ¢ Ser. Vol. 3. p. 475. 476. note. . a a C eho fuppofed they are publickly countenanced, will be attended with no favourable impreffions, where it is, the intereft of the province to ftand in a favourable light. It were to be wifh’d that this were more thought of by fome well difpos’d people, who do not appear to be aware of the confequences, which fuch improper liberties may produce in regard te the civil interefts and privileges of that province. As the author firmly believes that this is not the general temper of people in the colonies, fo it is hoped it will be received at home as the effect of this Gentleman’s particular difpofition only, and that of two or three of his abettors. To conclude, the author apprehends he has now JShewn the Dr. to him/elf (to ufe his own phrafe) and he hopes has alfo fhewn him to other people. The firft with a charitable view to his amendment, the latter with a defign to caution others againft being mifled. To thefe good purpofes, it will not be im- proper to pray, tho’ in the words of the liturgy, “ that God would grant unto us all, that we may * both perceive and know what things we ought to “ do, and alfo may have grace and power Paithinally “ to fulfil the fame.” A LETTER A fhorc Vindication of the Society for the Propagation of the Gofpel, Gc. againft the Objections, Miftakes and Mifreprefen- tations of Dr. Mavuew, in his Obferva- tions, on the Conduct of that Society, By one of its Members. In a LETTER to a FRIEND. DearS: TR; HE great difficulty I labour under in writing, muft be my apology for writing very briefly, and attending only to the moft material things. It is too evident from the general current of Dr, Mayhew’s performance, That, it is his aim to beget a pre- judice, and an odium in his readers, againft his antagcnift, and againft the church of England, and the Society, from confiderations and reflections, either meerly perfonal, or lu- dicrous, and often trifling, and few of them, relating to the. real merits of the caufe ; which is a praétice quite unbe- coming a juff writer, either in the critical, or moral fenfe of that character. There is one grand impofition upon his readers, which runs through the whole, and is, as it were, the burthen of his fong, in which, there is not the Jeaft truth, and for which, there never was the leaft cround, or foundation, as ever 1 could learn, viz. That the chief view and endeavour of the Society has been to convert presbyterians and congregationa- Jifts to the church, to the negleé of Negroes and Indians, and the Aeatheni/b colonies, as he calls them . L aye Cae If they,or their miffionaries had done this,they would have had infinitely more reafon, and right in what they did, than the diffenters from the beginning had, in ufing all poffible endeavours, to promote factions, and difafle& people, to the eftablifhed church of Exg/and, in all quarters, and make -all the profelytes they could, from her communion, to their confufed parties and fects, iffuing in downright rebellion : ‘So that this, is alledged with a very ill grace, by one, _derived trom, and who tsa violent abettor of that party. It is true, every good churchman muft rejoice, when any of ‘our wandering brethren, who have been drawn away, from the bofom and communion of the church, or educated in prejudice againft it, are reclaimed, and return to the unity of the church, and be glad to be~inftrumental, as God in his providence gives them opportunity, in recon- ciling any of them: But, as the Society was not incorpo- rated for that purpofe, nor was it ever their principal aim, I believe very few inftances, if any, can be produced, of any miffionaries beginning with any diffenter, with a view at reclaiming himto the church. I have been long know- ing to. the affairs of the Society, and know.of. no fuch /inilances. . We have indeed been treated with great obloquy by dif- Aenters reprefenting us, as little better than roman catholics, &c. On thefe occafions we have defended ourfelves, as well as we could: and can any body blame us for it? And can any reafonable perfon wonder if this fhould fometimes prove the occafion of .the converfion of fome fenfible honeft. peo- ple? Or if the mecr curiofity of others attending occafio- nally on our beautiful and inftruative feryice, fhould be the meaus of their being reconciled, when they fee, that it does not confift of extempore human invention, but is a wife and judicious colleétion from the holy fcriptures? fo that, their very Jove to the {criptures, has fometimes led them to love the fervice of the church. But it is faid, That Dr. Bray, the father of the Society, reported, that in the Ma/fachu/etts and Connecticut, there was no occafion for the Society to do any thing, as they were provided for, in the diffenting way :—I anfwer, I knew Dr. Bray very well, he was doubtlefs a very