[Page]
[Page]

THE Examiner, EXAMINED, OR GILBERT TENNENT, HARMONIOUS.

In Answer to a Pamphlet entitled, The EXAMINER, OR GILBERT against TENNENT Being a Vindication of the Rev. GILBERT TENNENT and his Associates, together with six Rev. Ministers of Boston, from the unjust Re­flections cast upon them by the Author of that Ano­nymous Pamphlet, together with some Remarks upon the QUERIST'S, the third Part, and other of their Performances.

The Whole being an Essay to vindicate the late Glorious WORK of GOD'S Power and Grace in these Lands, from the unreasonable Cavils and Exceptions of said Pamphlet, and others of like Nature.

The whole Essay is submitted to the Decision of Truth and Common Sense.

By GILBERT TENNENT, A. M.

Prov. 18.17.

He that is first in his own Cause seemeth Just, but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

Math. 7.1.

Judge not, that ye be not Judged.

Job 14.5, 6.

Thou choosest the Tongue of the Crafty; thine own Mouth Condemneth thee, not I; yea thine own Lips testify against thee.

Luke 19.22.

Out of thine own Mouth will I Judge thee, thou wicked Servant.

Psal. 120.3.

What shall be given unto thee? or what shall be done unto thee, thou false Tongue.

PHILADELPHIA: Printed and Sold by WILLI­AM BRADFORD, at the Sign of the Bible in Second-Street. 1743.

[Page]

Candid Reader,

The Reasons of the Pro­lixity of this Preformance are these, namely the nu­merousness of the Char­ges mention'd by the Ex­aminer, and the Neces­sity I was under to cite many Paragraphs of my other Writings, in order with the greater clear­ness, to remove his pre­tended Objections, of Self-contradiction. May the good God bless this Essay for the good of his Church.

I remain thy Servant for Christs sake. G. Tennent.
[Page]

THE Exaimner, Examined, OR GILBERT TENNENT, HARMONIOUS.

IT is strange to think how the most generous and noble Actions, thro' the Force of some Craft and Artifice, assisted with Prejudice and Falshood, may be represented in the darkest Dress, as if they were Vices of the most sordid kind.

Seeing I am called to speak in my own Defence, I hope the Reader will excuse my saying as follows, Viz. That I never undertook any Thing with a deeper Sense of my own Weakness, and a Sincerer Intention, to God's Glory and his Kingdoms Good; then my Journey to New-England: And never un­derwent such hardships by Reason of the intense Cold, frequent Travel, and continual Labours as there. So that I am like to feels the Effects thereof to my Death, having thereby contracted a hardness of hearing, with other bodily Disorders. But that which Comforts me under those Infirmitys is this, that the Eternal God was visibly with me in that Journey, in sealing my Labours with surprizing and manifold Successes, (GLORY to his Name) in the Conviction and Conversion of many Sinners to GOD; which some of the most eminent for Piety and Learning in New-England, have already born ex­press Testimony to, and many Thousands more can.

[Page 4]But behold the Reward our Anonymous Author is pleased to confer unpon me, and that under the guise of CHARITY, is ridicule, slander, and in­vective. What, could not his Charity extend to speak one favourable Word of that Journey, for which so many have with good Reason praised the blessed GOD? It seems not! However, it is my Support and Solace under all that load of Calumny, that is cast upon me by the Opposers of GOD'S WORK, that Faithfulness to God and Success in his Service, will appear in their own proper Light ano­ther Day.

It is no new Thing for the Servants of God to be traduc'd and represented as the Off-scouring of the Earth. Neither is it unusual for his Work to be cover'd with Scandal and Contempt, and ascrib'd to a bad Cause: And considering the native Enmity of the Unregenerate against God and Goodness, and the Multitude of such that are in the World of e­very Order, we needn't be surpriz'd at such Events.

If we will approve ourselves Disciples of CHRIST indeed, we must expect to bear his Cross: And truly, according to the common Course of Things, the more extensive Good we are enabled to do, we must expect to bear the more Reproach. What tho' we be sound in Principle, Sincere in Heart, and La­borious in Life to promote CHRIST'S Kingdom, yet with the Apostles and other primitive Servants of God, we shall be look'd upon as deceivers, disturbers of the Peace and disorderly Persons. For as it was of old so it is now, He that was Born after the Flesh, presecuted him that was Born after the Spirit. Did not Cain hate his Brother Abel, because his own Deeds were Evil and his Brothers Righteous? And has not our Lord told us, that We shall be hated, because we are not of the World? It is true ungodly Persons in every Age, cover and colour their sordid Oppo­sition to goodness and usefulness, with artful and plausible Apoligy's, to prevent the Odium, that wou'd otherwise justly fall upon their Character. [Page 5] They pretend Disorders in Conduct, and Error in Principle, are the Grounds thereof; but if so, why don't they exert their Zeal against such Evils, as well as Impieties of the grossest Kind, which are flagrant in the Practice of some of their Brethren? No, such Things, because of the Relation subsisting between them, are past over with silence and negli­gence! While the Vertues of good Men, are put in the Dress of the most crimson Impietys, & their minu­test Foibles agravated by the Force of Sophistry, into massy Mountains; as well as the most False and in­vidious Charges invented and propogated, to de­stroy their Characters and Usefulness at a Stroke! But the true Cause of all the mighty Bustle, which is rais'd in every period of Time, against the Work and Servants of God, is industriously concealed, and that is, the Native Enmity of natural Men, of every Tribe and Order against God and Holiness.

Well, seeing the Case is so, we must therefore with Courage and Patience, follow our dearest Lord, thro' good Report and bad Report, and consider him who endur'd the Contradiction of Sinners against himself, least we be weary and Faint in our Minds. The Com­munications of our Master's Love to us, and the Con­sciousness of our own integrity, together with the believing Expectation of that exceeding and eternal Weight of Glory, which is set before us, does and will sweeten all the Sorrows of our State of Pil­grimage! And therefore we may Answer the ca­lumnious Opposers as Chrysostom the threatning Mes­sage of the Empress Eudoxia, that we fear nothing but Sin. (nil nisi peccatum timeo.)

I am not disturbed at the Author of this Pamphlet, for examining my Sentiments and Conduct, if either of them upon an impartial Tryal, be found censur­able, let them be condemned in the most open Man­ner. But I trust it will appear by what follows, to every intelligent and impartial Reader, that the Method this Gentleman has us'd in the Composure of his Examiner, is exceptionable and partial. I hope [Page 6] I may say to the Glory of God, without the Im­putation of vain Boasting, that I am so indifferent for the most Part, respecting the Opinion of the World, as to my Person and Performances, and so fully convinced of the Vanity, both of the Praises and Censures, of the most of Mankind, that I should have given myself no Trouble to oppose the nume­rous Falacies of this Performance, had I not been convinc'd that it was my Duty to appear now in the just Vindication of Gods Work and Servants, which are therein traduc'd.

The Examiner offers some Aspersions concerning my Journey to New-England, which I know in my Conscience to be False, which being personal I tho't I was under a greater Advantage to detect.

I am engag'd in other Work for God, from which I am with some degree of Reluctance di­verted by thorny Controversy, but herein I must deny my self.

Candid Reader, I must beg leave to observe (en pas­sent) that our Case of late and at present, (in this Country) respecting the Promotion of vital Reli­gion, seems very much to resemble that of Nehemi­ah, and the other Builders of the Wall of Jeru­salem, in the Reign of Artaxerxes, who were much oppos'd and somewhat interrupted in their Work, by the unreasonable Fury and low Arts of Sanbal­lat, and his Associates, who scoff'd at, and rag'd against the Builders, as well as rais'd false Reports respecting their Design and Conduct. It is report­ed among the Heathen said they, and Gashmu say­eth it, that thou and the Jews think to rebel; for which cause thou buildest the Wall: They likewise endea­vour'd to ensnare them by Craft, and enter'd into a detestable Conspiracy to stop the Progress of the Work! May we who are thro' pure Grace upon God's Side, be enabled to follow Nehemiah's Ex­ample, in supplicating Heaven in this Immergen­cy, and we may hope for the finishing of the Wall, notwithstanding all that the Opposers have done, [Page 7] or can do, and seeing we are encompass'd with Enemy's of various Forms, viz. The Prophane, Formalists, Enthusiasts, and Hereticks, let us with those primitive Builders work in the Wall with one Hand, and hold a Weapon in the other. See Neh. 1.2.4. & 6. chap.

But to come nearer to the Subject of our pre­sent Enquirys, I can safely declare, that I have read this Examiner's Performance, as well as o­thers of like nature set out by my Opponents, with a willingness to be convinced of Error in Princi­ple or Practice, if I was guilty of either, and with a Resolution to acknowledge them publickly, if I found the Case so. For I think that Maxim is most just viz. fas est, et ab hoste doceri, It is lawful to be instructed even by an Enemy. And a Confessi­on of Errors in Judgment, or Evils in Practice, is certainly a Debt we owe to Truth and Piety. But after the most calm and impartial Enquirys I am capable of making, I have not met with Con­viction by their Arguments, or rather Reflections, unless it be of the Falsehood and Injustice of their Charges, the badness of their Cause, and the ma­lignity of their Way of managing it.