good man, and agre Ct 8g) agree to his report at that time, and fhould have made the fame report myfelf: There was then (except at Bo/ton,) bur here and there a member of the church of England, fcattered about in thefe provinces ; and according to the. conftitution of the Society, while there was no congregation of the church in thofe parts, the Society had nq occafion, to fend any miffionaries thither : But does it at all follow, that when there came to be fuch numbers of confcientious, members of the church of England, as to make competent congregations for worfhip, being not well able to provide for a minifter themfelves, that the Society had by their charter, no right and bufinefs, to affilt in providing for them, meerly becaufe the diffenters in thofe provinces were already pro- vided for ? Can any reafon be given, why a con{cientious body of church people in thefe provinces, fhould not be provided for, as well as in any other province ?—You will fay, let them go to mecting, IT anfwer, many of them were fo candid, as to go to the mectings, rather than no where, tho’ it was very tedious’and difagrecable to them, till they grew in numbers, fo as to make competent congregations. Yea, but it is reprefented, That the origin of the church, in thefe provinces, has been generally owing to faction; difcontent with minifters, and about rates, pews, and the like, and tho’ the church is the eftablifhed religion of our mother country, and in the aét of union, is, (2s Dr. Doug- lafs, his favourite author allows) eilablifhed in all the plan- tations ; he is pleas’d in bis great good manners, to {peak of her in thefe governments, under no better terms, than thofe of party and faéion. ; How much truth there may be in Dr. Colman’s ac- count of the origin of the church, at Newdury and Brain- tree, J am not able to fay, and that fome individuals have had little better motives in conforming, than thofe mens tioned, I will nor deny, and perhaps fome of the mflio+ parics have not always ated prudently, and poffibly fome may have been in a few inftances too forward ; fuch things are common to frail human nature ; however, this I know, that the general rule and practice. where I am acquainted, have been, to fend male-contents, and perfons liable to cenfure, back, to make peace at home, before they came : Ove “ ( 848) over to us. But, fuppofe fome things a little wrong, is it fit, that fo refpeétable a body, as the Society or the church, fhould be reproached, with the forwardnefs, or mifconduét, of a few individuals ? ; Let me, however, give what I know to be generally a true account, of the origin of the church in thefe provinces, The true caufes, and occafions, of the being and growth of fo many congregations of the church of England, in thefe provinces, are thefe. ' 1ft: As the country continued to increafe, and there were many acceffions from Great-Britain and Ireland, there were among others, many of the eftablifhed church,whocame over to fettle in thefe colonies, as well as others, fo that there was go years ago, {carce a town of confiderable ftanding.but what had fome fcattcring among them, and in fome there were feveral families: In Stratford, for inftance, the firft in Connecticut that applied to the Society; there were at the beginning of this century about fifteen families, and fiye or fix more in the neareft towns, that joined with them ; and in 1722, when the firft miffion was eftablifhed, there were about thirty or forty; now, on fuppofition that the firft who fettled in thefe provinces were diflenters generally, yet I know no reafon why thefe lands fhould be thought fo facred to them, as to exclude the church, nor, why church people fhould not be at liberty, to fettle them- felves in thefe colonies,as well as in any others ? And if they do, who can deny, that they have as good a right to enjoy their way of worfhip as their neighbours? And if they need, and obtain any charitable affiftance, can any thing but envy and malevolence, make fuch a clamour againtt it ? But, ; 2. So the cafe has been, ever fince church people fet- tled in thefe countries, many diffenters have~ treated them with much clamour and contempt, and frequent difputings hhaye arifen, which occafionéd many to procure books, wherewith to defend themfelves, fuch as arch bifhop King’s inventions of men in the worfhip of God, the London cafes, Hoadley againtt Calamy, arch bifhop Potter on church government, and fome Hosker’s ecclefiaftical polity, and fuch like, And their thus defending themfelyes, oceafioned } man (5) many inguifitive candid diffenters to read thofe books, which. reconciled them to the church ; fo that the diffenters them- felves by thus cenfuring, and difputing, have occafioned the increafe of the church, and I hope it may be truly faid, in a judgment of charity, many both of the original