In particular I leave it to the Readers Judgment, whether the Examiner has not acted a disingenuous Part in his labouring to expose my Name to con­tempt, while in the mean Time he conceals his own. Let him ask his own Conscience, whether he has done in this, as he would be done by? Is this the Charity, which he says he put on in his first Page, then truly it is a very selfish Stamp, for it both begins and ends at home?

Here let me observe, that I cannot but admire that a Person of our Authors Penetration, should make so gross a Blunder in the Choice of his Name, why should he call himself Philalethes or a lover of Truth, while he makes it his Business to confute his Name, by his Practice in this Performance, to which it is prefixed? The repeated Falshoods [Page 8] with which his labour'd Sheets are stuff'd, suit bet­ter, as I humbly conceive, a contrary Name and Character, namely Misalethes, or a hater of Truth; but the best Apology I can make for our Author, is that his Name is not proper but feign'd, and that perhaps his Design was better than his Per­formance, possibly he might be lead into some Mistakes, by Misinformation, Inconsideration, or by the force of Prejudice and Passion.

But to proceed, the Examiner tells us in the Be­ginning of his Performance, ‘When I had read Mr. G. Tennent's three first Sermons, on Rev. 3.3. representing the necessity of holding fast the Truth, with the Appendix, relating to the Mo­ravian Errors, &c. I immediately reviewed and compar'd them with his famous Sermon preach'd at Notingham, upon the Danger of an unconverted Mi­nistry, on Mark 16.44. and must confess, it is as impossible to reconcile them upon Principles of common Sense, as to unite the two Poles.’

Ans. Were I of this Gentleman's Opinion, I wou'd immediately retract, in the most open Man­ner; but being perswaded that there is no im­possibility in the Matter. I shall therefore essay to shew the Harmony that is between them, by con­sidering what our Author has said to the con­trary.

It seems something odd, that immediately after the Examiner had put on as he tells us (Pag. 1.) Charity which is not easily provok'd, and hopeth all Things; that he should use such Terms of Contempt as these, viz. ‘And because it seems hard for a High Priest to confess his Errors once a Year, tho' he may love to be Father Confessor himself, and bring others to the Stool.’ It seems by what has been said, that the Cloak was not but­ton'd very close upon him; whether this Gentle­man be a Minister or not, which he disdainfully terms High Priest, perhaps not only to give vent to his Prejudice, but the better to conceal him­self. [Page 9] I know not, but methinks he might have at present wav'd his sarcastical Fleer about bring­ing others to the Stool, while this very Thing is, at least in Pretence, the Business of his present Performance; which is like to fail of Success, for the want of a just Foundation. But whether, when our Author reads the just Charges that are offer'd against his Conduct, in the following Pages, he will like to be brought to the Stool himself and make publick Retractations with Austin, according to his own Advice to me, pag. 31. Time must dis­cover?

As to the reprinting of my Notingham Sermon at Boston, I had no hand in it, but if I had, I see no Reason that I should have to repent of such an Action. I have not seen that Sermon for a con­siderable Time, before the other Day, but hearing so many Outcries against it; I was induc'd to read it over and over, with calmness to see if there was a Foundation for the mighty Opposition made against it; but upon enquiry I could not but think that as to the Matter and Substance of it, it was but the naked Truth, and such as, if fairly represent­ed, all its Adversaries will never be able to confute.

But why does this Author, bring in the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, upon this Occasion; seeing that many Thousands have approv'd of the Sermon as well as he, doubtless it was to expose him to contempt among the Ungodly; because that Ser­mon has much irritated natural Ministers and Peo­ple?

Since Mr. Whitefield (says he) has judged it an unanswerable Piece.

A. It appears to be so yet, notwithstanding what has been said against it. The Querists in their third Part, which is level'd against this Ser­mon, express as little regard to Truth, and Mo­desty, as to Religion and fair Reasoning; they ap­pear to be Men of a wild and luxuriant Turn of Thought, who are disposed to deride and burlesque [Page 10] with prophane irreverence, what is most sacred and serious; and therefore what they offer in their Performance, hardly deserves any Notice from such as are inclined to Truth, Sobriety, and Re­ligion. And had not the aforesaid gloomy Ingre­dients been frequent and flagrant in their Writings, they would have been long since replied to. But it is an uncomfortable Task to deal with Men that will hardly stick at any Thing. In short the Querists Composure upon which the Examiner lays so great a Stress, in his present Performance, is but a Voluminous Bundle of confident Imperti­nence, and rude Billingsgate, wherein the true State of the Question is perverted. To make this evident, I would observe that the two Particulars in the Sermon against which their Reasonings would seem principally to turn, are these viz. 1. what I have said in the 7. pag. concerning natu­ral Men, that they have no Call of God to the ministerial Work, under the Gospel Dispensation. And 2. What I have said from pag. 18. to 29. respecting Persons going statedly from hearing one Minister to another, for greater good. What they have offer'd against me concerning those Par­ticulars, are the main Pillars of that Performance, which if they be overset, the whole Fabrick falls.

Here let the Reader observe, that the Plan I went upon in the Sermon, and Assertion aforesaid, was this viz. that there is a two fold Call to the Mini­stry, inward and outward the first consisting princi­pally in, or rather evidenced by the pious Dispositi­ons, and Aims of the Person, and the latter in his regular external Separation to the Ministerial Work. It is evident from the Words of that Pa­ragraph, that I meant the inward Call.—The Words are these, ‘Is it not a Principal Part, of the ordinary Call of God to the ministerial Work, to aim at the Glory of God, and in Sub­ordination thereto, the good of Souls; as their chief Marks, in their Undertaking that Work.’ [Page 11] I cannot be reasonably supposed to mean the ex­ternal Call, by the aforesaid Words, except I was intirely void of common Sense, and so unable to distinguish between what is outward and inward. But surely the Querists didn't take me to be non com­pos, otherwise they have reflected upon their own Understandings, by writing so much against me, and yet the Querists, have disingenuously apply'd them to the outward Call, and so misrepresented my meaning, and the true State of the Question, pag. 44. in their 5. Question, they signify, ‘what they take to be the Call of God to the Ministry, and say that it is some publick and authoritative Declaration, of Gods Will, &c.’ Which plain­ly shews that they mean the external or outward Call only. And in the following Paragraph, they say in answer to my Question in the Sermon, namely, Is it not a principal Part of the ordinary Call of God to the Ministerial Work, to aim at Gods Glory, and in Subordination thereto the Good of Souls? They answer, That it is no Part of Gods Call to the Ministry, much less a principal Part of it.

A. It's true, it is no Part of the external Call; here they endeavour to represent me, as maintain­ing, that the aforesaid good Disposition, gives Au­thority to exercise the Ministry; which was ever far from my Thoughts, and which there is not one Word of in that Sermon, which they set them­selves to oppose. What I have said respecting the inward Call they apply to the outward and thus they misrepresent, and misapply, what I have spoken, and so do not reason against my Opinion chiefly but their own Misrepresentation.

That my Notingham Sermon was fram'd upon the Plan or Notion of a two fold Call, will ap­pear more clearly by comparing what has been already mentioned, from the 7 pag. of that Ser­mon, with what is said pag. 31. where I obseve that Pharisaick, or unconverted Ministers are no Shepherds, (no faithful Ones) in CHRIST'S Ac­count.’ [Page 12] There it is plainly intimated, that I own'd them to be Ministers, true and lawful ones in the sight of the Church, but not faithful ones in the Account of CHRIST. Yea the Case is so plain, that the Querists themselves do acknow­ledge it, pag. 55. in these Words, ‘doth it not seems that the vulgar Distinction, between the out­ward and inward Call, the Call of God and the Call of Man to the Ministry, is the Foundati­on of the above Mistake in Mr. T.

But tho' the Querists deny the aforesaid Aim, &c. to be any Part of the Call of God to the Ministry; yet they own it to be a Qualification requisite in the Persons call'd, to render them fit, for the Work they are call'd to pag. 55. quest 6. ‘Whence then doth this Confusion in which Mr. Tennent seems to labour, arise? Doth it not proceed from his jumbling and mixing many Things together, which are of a quite different Nature and Order, as if they were one and the same Thing? For doth not he confound the authoritative Call, Commission or Command of God, which is the divine Act, either immediate­ly or mediately, with the Qualifications requisite in the Persons called, to render them fit for the Work they are called to, as if they were the self same Thing?’

A. No! I have not confounded them, I have never said nor tho't that any Person, by reason of his good Dispositions or Aims, had Commissi­on or Authority, to exercise the ministerial Office. And do not the Querists contradict themselves in this Charge? While they elsewhere own as I have already observ'd, ‘that the vulgar Distincti­on between the outward and inward Call, was the Foundation of my Mistake.’ How could I dis­tinguish them, and yet confound them? But here let it be observ'd, that the Querists do own the Unfitness of natural Men for the Ministerial Of­fice, which was the principal Thing I design'd to [Page 13] prove in the Notingham Sermon. And what if I had given a wrong Name, to what is acknowledg­ed by themselves to be necessary, why would they make me so great an Offender for a Word? Under this Consideration, what is their Debate but a meer Logomachy?

It is true, I did not so fully and expressly ex­plain my Proposition, in the 7. pag. as I might have done, and this is all the Shadow for caviling upon the Call to the Ministry, which the Que­rists, probably to answer some private Design, have us'd all the Arts of Sophistry in improving; but it is plain to any that read that Sermon with Attention, that in consequence of the aforesaid Distinction of an outward and an inward Call, I distinguish be­tween true and faithful Ministers. See pag. 31. where it is said, ‘there is no probability (i. e. as to many of them) of getting good, by the Mi­nistry of Pharisees: For they are no Shepherds (no faithful ones) in Christs Account.’ Those that have an outward Call only, may be said to be true Ministers in the Sight of the Church, their Ministrations are valid, yea they may be said to be true Ministers in the Sight of God in this Respect, namely, that they come into the Ministry ac­cording to the Rules or Orders, which God has appoint­ed in his Church; But they cannot be said to be faithful Ones, seeing they have no Faith.—If they are not faithful in the Affairs of their own Souls, how can they be suppos'd to be faithful in the Affairs of others?

Now when I say in that Sermon, that uncon­verted Men are not sent of God into the Mini­stry, under the Gospel Dispensation, I mean these Things following, viz. 1. that they are destitute of an Aim at Gods Glory above all, and other pi­ous Dispositions, without which they are not well qualified for the Ministerial Work; and therefore (comparatively at least) are unlikely to do much good in it. And 2. I do not find under the Gos­pel [Page 14] Dispensation, that unconverted Men are mov'd or inclin'd by the Spirit of God to undertake the ministerial Office, but by their own or by a worse Spirit. And 3. that Almighty God does not re­quire in his Word, nor approve of, unconverted Men taking upon them the Ministry of the Gos­pel; these Things the Scriptures and Reasonings in the Sermon plainly prove; and indeed such as oppose them, oppose the true Interest of vital Godliness, which are not like to be well pro­moted without a pious Ministry.

The anonymous Querists betray a bad Temper of Mind, in their labouring to enervate, what I have said in the aforesaid Sermon, respecting the Un­comfortableness of the Ministry of natural Men to gracious Souls; herein they oppose the com­mon Sense of the Faithful; and in their cavil­ing at what is offer'd in the Sermon, concerning the unprofitableness of the Ministry of graceless Men, for the most Part; in respect of the Con­viction and Conversion of Sinners, they not only manifest an evil Disposition, but contradict the plainest Testimony's of Scripture and Experience. These Things are so self evident, that it is ama­zing to find professors of Religion opposing them.

Is not this the plain Tendency of the Querists reasoning upon this Head? Namely, to encourage ungodly Men to take upon them the Ministry of the Gospel, as well as to encourage People to an indifferency in their Choice of Ministers, and are not both these Things fatal to the Church of God, should not Extreams be avoided on every Hand?

That there is an outward and an inward Call to the Gospel Ministry, is asserted by many Di­vines of principal Note, among the reformed Church­es; to this Effect spake the Rev. Mess Durham and Bracle. Mr. Ross in his Pansebia represents this to be the Opinion of all the Presbyterians; and in­deed I thought it had been so too, till I met with [Page 15] the Querists Performance, which is done by Per­sons who are fond of that Name. I could wish for their own Sakes, that they were as fond of the Thing signify'd by it, in this as well as in other Particulars. But the Case is so plain, respecting the Distinction of an outward and an inward Call to the Ministry, being held by many; That the Querists themselves are forc'd to confess its Ve­racity. pag. 55. quest. 7. ‘Doth it not seem, that the imbibing and improving the false tho' vulgar Distinction between the outward and inward Call, the Call of God and the Call of Man to the Mi­nistry, is the Foundation of the above Mistake in Mr T? Here they own it to be vulgar, or com­monly received; and indeed so it is; for this is the Opinion of the whole Church of Scotland, as appears from her Directory, which they and we have a­dopted, as the Standard of our Proceedings and Sentiments, respecting the Affairs of Church Go­vernment. Under the Head of Ordination, are these Words, ‘Which being considered by the Presbytery they shall proceed to enquire touch­ing the Grace of God in him, and whether he be of such holiness of Life, as is requisite in a Minister of the Gospel, and to examine him, touching his Learning and Sufficiency, and touch­ing the Evidences of his calling to the Holy Ministry; and in particular his fair and direct calling to that Place.’ Here it is evident, that they assert a Call to the Ministry, before Ordina­tion; and therefore an inward Call. This is writ­ten as with a Sun Beam in those Words, and therefore the Querists shew either little acquaint­ance with their own avowed Principles, or little regard to them, by denying it. And indeed here­by they offer much Reason to suspect their Sin­cerity in the Ministry. Alas what superficial Mi­nisters must they be, who deny the inward Call, is it because they han't it themselves, or is it to run down with the Cry of Error, Error, such as [Page 16] think it necessary to hold the Presbyterian Princi­ples contain'd in our excellent Directory? If so their Case or Course is miserable. And do not the Church of England in their Ordination Office, propose these Questions to the Candidate, before Or­dination, viz. ‘Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon you this Office and Administration? And are you called according to the Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Laws of this Realm?’ This is so plain and positive to the Point in dispute, that there is no need of any Addition to explain it. The Reader may herefrom easily perceive, what sort of a Spirit the Querists are of, who labour to cast Contempt upon the avowed Principles of the Body of the Protestant Churches, respecting this Point under debate.

Now seeing I did not assert the Necessity of an extraordinary Call, in the ordinary Times of the Gospel; consisting in Visions, and Voices and the like, or that good Dispositions and Aims, were sufficient to constitute a Minister, or give a Right to exercise that Office, without a regular external Separation thereto, according to the Order of God, neither of which, I ever believ'd or express'd; what necessity was there then for so long and warm a Dispute, against our and their excellent Directory, unless it was to amuse the Ignorant, and prejudice them against those whom they hated, and wanted to pull down?

But the Truth of the Case is this, some of these Men have been less esteemed, by some of their Hearers, after the Work of God spread among them, than before; and others whom they dislik'd have been esteem'd above them; neither of which they could brook, they have therefore taken up Arms against Gods Work and his Servants, whom he has us'd in promoting it, and have endeavour'd by all Means, (per fas nesas (que)) by Hook and Crook to slander and traduce both, in order to amuse [Page 17] the ignorant Populace, they have rais'd the Hue and Cry of Error and Disorder, against those whom they disdain, and have put their Wits upon the Tenters, to find out Matter to support the Charge, partly by invidious and false Glosses, upon the Writings of their Opponents, and by artfully magnifying smal­ler Indiscretions in Conduct, and partly by either Inventing or Propagating notorious Falshoods concerning them.

That God, whose we are, and whom we serve, knows, that it was our Intention in travelling to bring poor Sinners to CHRIST JESUS, as well as to build up Saints in him, and not to divide Congrega­tions, as they do falsly Charge us, it is they that are the proper Causes of the Divisions among us, by their opposing that blessed Work of Conviction and Conversion, that has not long since been spreading in their Borders! Had they join'd with us as they ought to have done, in promoting that Work, and as they will wish one Day they had done, there would have been no Divisions among us: But instead of this, they have us'd sly and sophistical Methods, in abusing every seemingly or really exceptionable Incident, to cast odious Colours upon the whole Work, they have likewise oppos'd God's Work, by their false and dangerous Moravian Doctrine, about Conviction. Witness, Mr. Thompsons detesta­ble and inconsistent Performance, entitled, The Doctrine of Convictions set in a clear Light; which divers Ministers of that schismatical Party, have ex­pressed their Appobation of: Hardly any thing can be invented, that has a more direct Tendency, to destroy the common Operations of God's holy Spi­rit, and to keep Men from JESUS CHRIST, than what Mr. Thomson has express'd in that Performance.