church people, and of the profelyted diffenters have been fincerely con{cientious— Dr. Mayhew indeed, and fome other diflen- ters, however differing in fome things, as much, (if not more) among themfelves, as either of them from the church, feem fo bigotted to their diffenting principles, in one fhape or other, and fo full of themfelves, that they fcarce know how to imagine, that church people, or any who differ from them, can be confcientious ; but furely, any candid and indifferent perfons, that know any thing of fuch great and good men, as fyoter and Chillingworth, mult allow, that it is poflible, for achureh man, upon the foot of Hooker's ecclefiaftical polity, and Chilling worth’s demonftration of epifcopacy, (to fay nothing of arch bifhop Potier and arch bifhop Sharp, and the many others) to be at leaf as con- {cientious, as any diflenters in ther way upon the foot of any of their various principles. gdly. Another thing and what has of late chiefl¥wccafioned the acceflion of multitudes to the church, was, the wild en- thufiafms that long obtained among themfel ves, on which oc- cafion, their own managements were in. many inflances, fo extravagant and ridiculous, astended vafily more, 20 drive their people into the church, than any thing we ever did tq draw them over to it.— Particularly, that monftrous enthu- fiafm that was at firtt mightily encouraged by themfelves fifteen or twenty years ago, in confequence of Mr, White- field s rambling over the country, once andagain, who was followed by a great many ftrolling teachers, who propagated fo many wild and horrid notions of God and the gofpel, that a multitude of people, were fo bewilder’d that. they could find no reft to the fole of their foot, till they took refuge in . the church, as their only ark of fafety. And many of thefe _ wild notions (to fay nothing now of the oppofite extreams of arianifm, focinianifm, and independent-whiggifin) continue _ among great numbers to this day, and have occafioned much Rot contention among them in fettling minifters, and oftea “ee ( SBR the proftitution of difcipline upon the meaneft trifles, which have occafioned many people to conclude, that if they muft feparate from their former brethren, who are in endlefs con- tentions and confufion, their beft way muft be to retire into the church, which is in peace.—Now, thefe are all known’ facts: Is not Dr. Mayhew then very difingenuous to con- ceal them, and afcribe the being and increafe of the church, | only to petts and quarrels about pews, rates, and fuch tri- fling things, and toa meer fpirit of faétion ? But, it is pretended, great mi‘cheifs have befallen the country by means of the church, (of which however, he gives no proof) ; tothis-I anfwer, certain it is, that great advantages have derived from it, even to the diffentes them- felves : it has occafioned a great increafe of knowledge, by their reading many of our excellent writers, from whom they have gained their beft notion’s, and much greater corre€tnefs, than they had, both in writing and fpeaking ; it has provoked them to emulation, and it is certaia, that many of them have much better notions of God and the gofpel now, than they had before, and have much improved in the knowledge of the fcriptures and the evidences of chriftitanity.—Certain it is, that theyare now, much ‘be- yond what they were, fifty years ago, and as certain that they are greatly beholden to the church, for every thing of this kind, wherein they excel themfelves. And befides this, in proportion as they have become more acquainted with the church, they have much dropp’d their great prejudices againft us, and malevolence, and unchari- tablenefS towards us, and charity, and good neighbourhood have greatly obtained between us ; fo that, if it was not for now and then, fuch abufive and uncharitable feribblings of a few zealots, fall of very injurious mifreprefentations, we fhould foon coalefce, and come into a friendly, bene- volent and chriftian temper, of mutual forbearance towards one another, and be united in our common weal—I might add, that in truth the church has been fo far from med- ling ‘in the various contentions in which they have been al- moft continually engaged among themfelves, owing to the weaknefs of their conftitution, and. their republican fepa-— rating and levelling principles, that, to my certain’ know-_ Iedge, oe ledge, it hath in many inftances been a great check upon them, and much rather tended to heal and quiet, than ex- afperate them—And as to immoralities, 1 am fure, the church hath born as faithful a teftimony againft them, in every kind, as any of the diffenters have done; {fo that, if immoralities have increafed, it is not owing to the in- creafe of the church, but to the increafe of mankind here, in proportion to which, from the nature of man, immorali- ties will