C. E. G. pag. 2.7. He says, ‘First, as to these pre­paratory ungracious Convictions, as I may call them, which are held to be so necessary, by way of Pre­paration for Conversion. I apprehend that if their Nature and Tendency be duly considered, it will [Page 18] appear, that all such Convictions, as are void of true Grace, are so far from being necessary Pre­paratives for Conversion, that they, are rather an Impediment to it. Pag. 28. That these common Convictions may be sometimes succeeded with true Conversion, I do not deny, but when it is so, the Conversion following cannot be justly reckon'd the proper Effect of these Convictions, altho' it may be occasion'd by them, as it may be by the Commission of some gross Sin, which deeply wounds the natural Conscience. Pag 33.34. It is evident that whatever Convictions, may be rais'd in a Persons Mind, which are void of the foregoing Marks of saving Conviction, or whatever Fear or Terrors may follow or accom­pany such Convictions, can have no native Ten­dency, to lead or prepare Persons for Conversi­on. What nearer to Conversion is a Person, or better prepar'd for it, by his being convinc'd of Sin and Guilt, while still his Heart, Love and Affections are under the reigning Power of it? Nor is he humbly affected, with a Sense of its Vileness. How much was Judas prepar'd for Con­version by his Convictions and Terrors? Yea such ungracious Convictions tend rather to scare a Person from Christ, than draw him unto him: pag. 39. From which it doth plainly ap­pear, that the Convictions which are necessary to Conversion, are in Truth a Part of the Work it self, or to speak more distinctly, nothing else, but that very Principle of Grace, implanted in and by Conversion; puting forth it self in the Exercise of Conviction, or Persuasion of the Person's na­tural sinful and miserable State, according to the Word. The Heart and Conscience bearing Witness thereto.’ For the Confutation of this nonsensical Moravian Notion, I would re­fer the Reader to my Sermons against the Mo­ravians pag. 3. 4. 5. and to the Rev. Mr. Dickenson's [Page 19] ingenious Dialogues, wherein this Point is more largely discussed.

Our Opposers, as I am credibly inform'd, have done much Injury to Religion by indistinct and unsea­sonable Discourses upon this Point, viz. That Per­sons may have Grace and not know it. This was insisted upon at a Time, when Multitudes were under Convictions, and the Consequence was, that many relapsed into their former Secu­rity.

They have likewise, as has been observ'd, rais'd the Cry of Order, and set it in such a Light, as has had a Tendency to blacken the Characters of some of God's poor Servants, in the Opinion of some, and its probable that this was their De­sign; this has likewise been a plausible Mean of ob­structing God's Work in the Land.

And indeed this is the Artifice and Trick which the Opposers of Religion have used against God's faithful Servants of old. Elijah was charged by Ahab as a Troubler of Israel, Paul represented as a Mover of Sedition, and our LORD himself was faulted for not observing the Tradition of the Fathers. And thus while our Opposers contend for what is comparatively but the tything of Mint, and Annies, and Cummin, they neglect the weightier Matters of the Law.

But the 2d Particular, against which the Querists Reasonings (if they may be so called) are prin­cipally directed, is respecting what I have said in the 18 and 19 pag. of the Nottingham Sermon in these Words, viz. ‘If the Ministry of natural Men be, as it has been represented, then it is both lawful and expedient, to go from them to hear Godly Persons; yea it is so far from being sinful to do this, that one who lives under a pious Minister of lesser Gifts, after having ho­nestly endeavour'd to get Benefit by his Mini­stry, and gets little or none, but doth find real Benefit, and more Benefit elsewhere, I say he [Page 20] may lawfully go, and that frequently, where he gets most Good to his precious Soul after regular Application to the Pastor where he lives for his Consent, and proposing the Rea­sons thereof, when this is done in the Spirit of Love and Meekness without contempt of any, as also without rash Anger or vain Curiosity.’

The Querists do most unjustly represent my Meaning, in the aforesaid Paragraph, as appears from the 95 pag of their Pamphlet, where they say, as to the fourth Inference, ‘which seems to have been the main scope of the Performance, viz. To dissolve all relative Bonds and Ties be­tween Pastor and People, at least to proclaim them null and void, as to the People's Obligation therefrom to attend upon the Administrations of their own fixed Pastors statedly; so that if we take Mr. T. up right, his declared Judgment here is, that People, after the Choice of a Minister to be their stated Pastor, are at their free Liberty to absent themselves from his Ministry, as far and as often as they, or any of them pleases, whether the Minister be godly or graceless.’

Ans. What they have said is as contrary as any Thing can be, to my express Declaration in the preceeding Paragraph: If I thought, as the Que­rists suggest, that People may absent themselves as far and as often as they please, I would not have expressly guarded against it, by mentioning a pre­vious regular Application, and thus it is evident, that the Querists do not argue against my Opini­on fairly stated, but first misrepresent it, and then oppose with much earnestness their own Figment, and therefore all their Reasonings on that Head fall to the Ground.

Let my Opinion be fairly stated as it is in the Sermon, and this Exception from that general Rule added, namely, that they should go where they get the most Good statedly, after regular Ap­plication to the Minister, or Church Session, whereto [Page 21] they belong, unless their particular Good endan­gers or obstructs the general Good of the Society, whereto they have a Relation, in this we ought doubtless to prefer the general before our particu­lar Good, e. g. it may so happen, that if a Person of great Importance and Influence in a little Soci­ety should go statedly elsewhere, it would break the Society. This and such like Cases we must deny ourselves.

As to going elsewhere after Application,— I mean no more, and no less than this, that we should pay all that Deference to Church Judicato­ries, which is consistent with the Right of private Judgment, in Matters of Conscience. Any who carry the Matter farther, as it seems the Querists do, by what I have mentioned from them and others, pass under the specious Names of Order and Go­vernment, they erect a Tyranny upon the Ruins of every Thing that is valuable in human Nature. Now let my Opinion be stated as aforesaid, and I may bid Defiance to the Querists and all of their Stamp to overthrow it.

But to set my Opinion in a more clear and dis­tinct Light, I shall take leave to mention the fol­lowing Particulars, which are either express'd in, or plainly deducible from, the 19 pag. of my Not­tingham Sermon, viz.

1. Negatively, I do not assert or maintain, that Persons may or should go from their own Church­es to others at all, much less frequently, meerly in order to tickle an exorbitant Fancy, or for the sake of vain Curiosity, No! No! Upon the contrary I believe, it is sinful to go from a more plain awak­ening Soul searching and savoury Ministry, to a less plain, less awakening, less savoury one, meerly to get carnal Ease to a labouring Mind, or Gratifi­cation to a Distemper'd Palate, by affected Bom­bast or gingle of Language, Nor

2. Do I profess or maintain, an irregular Secession to be lawful or laudable? I mean that Persons [Page 22] shou'd go frequently to other Churches, without Ap­plication to their own Minister or Church Consistory, for Leave in this Affair, rendring the Reasons of their Request. If their Reasons are not account­ed valid, and the Case be really so, they ought to desist, but if they are wrong'd, they should ap­peal to a higher Judicatory; but if the Case should so happen, that after all the Appeals they can make, and most humble and impartial Examina­tion of the Affair, they firmly believe they are wrong'd by the Church Judicatories, and are Con­science bound in the Matter, they ought to judge for themselves, and act according to their Consci­ences: For surely we are not bound to implicite Faith in, and Obedience to, Church Rulers; No, we are only to be subject to them in the Lord, as our excellent Westminster Confession of Faith instructs us. Nor

3. Do I approve of an angry Secession, or with­drawing, thro' Envy, Malice or Contempt, from the hearing of our Parish Minister: For this is ma­nifestly oppos'd to the blessed Law of Love, which is the summary and compend of the divine Precepts, and looks with a frowning Aspect upon the Inter­ests of Christianity: When People do withdraw, it ought to be in the Spirit of Meekness with Hu­mility and Love, avoiding unjust and invidious Reflections, and on the contrary, as much as may be, consulting the just honour of the Minister, we withdraw from. Nor

4. Do I approve of a hasty Secession, without considerable Tryal, to get Good under the Mini­stry of those we are related to: For that may be followed with unhappy Consequences. Doubtless, Extreams on both Sides of the Question should be avoided, as the People should not be enslaved on the one Hand, and brought to the fatal Neces­sity of acting contrary to their Consciences, or de­priv'd of the most edifying Means: So the Ho­nour, Comfort and Support of the Ministry, and [Page 23] Safety of particular Societies, should be consulted and regarded on the other. Nor

5. Do I approve of withdrawing from a Church, meerly to avoid the just Censures of it, for this tends to disanull its Government, and introduce Confusion and Anarchy.

Here it must be confess'd, that as Ministers are apt to be under the Influence of a Partial Byass, when their Honour or Interest is or seems to be touched, having like Passions with other Men; so the People are liable to the following Extreams, namely, either to make no Difference at all among Ministers, or to make too much: The former they are inclined to, while under the Power of a deep Security, and the latter they are in great Danger of, when they are awakened, and for some Time after their Conversion. Now both these Evils should be oppos'd and corrected, for indeed both are very hurtful. Duty lies here (as Philosophers say of Vertue in general) in a mediocrity or mid­dle between those Extreams. Ministers should nei­ther be slighted or idolized. But positively what I believe and profess in the present Case is,

1. That it is lawful for a Person, who lives un­der a Minister of lesser Gifts, (even tho' really religious) that after having, with Simplicity and Uprightness, us'd his utmost Endeavours, (so far as assisted by God) to gain Benefit by his Mini­stry, and yet gets little or none, but doth else­where get Good, or more Good, (especially by one of the same Persuasion) after regular Application, to go where he gets most Good to his Soul. And

2. Much more from a Christless Minister under the aforesaid Circumstances, both lawful and expe­dient, after the Application before mentioned.