abound ; I believe however, it may be faid with truth, that in proportion to her numbers, the church can fhew, at leaft as many fober, confcientious chriftians, as the meetings : I know it to be fo, in many places where I am acquainted. Now, whether it was to give a fpecimen of the Dr’s fine talent at ridicule and declamation, or, from a ftudied defign to. fright his readers, with an hideous f{peétre, that he might create in them al] the odium and antipathy he could againft the church of England, or, whether it was a little fir of the old diftraGtion, or, whether after all, the true and principal caufe of his. bitternefs againft that found branch of the chriftian church may not {till be art- fully concealed, I will not take upon me to fay ; but in page 155 you havea moft hideous outcry, about perfecution, hierarchy, tyranny and the like terrible monfters, that made fad work, it feems, an hundred, or an hundred and fifty years ago,from which,however he allows at Jaft,we havenew nothing to fear fince the revolution, from our prefent mild princes, and moderate prelates.—Pray, good fir, what then was the matter with you, when you made this tragical out- cry ? Did you defign to fet a mob upon us ? or what ? You know very well, that the conflitution of the church is juft the fame now as it was then, and yet fhe abhors per- fecution, and tyranny now, (at leaft) as much as you do : Why fhould fhe then be charged with the doings of tyran= nous courts, or fome perfecuting individuals, fo long ago ? or how can fhe be anfwerable for thofe things, which for almoft thefe. hundred years have had no exiftence, nor are ever like to exift again? or, what fenfe or honefly can there be, in raifing thefe old fpeétres, long fince vanifhed and gone, never to revive, meerly to blacken the church, : and Usa and render her odious to the prefent age, while in truth the church is no more concerned in them, than your party, “who you muft needs know, have perfecuted and tyranniz’d in their turn, as much, at leaft, as ever the government wh6 then profeffed the church did: You know that perfecution and toleration are merely political things, in which the church, as fuch, (being a fpiritual fociety, a kingdom not of this world,) is in no wife concern’d : The church is the fame; it is the policy of the ftate only, that hath altered, © and I readily agree with you, that in putting an end to per- fecution, it hath altered much for the better. But the goodDr. is ftill terribly diftreffed, about the hierar- chy, Jeaft that fhould obtain here,afcending (as he fays, in his fine florid way, a-la-mode de independent whig,) a/cending 4 varicus gradations from the dirt to the fhies / But pray r, be fober a littlh—We have no pope! There are with us but three orders, bifhops, presbyters and déacons, accord- ing tothe model of the pure primitive church, long be- fore the leaft ftep was made towards popery. And we know that we have ftronger evidence from the fads both of fcripture and antiquity, for the moft wife, apoftolical, and confequently divine eftablifhment of thefe three orders, than you have for infant baptifm, and the firft day fabbath, of which you are with us fo juftly tenacious.— Your rea- foning upon thefe points, and ours for epifcopacy, from the original facts, is exactly the fame, only we have vaftly the advantage of you.—If our reafoning for epifcopacy muft fall, your’s on thofe points muft much more fall with it ; as might be abundantly and inconteflably fhewn, if it was now before us.— And we doaverr, we are certainly as confcientious in our attachment to our epifcopal form of church government, as you can be to your presbyterial, or whatever you call ir.—In God’s name, then, what reafon can be given, why we fhould not be allowed to enjoy our way, as well as you, your’s? We do not envy you, why Should you envy and malign us ? Pray tell me fir, why we fhould not be allowed in this country, to be as perfect in our kind, as you, in your’s ? We do not want in the leaft to moleft or oppofe you, in yout way, why then fhould you. fo vehemently oppofe CC ee our Cat Dp our being provided for in our’s? You would think it a terrible thing indeed, (doubtlefs a degree of perfecution,) to be obliged to go a thoufand Jeagues for ordination, if it was your cafe: can you then have no feeling for us whofe unhappy cafe itis? In truth fir, we do not aim at any thing but to live with you in quiet and charitable neighbourhood : We have not the leaft defire of an epifcopate that fhould have any thing to do with you, or atall interfere with any of your proccedings, or, make any alterations among you, in church or ftate : We only want bifhops, to ordain, and govern our own” clergy, to vifit ovr churches, and to inftrucé and confirm our laity : And I defire to know, what harm, - fuch a1 epifcopate could do you ? Nay; we do not infift upon a bifhop’s refiding in either of your favourite govern- ments : Let him live in one of your heathenith provinces : We fhould be content to wait upon him for orders, two or three hundred miles diftant from you, rather than fail; Why then fhould you have fuch terrible apprehenfions ?