Here let the Reader observe, that the aforesaid more particular and distinct Account, which I have now given of my Opinion, respecting that Point which the Querists and Examiner principally op­pose, is but a Transcript of what I had written [Page 24] as my Sentiments upon this Subject many Years before the Nottingham Sermon was preach'd.

If I should take the same trifling sophistical and voluminous Method's with the Querists Performance, as they have done with my Sermon, the Book would swell to a Quarto, if not a Folio Volumn perhaps, and this would be much for Edification, woudn't it? It would be no hard Task to tell of 11 yea of 20 Maxims of selfish Policy, and false Doctrine, that seem to be at the Bottom of their Arguings, but I have something of more Importance to manage. Why don't these wondrous wise and learned Men, the Querists, and others of their Kid­ney, take famous Dr. Voetius, one of the most emi­nent Lights of the Reformed Churches to task, and confute his accurate Dissertation upon this Subject, in his Book of Ecclesiastical Policy, pag. 68. quest. 17. and likewise in his Book of Ascetic Theology, chap. 10. pag. 222. 3. There they may find their petty So­phisms and unlearned Cavils fully baffled I would advise them to do it in Latin for the Benefit of all the Churches: Such great Men shoudn't lie conceal'd. If they take the same Method of quibbling and saying a great deal beside the Point in Dispute, as they have done with me, they'll be sure of confuting him, in the Opinion of their graceless and Ignorant Admirers especially. And after they have done this in order to compleat a large Volumn upon the Subject, they may likewise take to task, Hildersham, and Fener, two learned and pious British Divines, who are also of my Senti­ment. (see Hilder Lectures pag. 271. and pag. 253 4.) and confute them too; which if they pursue their usual Method, they may easily effect as aforesaid; they are such Dabsters at disputing, or cavilling ra­ther, that I question whether any Writing in the World can stand them in their Way.

One Instance of which under the present Head I am discoursing upon, I shall take leave to mention is, their making the Relation of a Minister to his [Page 25] People, the same with that of a Husband to his Wife, in respect of their Obligation to attend statedly upon his Ministry; see pag. 133.

Qu. II. ‘Tho' we allow Men should seek the greater Good; yet we would ask, Whether this greater Good be most likely to be obtain­ed in the Way of God's Appointment, and in the Use of regular and not irregular Means? Or whether the Notion that stolen Bread is sweet, be a true or a false Notion? Or to use Mr. T.'s own Phrase, Doth not he act like a Fool, who forsakes his own chaste Wife, in Hopes of getting more Pleasure in the Embraces of a Strum­pet?’

The Former agrees well with what they say, pag. 116. thus, ‘Is it not some Affront to say, in the open Parlour, that Doll is as good as my Lady; but must she be better too?’

That there is an Obligation upon the People to attend upon their Pastors Ministrations statedly, I do not deny but affirm; but in the mean Time, I abhor the Notion of the Querists, viz. That, that Obligation is equal to the Marriage Contract: For if so, it will necessarily follow, that every Time the Minister preaches to any besides his own People, he commits Adultery, and every Time the People hear another, they likewise commit Adultery. At this Rate a Minister would be no Minister, but in his own Parish, and every Time he Steps over the Line, his Right to exercise his ministerial Office evanishes.

Besides, according to this Plan, the Presbyterian Churches, by maintaining the Lawfulness of the transporting of Ministers from one Place to ano­ther, in order to exercise their Pastoral Office there statedly, and that purely to promote the greater Good of the Church; and their acting ac­cordingly is a maintaining and practising of Adul­tery; and do not the Querists profess this very Doctrine, while they assume the Presbyterian name, [Page 26] and have they not acted according to it, in a pub­lick and social Manner not long since? Well then don't they according to their own Plan of Reasoning avow and practise Adultery? Besides it may be here observ'd, that the Querists have so far forsa­ken the Presbyterian Plan of Government, that they have in this Point under debate, adobted the ri­diculous Notion of the rigid Independents and Brownists, what little Reason have these Men to glory in the Presbyterian Name?

Seeing the Relation between Pastor and People is mutual, must not what they Term a Breach of it be upon both Sides equally Criminal? If a Mini­ster may go from the People to whom he is re­lated, and preach statedly to others, after a regular Dismission, in order to do more Good to the Souls, of Men, why then mayn't the People go statedly to get greater Good to their Souls, after the afore­said Application, shoudn't we be as careful to pro­mote our own as anothers Good? And pray why are not the Presbitery as capable to judge of Peoples getting Good, as of the probability of a Ministers doing Good?

I have not Leisure nor Inclination, to offer a­ny Remarks upon the Prophanity of the Querists, their begging the Question in debate, and many other Absurdities, which are contain'd in what I have but now cited from them. And therefore I shall only take leave at present to add: That these Opposers of God's Work, thro' their Selfishness, and the Heat of their Prejudice have endeavour'd to confute virtually and consequentially their own professed Opinion and Practice, as well as the Senti­ments of the Presbyterian Churches universally. What a Shame is it, that these Men should cast Scandalous Reflections upon the Body of the reformed Churches, and labour to prove them all to be guil­ty of Adultery as well as themselves?

Pray hasn't every ordained Minister, an habitual Relation to the whole visible Church? And must [Page 27] not this be brought into Exercise as to particular Societies, in a regular Manner, as the greater Good of the whole requires, is it not contrary to common Sense, to immagine that seeing every Mi­nister, has an habitual Relation to, and is a Member of the whole visible Church, and is by Conscience and Office oblig'd to promote the greater Good thereof, that his actual Relation to any particular Branch of it, should continue any longer than is consistent herewith? As the common Maxim is ex ungue Leonem, by the Claw the Lyon is known, So the Reader by this Instance may guess at the Temper of the Querists, and their manner of trifling in Dis­putation. But enough of this

I return to our Examiners Performance, and beg his Pardon that I have interupted by so long a Digression, my remarks upon it; and doing it the Justice it deserves. But seeing it was only to pay some Complements, to a Work of his dear Friends, which he has in so high Esteem; I hope he will have me excus'd.

The Examiner says, pag. 4 ‘That Mr. T's zealous Advocates here, and elsewhere, have by Way of Charity, dispers'd about the Country, great Num­bers of the last Edition, (meaning of the Notingham Sermon) tending to corrupt the Minds of People, from the Simplicity which is in CHRIST, and to promote that Confusion and seperating Spirit, which he himself has been instrumental in raising in many Places.’

Answ. What this Author Means, by the Simplici­ty "which is in CHIST, I cannot tell, but sure I am that instead of corrupting Mens Minds, &c. it tends to prevent their being corrupted, to inform them of the Danger of an ungodly Ministry; and to direct Men to the best Means, has a direct Tendency to bring them to CHRIST, and to the Simplicity that is in him. Both which Particulars are the Sub­stance and Scope of that Sermon, (which this Au­thor opposes) and therefore it was an act of true Cha­rity [Page 28] in those whom he calls my Advocates, to dis­perse them. But on the Contrary to excite People to an Indifferency in their Choice of Ministers, or to encourage unconverted Men to come into the Ministry, or to be offended at the odious Characters the Scriptures give them, or to befriend them in their sordid Opposition to Gods Work and Servants, is a sinful Simplicity, and horrid Cruelty! And that the Examiner is Guilty of all these Things, either expresly or virtually, will appear I trust thy the fol­lowing Pages.

The Sermon rightly understood, has no tendency to promote Confusion and a separating Spirit. If I had asserted, that a certain Knowledge of the States of others was attainable, or that unconverted Ministers were never us'd as Means of doing Good, or that it was a Sin to hear them, or that it was lawful to go statedly from the hearing of that Minister whom we are under a Relation to, at our Pleasure, there would be some Umbrage or Reason for the Charge; but seeing I have said neither of these, but on the contrary as­serted the necessity of previous Application, &c. the Charge is without any real Foundation.

This Author farther adds, ‘that I my self have been instrumental, of raising in many of their Places, Confusion and a separating Spirit.’

Ans. It is a notorious Falshood, Thousands in N. En­gland can witness that I spake seldom of the Ministry at all; not one Word came out of my Lips, in Favour of separating from them. But if this Author means by Confusion and a separating Spirit, a Scriptural and rational Distress of Soul for Sin, and a Sepa­ration from it in Affection and Practise, he in that Sense speaks the Truth, these Things I confess I was (thro' Grace) instrumental in raising, in ma­ny of their Places.

But to confirm his awful Charge he adds this In­vincible Argument viz. ‘For many are fully per­swaded, that Mr. T's Sermon, and practice upon it, have sown the Seeds of all the Discord, In­trusion, [Page 29] Confusion, Separaion, Hatred, Variance, Emulation Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Heresys, &c. that have been springing up, in so many of the Towns and Churches thro' the Province for two Years past.’

Ans. A dreadful Inditement indeed if true, con­sisting of eleven Particulars, and yet behold and wonder there's something left behind unexpress'd, for there is an & cetera at the Heels of it! But it is my Comfort that his Libel is false and ridiculous. Methinks if the Examiner has any remains of Con­science left, it must needs make him uneasy and ashamed, that he has utter'd eleven Falshoods at a Breath; but pray Sir, why didn't you favour us with the whole Catalogue of Crimes, was you aware that you had already mentioned more than you could prove, if so it was discreet in you not to proceed farther, but to make an Et cetera supply the Place of Particulars. Terrible, and have I sown the Seeds of Heresy and Treason too a­mong you. Alack and alas a-day? Why did n't you charge me with Murder and Blasphemy also? For you had as much Reason for these as for the others, aye Treason! Is this your Charity? do you want the civil Sword to be drawn against me as a Rebel to the State for preaching Faith and Re­pentance successfully? wou'd you embrue your Hands in my Blood, that travel'd thro' the Winter Cold to do your Country Good? But pray Sir, where are the Proofs of the aforesaid Charge? Why this, ‘That many are fully perswaded, that my Ser­mon and Practice upon it, have sown the Seeds, &c. as aforesaid.’

Ans. And what if they be? It's either thro' the Force of their Prejudice, or by false Information. Many more in New-England, know the unreasona­bleness and falshood of that Persuasion.

The Charge of my practising upon the Sermon, supposes in my Apprehension, that that Sermon was generally known by the People of New-England, [Page 30] either before or when I was among them, which is false; unless our Author takes preaching Original Sin, Faith, Repentance, Justification by the Righteousness of CHRIST alone, the Conviction of Sin, the New Birth, and the necessity of a holy Life, to be sowing the Seeds of Discord, I am not guilty. Multitudes know that these were the Doctrines which I principally preach'd upon in New-England. I may add likewise, that it is well known that there was no such Divi­sions in N. England when I was in it, as have since happened. But supposing there had been, it would not have prov'd the Charge of Confusion, much less of Heresy, except I had spoken something that had a Tendency thereto. Would not it be unrea­sonable to charge the Apostle Paul, with all the Tu­mults which sometimes attended his Preaching of which it was not the Cause, but innocent Occasion only. Would the Examiner Charge our Lord, with being the Author of Confusion, because he tells us that he came not to send Peace, but fire and Division?

But our Author proceeds to repeat his Charge in the following invidious Terms, viz. ‘Who hath been so Instrumental to hatch the Cockatrice, as himself, tho' at the same Time he could grave­ly Advise others, to crush it in the Egg.’

Answ. This would be very inconsistent if true, but in as much as it is False, it must be laid at his own Door. I beseech the Examiner to consider se­riously the following Lines, in the 14. pag. of that Sermon he so much Dislikes. Mat. 23.13. Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against Men, for ye neither go in your selves, nor suffer those that are entering to go in Pharisee Teachers will with the utmost Hate, op­pose the very Work of Gods Spirit upon the Souls of Men, and Labour by all Means to blacken it as well as the Instruments, which the Almighty improves to promote the same, if it come near their Borders, and Interferes with their Credit or Inte­rest; thus did the Pharisees with our Saviour.’[Page 31] May Almighty God incline our Author, to exa­mine impartially, if this be not his Case and Prac­tice?

But the Examiner proceeds to say, ‘Whoever will take Pains to consider the main Scope of Mr. T's Sermon at Nottingham, will find the Principles of it, subversive of Gospel Order, the publick Ministry, and publick Means of E­ducation; and what have we more? What could touch the Apple of our Eye, like this fatal Blow? It is a Blow at the Root!’

Ans. If the Charge was true, that Sermon wou'd deserve the most speedy Condemnation. But where is the Proof? Why the Examiners Assertion, or ipse dixit: But will this suffice the Impartial, no surely! What can't the Danger of an unconverted Ministry be represented, and private Seminaries of Learning be erected, especially where there are no publick ones, without endangering the publick Ministry, and publick Means of Education? Strange! What Notion then must this Gentleman have of the Ministry? Does he think they are all unconverted? If so, he is very uncharitable indeed! I'm sorry, it should touch him so near as the Apple of his Eye, to have the Danger of an unconverted Ministry set forth as in my Notingham Sermon; if he were not too nearly related to them, methinks it wouldn't touch him in so tender a Part, but on the contrary it would make him glad, to see their Picture so justly drawn, that so they might see their Faces in that Glass, and be convinc'd and ashamed. If the Sermon be a Blow at the Root, as our Author observes, it is at the Root, of an ungodly Mini­stry, and is our Author sorry, that that Root of Bitterness should be struck at? When I compos'd it, I expected it would be judged by that Tribe it detected, as guilty of Scandalum Magnatum, as wor­thy of Bonds and of Death. I suppos'd, it would be like rousing a Wasps Nest, and I have found it according to my Expectation. The Opposers of [Page 32] God's Work, have dip't their Tongues and Pens in Gall, and by their Malignant Invectives, have endeavour'd to bury its Author in Ruins; but peradventure it may have a Resurrection to their Terror and Shame. What's the matter that these Men, can find nothing agreeable in that Sermon, that so exactly describes the naked Truth, the very Character Case and Pranks of the ungodly Clergy? Supposing some Things in it were worded in too strong Terms, what then, shou'd they condemn all for this, and want to commit it to the Flames? Indeed I think this Method of Proceeding, looks very suspicious and Points out who they are?

But the Examiner proceeds to produce the Sen­timents of a Schismatical Party whom he calls the Synod, wherein they condemn my Sermon preach­ed at Notingham, as a notable Instance of our sowing Seeds of Division, ‘And we charge him say they, with perverting Scripture, uncharitable rash judging the Body of the Clergy of this Ge­neration, in the Lump, and encouraging Factions and Disorders therein!’

Ans. Perhaps this Gentleman thinks to grace and strengthen his side of the Question, by the Name of Synod. But I would have him to consider, that adhuc sub judice lis est. The Point is in dispute, whe­ther the Party he speaks of, be the Synod of Phi­delphia or not, I humbly conceive they will not be found so in the Issue, being but a minor Party to those whom they condemn.

As to the Charge of Perverting Scripture in that Sermon, I deny it, I have better Interpreters, than them on my Side, that justify the Sense I have given of the Scriptures in that Sermon. The Scrip­tures produced answer the Design I bro't them for. Namely, to shew the Danger of an unconvert­ed Ministry. And that the Almighty does not approve of natural Mens taking upon them the Ministry in the ordinary Time of the Gospel. It is they that have perverted my Meaning, and so in con­sequence [Page 33] thereof, would Charge upon me a pervert­ing of the Scripture.

As to what they call, uncharitable judging of the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, I would ask them, what they think themselves? Do they Im­magine, that the greater Part of the Ministers of this Generation, are pious? Let them speak out up­on this Head. Are not the greatest part of the Clergy of this Generation Papists, and is it unchari­table to say that such are unconverted? And are not many of the Protestant Clergy very unsound in Principle, and unholy in Life? And is there not a great Number of others, who have a Form but hate the Power of Godliness? Have not many those Marks of Impiety that are mention'd in that Ser­mon which they oppose?

Truly I must confess, that the more I have had to do with them, and perceiv'd the Malignant Op­position of some of them, against God's Work and Servants, the more my Opinion has been strength­ened respecting the greatness of the Number of graceless Ministers. As to their Charge of sowing Seeds of Division.

I would answer them in these Words of the Not­ingham Sermon pag. 25 ‘the proper Cause of sin­ful Divisions, is that Enmity against God and Holiness, which is in the Hearts of natu­ral Men of every order, being stirr'd up by the Devil and their own proud and selfish Lusts; and very often natural Men, who are the proper Causes of the Divisions aforesaid, are wont to deal with God's Servants, as Potiphars Wife did by Joseph, they lay all the Blame of their own Wickedness at their Doors, and make a loud Cry. This is truly the present Case.

It is a Fruit of our Authors strong Prejudice, to represent me as holding in my Notingham & Moravian Sermons, two Principles as opposite as the Heathen Principles, of a good and evil God, as will ap­pear I trust by the Sequel.

[Page 34]But to proceed, our Charitable Examiner, is of­fended at the Rev. Ministers of Boston, for speaking honourably of my Person, and late Performance, respecting the Moravians, it seems, as if he grudg­ed that any shou'd think or speak well of me, where now is our Authors Charity, which he said he put on in his first pag. dosn't it seem as if he had drop't the Cloak quite?