- But the Dr. is moreover in a difinal pannic, left the church’s obtaining in this country, fhould be of ill confe- quence to it’s political affairs— But why fhould he? Pray fir be calm—Is nor this our country, and the native country of moft of us, as well as your’s ? Can it then be, that it fhould not be as dear to us, as it is to you? Have we*not all one common intereft, as to our country’s weal, being embark’d in the fame bottom ? Is it not poffible for us, each one judging for himfelf, to abound in his own fenfe, as to matters of religion, and yet live in love, and be unit- ed heart and hand, in promoting the publick weal, and our common intere{ts, wherein we are all agreed, and equally concern’d ? J can fee no manner of reafon to the contrary, or any more danger, le{t we fhould differ about thefe pub- lick affairs, than if we were all of the fame fentiments in re- ligion : and have we fot been as forward in our country’s caufe in the Jate trying times as any of you? Difputes will fometimes arife ; But I cannot fee, why they fhould more in one cafe, than in the other? You need not be in the leaft apprehenfive of the churches being any other wife efiablifh- ‘ed, than it is already, or that any tefts will obtain in fuch a - M country (999 country as this.—Pray fir be eafy, We mean you no harm— If you would be only as charitable and peaceable toward us, and among yourfelves, as we are heartily difpofed to be to- wards you, we might live very quietly and happily together, ard there would be no occafion for another Columbus, (as you cry out) to explore any other country for you. We are neither French, nor Indians, nor Serpents, nor Dragons : Why fo dreadfully afraid of being confumed by the flames, or deluged in. a flood of epifcopacy? L realy pity you, that you fhould fuffer your terrors and paflions fo miferably torun away with you! I tell you again, dear fir, we mean you no harm; we would only provide for our felves—Pray do not be fo terribly frighted !— But O my country, dear New-England, fuffer me to aflure you, that you have in- finitely more reafon to be afraid of fuch as are no friends to a co-effential trinity, and the divinity and fatisfaétion of Chrift, (befides other misbeliever’s, and unbelievers, of which there are many,) than of thofe who without cenfur- ing or aiming to interfere with diflenters, are only defirous for themfelves to enjoy the church of England, in its pri- mitive purity !— But the Dr. infifls that Maffachufetts and Conneéticui come not within the Society’s limits by the charter: J anfwer, this cannot be maintained, fince they are not ex- cepted by the charter, unlefs it can be proved that the con- gregations of the church for which the Society provides in thofecolonies, would not in the fenfe & words of the charter, want, or be deftitute of the adminiftration of God’s wore _ and facraments, it the Society did not aflift them: But this he does not, nor can he prove. Surely he cannot pre- tend that King /i//iam, who introduced the toleration ot diflenters, would leave his loving fubjeGis of the church un: tolerated, and under the neceflity ef receiving God’s word and {acraments contrary to their confciences, or of having none.— It muft therefore be his meaning to provide, that his loving fubjeéts of the church might enjoy God’s word and facraments in thefe colonies, when fuch there are in competent numbers, for congregations, as well as in other colonies ; Wye ie, colonies ; and fo the Society (who muft be fuppofed to be at leaft as good judges of the meaning of their charter, as Dr. Mayhew) have ever underftood it, and when opportu- nity offered, have praétifed accordingly, not for the purpofe of converting diffenters to.the church, but of providing for confcientions people of the church, and who without this provifion would have been in danger of as great errors: and abfurdities, as thofe of popery, * and not without danger even of infidelity itfelf, into which I fear many of the diffenters have been temipted by the abfurd notions of chriftianity which have been difleminated amongft us. Now /a/tly, the great objection is, that the Scciety neg- , Jeéts the fouthern colonies, Negroes and Indians. a -T anfwer, As to the fouthern colonies, Fir/?, The Dr. mutt know, that in Virginia, Maryland avd South Carolina, the church is well provided for by law, fo that they are out of the queftion—In Sowth-Caralina they are withdrawe ing their miffions, as they become vacant.