What if these Rev. Gentlemen, had seen the Not­ingham Sermon, as he suggests; its like they woudn't have so dreadful an Idea of it, as our Author (what their Opinion of the Sermon is I know not.) But on the Supposition, that one or more of them were of Opinion, that there were some unguarded or exceptionable Expressions in it, yet might they not consistent with the Simplicity that is in CHRIST, forbear expressing this, when they were not call'd to it. They were not prefacing the Notingham Sermon, but others, which this Author himself does not object against; had they express'd a Commendation of these, together with a Censure because of suppos'd Exceptions in a­nother, wou'd it not have tended to mar the Use­fulness of what they recommended, shou'd not what a Person does well, be commended, notwith­standing of his suppos'd or real Defects?

It must appear evident to every impartial Mind, that the Rev. Ministers of Boston, have acted ac­cording to the Simplicity that is in CHRIST, by recommending a Performance which was season­able, and had some Tendency to prevent, the Spread of Moravianism in this Land; and by giving the Author of it that Honour, which they thought was just, in order to make the Performnace of more Service.

But how to reconcile our Authors Conduct, in this Affair with the Simplicity that is in CHRIST, I profess I am at a Loss? If he has any Love to the Truths of God, which are now so much at­tack'd in this Land, why does he come out with such Virulence against me when I am appearing [Page 35] for them, and endeavouring as well as I can to de­fend them. Why is he utterly silent, about what I have said in Defence of the main Truths of the Gospel? Doesn't it seem as if some Moracian or Jesuit had hir'd his Pen, to attempt by Hook and Crook to render me Ridiculous, that thus the In­fluence of my late Performance against them might be frustrate?

This Author farther betrays the badness of his Cause, and Spirit, by deriding those Rev. Gen­tlemen, who are above his Contempt, by insinu­ating that they believ'd, some Person to be infallible in these Words.

‘If they think as Protestants generally do, that Infalibility may be mistaken.’—But afterwards, in the same Page, he grows more warm and con­fident, and says, ‘it seems that such a Prime In­strument of the Work, that has been going on in the American Provinces, for the two last Years must be judged infallible, and supported with the highest Encomiums of six most Rev. Ministers.’

Ans. Why has this Author charg'd such a noto­rious Falshood, upon these worthy Gentlemen, namely, that they have judged me infallible, for the which he has not the least Foundation; can they not commend what they judge to be Praise Worthy in any, without supposing him to be In­fallible? To what Lengths will Men's Rage and Prejudice carry them?

And How false and ungenerous is it in our Au­thor, to charge those Gentlemen in the same pag. with having Men's Persons in Admiration, because of Advantage. With a Relation to me; his Words are these,

‘But it seems no Man dar'd, or car'd to say un­to him, why dost thou such Things, such is the Danger of having Mens Persons in Admiration because of Advantage.’

I answer, What Advantage could these Gentle­men propose by a poor Stranger, who was to be [Page 36] among them but a few Weeks, and probably ne­ver like to see their Faces any more in this World? And who as our Author tells the Story, pag. 8. ‘Came with a great Troop of 20 or 30 Horse, entring into other Men's Labours, and devour­ing their Livings.’Ans. No, It was Love to Gods Work which this Man despises, that excited their Esteem of an Instrument, whom it pleased the Sovereign God to improve, in promoting of it! But if no Mans daring or caring to say to me, why dost thou such Things? would prove the Charge of having Men in Admiration, because of Advantage; as our Author insinuates, then the present Opposers of Gods Work in N. England, wou'd be as guilty of it, as those whom they now unjustly despise: For where is there one of them, that suggested to me the least doubt of the Reality of it then? neither did I meet with the least Opposition against the Doctrines of Grace, which I preach'd, except in one or two small Towns. The Truth is, the Convic­tion and Conversion of Sinners, was attended with such Majesty and Power, as astonished and terrified those ungodly Creatures, which were not convert­ed: So that for a Time hardly any of them durst move his Tongue, much less his Pen against it; but after a While the Influences of the Divine Spirit be­ing withdrawn, and some Stumbling Blocks falling in the Way, obstinate Transgressors grow profane­ly bold in opposing God's Work, and in traducing and contemning his Servants.

Observe Reader, how this Author discovers his Antipathy against the Work of God, in the follow­ing Lines. ‘I heartily wish (says he) he was more worthy, for whom they have done this, and that they themselves had not in this Labour of Love, to their dear and honoured Brother, betray'd too great a Liking, of what is commonly call'd this Work.’

Ans. I joyn with this Author in the first part of his Petition, but have Reason to doubt from his pre­sent [Page 37] Performance, that if it was answered, he wou'd like me less, if possible than he does! but as to the latter part of it, I must declare my dissent, altho' I question not his Sincerity therein. But on the contrary, I bless God who has excited those worthy & famous Ministers, to appear as Witnesses to his Truths and Work, in a day of Degeneracy, Blas­phemy and Rebuke; this is their Honour, and will be their unspeakable Advantage in a future World; whatever the Ignorant or Prejudiced may say to the contrary. The World may see by this, what sort of a Person this Examiner is, who attempts to wound my Character and Usefullness, namely, that he is one, who dislikes the late Revival of Re­ligion in this Land.

But the Examiner proceeds to observe, upon the PREFACE thus. ‘These Rev. Gentlemen say, This our dear Brother visited us at Boston two Years ago; and in the Spirit of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, entred into his Labours.’ Upon which he says, ‘It's true Mr. Tennent visited these Parts about that Time, and the Visit was full of Extra­ordinaries, his progress thro' the Province, sa­vour'd more of worldly Pomp and Grandeur, than the Humility of the meek and lowly JESUS, he came eating and dringink, gallopping over the Country with his Congregatio de propoganda &c. mag­na comitante caterva, with a Troop of twenty or thirty Horse, entring into other Men's Labours and devouring their Livings, having all Things in common.’

Ans. What Envy appears in this Representation? It's true some Persons did of their own meer Motion, without any Invitation of mine, accompany me in my Travels, sometimes more, and sometimes less in Number; and for what I could learn, with a Desire to receive Benefit to their Souls by my Preach­ing; and what wou'd our Author have me to do in such a Case? Would he have me to drive them [Page 38] away? Why does he say that this savour'd more of worldly Pomp, than of the Humility of the meek and lowly JESUS? Didn't Multitudes follow Christ, to attend his itinerary Labours? And didn't he come eating and drinking? Wou'd our Author have me live without Victuals and Drink? Or wou'd he have me starv'd to Death? But perhaps the Emphasis of the Charge, consists in gallopping over the Country. Really the Snow was so deep during a good Part of my Travels, that it was no proper Season for gallopping. I don't remember for my Part, that I gallop't any, but if I had, I don't see the Harm of it. Methinks our Author's trifling in his Charges against me for the Want of proper Materials, turns to my Commen­dation, and therefore his futile Reflections, contra­ry to his Design, are proper Panegyrick upon me, and a Satyre upon himself. O! but he says that I enter'd into other Men's Labours.

Ans. Its true I preach'd in other Ministers Pul­pits, but not without their Consent, and where was the Harm of this? But he adds devouring their Livings.

Ans. It's true, when I was invited by Ministers or others, to stay in their Houses for a Night or so in my Pass, I generally comply'd, and partook of what they set before me, and so did any that were pleased to travel with me. I defy this Ex­aminer to prove that I did either without Invita­tion; and where was the Harm of complying as before? dosn't the Examiner remember the old Pro­verb, volenti nulla fit injuria, to a willing Person no Inju­ry is done. What does he mean by devouring then? Does he intend that I, or any of my Companions in Travel, eat or drank to excess? If he does let him prove it if he can? But here I must beg leave to observe, with all due gratitude that much Kindness and Respect, was shewn me by many in N. En­gland, in hospitable generous Entertainments; and does our Author grudge & grumble at this? If it were [Page 39] not too rude and uncivil, I would remember him of a coveteous Person, that long since begrudged expensive Respect shewn to our LORD. But it was not to his Honour.

But the Examiner adds another Article of Charge, in this Paragraph, namely, having all Things in common.

A. As before he had resembled me to the Papists in these Words, with his Congregatio de propaganda &c. I suppose the word left out is Faith; so that his Meaning is, that I went gallopping about with my Companions, to propagate the Faith. What Faith? Does he insinuate the Roman Catholick, as his Form of Expession seems to point to? This is exceeding invidious, doesn't this Author know in his Consci­ence that the Doctrines of Faith which I preach'd in New England, were no other than what is con­tain'd in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Doctrinal Articles of the Church of England? I say as before he resembled me to the Papists, so here in the last Words of the Paragraph, to the Le­vellers, by saying we had all Things in common. I will say no more to this than that it is another no­torious Falshood, either of this Examiners Invention or Publication.