— Secondly, As to Georgia, and the Bahama Wflands, pro- vifion is made and making for them as faft as may be, and as their occafion and apphcation call for. And, Thirdly, As to North Carolina (over which he drops a pious tear) as far as I can find, ever fince their application to the Society, they have been providing for them as often as they have been applied to, and as fait as they could find gentlemen to undertake miffions, in thofe tedious and un- healthy climates; and it appears from the abfira& of 1761, that a great progrefs there is made, and making, and the Society is very much engaged to provide for them, fo that T imagine thofe muft have been diffenters for whom he is fo compaffionate. And, Fourthly, As to Penfyloania, New-Ferfies and New- York, 1 believe no inftance can be produced, where applix * si Cathe n ® See Mr. Beach's Friendly Expoltulation, jolt publith’d, — pege 30, 31. &c, C9Ee a cation has been made to the Society, that has ever been » neglected. Indeed, I am forry to fay, there are fome few” places, where no provifion is made for religion, of any fort, that haye contracted fuch an indifference to any at all, (two of which I myfelf have often urged and engaged my endeavours for them) that they could never be prevail’d upon to embody themfelves, to build a church, or take any f{tep towards applying to the Society for their afliftance, who would undoubtedly do for them, even to the neglect of New-England. Now to fuch I could wifh the Society to fend miffionaries without being applked to, as they ‘would to ab origine heathen, and 1 truft they will do fo, before long, if thofe people do not apply. And now, as to Negroes, what could the Society do more than it does, and not without fome confiderable faccefs, as ap- . pears by the Abftraés—T heir miffionaries every where in- ~ flruct as many as their mafters will fend, and do inftru& and baptize many, and have fome communicants — They have feveral catechifts, and Dr. Bray’s affociates, feveral {chools (befides that at Barbadoes) who conftantly inftrué their chil- dren with good fuccefs ; and-they have fent.one worthy mifli- onary to Cape Coa/t Caftle, who laboured there, “nll his. health and conilirution were very pear ruined.—. And, Lajftly, As to the Indians—Many mifhonaries have tomy knowledge endeavoured to convert them, as they have had opportunity ; and one in particular placed near a confiderable clan of them, endeavoured to reconcile them to chriftianity, *ull fome diffenters fo prejudiced them againft him, that he could do them no Good —Anad it is well known, that the So- ciety, (always ready to take every opportunity) has fent feve- ral miffionaries to the A¢chawks, one after another, from the beginning, and that the Rev. and worthy Dr. Barclay was very _ laborious, with good fuccefs for ten years, inflruéted and baptized many, and had a contiderable number of communi- cants. It is true, he laboured at fir(t under {cme difficulty, for want of an interpreter ; but it was not long ~before he ac- quired fo good fkill in their language, as to preach and per- form the fervice to their perfec underftanding, and was go- ing ( 93 iy ing on with very good fuccefs, till the laft war, about 1745, threw them into fuch confufion, and the influence of popifh miflionaries, and the wicked infinuations of a certain great man in thofe parts, created fuch a difaffection in them, that his very life was in much danger ; fo that he was obliged to defift.*— However, the Society has ftill a number there not to be defpifed, and much more will foon be done ; one thing they intend in order to it, is, to maintain a number of lads to- gether at King’s College in New-York, to be qualified for miffionaries among them. Upon the-whole, It may be truly faid, what could the So- ciety do more, that it has not done, and all intirely agreeable to the true intention and meaning of their charter. I cannot therefore, imagine but that the candid and ferious, even among the diilenters themfelves, muit be fenfible that Dr. Mayhew has moft unjuftly charged the Society, and that his own friends can {carcely be able to withold a blufh for him, at his indecent, as wel! as injurious treatment of that venerable body, and of the church, which is a part of the national conftitution ; and alfo, at his mean and unworthy pérfonal inveétives againft the modeft and very deferving gentleman, who has been the innocent occafion of provoking his riotous pen.—But 1 muft have done.—I would only add, that the worthy Dr. Wigglef/evorth’s tetter in the 165th page of Dr. Mayhew’s book, much deferves the attention of the government both here and in England.— I am, Sir, with much Efteera, A Your very hearty Friend and humble Servant, * So partially and injurioufly, not to fay Falfly, does Mr. Smith in his hillory of New York reprefeot this affair. MAR 27 52 NOV 20'62 ‘1 pEC ~ APR 2 Date DUE Div.S. 266.06 c22l¢ 440906 ZSVE867C0d LH UA