The Examiner farther observes, in the next Pa­ragraph, p. 8. ‘He came in the Spirit of Mr. White­field indeed, when Procalmation was made before him as Visitor or Vicar-General, The Rev. Mr. T. designs to preach in such a City or Church to-day, and to-morrow in another, and continue in a Third and get Gain, without the least Regard to the stated Pastors of the Churches, volens, no­lens; pleading Extraordinaries for suspending Scripture Rules.’

A. This is an unfair Representation of the Case, I sent no such Word to any one Place in N. En­gland, that I would preach in their Churches or Towns, whether the Pastors would or not. When I came to any Place, where there was a setled Mini­ster, [Page 40] I never preach'd without first apprizing him of my Inclination, and if I was not prevented by his Invitation, asking his Leave, and this I every where obtain'd, before I preach'd in any Place, excepting one, where I came in the Evening, the Minister declined letting me preach in the Meeting House that night, for Reasons which I thought were not relevant, and being invited by some to preach that Night, in a private House, I comply'd, at which the Minister of the Place was present, di­verse People as I was inform'd, had come to the Meeting House, expecting Sermon, and I thought it was a pitty they should be disappointed, without sufficient Cause, and here it should be likewise ob­serv'd, that the Minister did not forbid my preach­ing in a private House, but on the contrary sig­nified before several Persons, that if I came on a Lecture Day, he would invite me to preach pub­lickly; but thought that ringing the Bell in the Night, might surprize the People, with an Alarm of Fire, and that the People not having suffici­ent Warning there wou'dn't be a valuable Con­vention. But the same Gentleman invited me to preach in his Pulpit the next Day, and treat­ed me with much Kindness and Courtesie.

As to what the Examiner says about getting Gain. It is exceeding invidious, I neither needed, nor ex­pected, nor desir'd any Thing for my Labours in N. England, if our Author can prove any of these, let him do it as soon as he pleases, was there any Collection made for me, in any one Place in N. En­gland, for near six Months that I travell'd in it, and preach'd daily? Nor was there any Thing given me, excepting in seven or eight Places in all N. En­gland, and that by some Gentlemen of their own ac­cord, and was it a Fault in me to accept of their Ge­nerosity? What I have now said is with no Design of reflecting upon the Gentlmen of N. England, No, far be it from me, I hope ever to retain a grateful Sense [Page 41] of their Kindness, but only to confute this ungene­rous Cavil.

The next Article of Charge is, that I plead Extra­ordinaries for suspending Scripture Rules. This Phrase the Examiner seems to have borrow'd from his dear Bre­thren by the Way, to which I answer, that it is alto­gether false! I had no need of using any such Plea, for I don't know that any Scripture Rule was sus­pended by my preaching in New England, however I must still assert that the Plea is in some Cases law­ful, whatever Contempt may be cast upon it by some. To say that ordinary Rules, or Rules for ordinary Cases should not be suspended in extraordinary Cases, is a bare fac'd contradicting of an antient Maxim consented to by the common Sense of Mankind, viz. That every general Rule admits of Exceptions, unless it can be pro­ved that ordinary and extraordinary Cases are the same; which from the nature of Things is impossible, the Measures in every thing cannot be proper in both, and to say the contrary is in other Words to de­ny the lawfullness of the Reformation from Pope­ry, in the Time of Swinglius, Luther, and Calvin; and if we mayn't judge for our selves when these ex­traordinary Cases happen, we are Slaves indeed of the most sordid kind, and rob'd of every Thing that's worth keeping of a Religious Nature. Hereby a Church Tyrany is erected, and the hateful Romish Doctrines of implicite Faith and blind Obedince, esta­blished. God forbid that we should cast away the Liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and suffer Men to lord it over our Consciences, and en­slave us with their plausible Pretext of Rule and Order! Order, Order was the Cry of the Papists in the Beginning of the Reformation from Popery, with a View to stop its Progress. The Text they trump'd up upon every Occasion, as Doctor Voetius observes was Mat. 23.3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, omnia, omnia, all, all, they must observe, all the holy Traditions of the Roman Catholick Church, all the holy Cannons [Page 42] and Orders, or be curs'd with Bell, Book and Candle Light as disorderly and contemptuous Persons, Schismaticks, Hereticks, and what not? But the blessed Reformers better understood the Scriptures and their Duty from them, than to mind their selfish impertinet Cant, or to be scar'd from it by their invidious and groundless Anathemas. And has not the Episcopal Church excommunicated all that dissent from her, by her Cannons. Now all that make them, (I mean the Cannons) will say that they are agreeable to the Scriptures. And so Scrip­ture Rules.

In the mean Time it must be observ'd, that we should with equal Care avoid both Extreams, viz. TYRANNY upon the one hand, and the abuse of CHRISTIAN LIBERTY upon the other, TRUTH and DUTY lye between both, as we should abhor with a perfect Hatred the enslaving Schemes of High Church Bigots, so on the contrary, we should equally abhor and avoid, the Plea of Ex­traordinaries, except the Case be evidently so.

But the Examiner proceeds to say in the next Paragraph, pag. 8 ‘He came in the Spirit of Mr. Whitefield, when he treated the Body of the Ministry in this Province, with so much Neglect and contempt as he did, not only in not suffer­ing himself to hear any of them, no not in Boston itself, except once or twice.’

Ans. This Charge is likewise a notorious Falshood! I never treated the Body of the Clergy in any Pro­vince of New England, with Neglect and Contempt. I have a Witness in Heaven and in my own Bo­som that my not hearing mnay of the Ministers of New England, did not proceed from any Contempt of them. The Case was plainly this, I was stirr'd up at that Time by the Almighty to uncommon Zeal and Love for the Salvation of Mankind, so that unusual Labours became natural to me, daily preaching was pleasant and desirable like the re­turns of my stated Meals. I was therefore loath to ne­glect [Page 43] Opportunities of preaching, especially con­sidering my full Perswasion, that God was remark­ably with me, and sealed my Labours. The worthy and Rev. Ministers of Boston, perceiving that a di­vine Blessing attended my Ministrations, did hum­bly and lovingly invite me to preach frequently in that Metropolis, being willing and glad that Gods Work shou'd be carry'd on, by any one the Lord wou'd please to send by; their condescending In­vitations I accepted with an affecting Sense of my own Unfitness and Unworthiness, as the Searcher of all Hearts knows, as well as Admiration at the Humility, the Candor and Couresie of these Rev. Gentlemen, which I hope I shall ever bear thankful Remembrance of.

But the Examiner proceeds to say, ‘but also in cru­elly censuring them (meaning the Ministers of the Province) in general, and raising Jealou­sies in the Minds of People of their faithful Mini­sters, even to that Degree as hath ended in a Spirit of dreadful Separation in many Places.’

Ans. This is likewise a notorious Falshood. I did not censure the Ministry of their Provinces in ge­neral, or raise Jealousies in the Minds of the Peo­ple of their faithful Ministers. I spake but little of the Ministers at all in New England, but never in the Manner our Author mentions, the Almighty knows that it was far from the Thot's of my Heart, and far from the Speeches of my Lips, to raise Jealou­sies in the Minds of People about their faith­ful Ministers. O unmerciful Man! Who thus by repeated Falshoods and Misrepresentations, en­deavouring to stab my Character and Labours in the Dark. And, thro' me, the Work and Servants of the great God. What is your Name, I know not, but the God of Truth and Righteousness knows you, and remember he will bring you to Judgment, your false Glosses will be then remov'd. May God of his Mercy forgive your Wickedness, and have Pi­ty on your poor Soul for his Names sake. The [Page 44] Desire of my Heart, and the Tendency of my Labours in New England was only to bring poor Sinners to CHRIST, and to build up Saints in him. I profess to the World, that my Esteem of the Ministry of N. England, was much encreas'd by acquaintance with them. I am fully perswad­ed that there is a considerable Body of worthy and faithful Labourers, in that Part of the Lords Vine­yard.

As to what our Author says, of the longness of my Journey to N. England; for brevity's sake I shall refer to the Letter I printed in New England, respecting the Occasion of my travelling that Way. And only add, that I had no Intention to affront any Body by my Travels, I had no such Con­ception of the Journey as our Author represents, otherwise I would not have undertaken it, neither was it in my Heart to imagine that there was no Body like minded, or capable to water where the Rev Mr. Whitefield had planted, as our Examiner observes. Pray why mayn't one Minister preach in another's Place, by his Consent, without a barefac'd affront to him? And isn't the Case the same as to many Places? To think otherwise as I humbly conceive, is contrary to common Sense, and denotes an odd Turn of Mind?

But let us attend to our Author, in his 9 pag. He goes on thus ‘but then are these Rev. Mess. of the same Mind, Spirit and Judgment, did they come in the same Spirit, when Mr. Whitefield in his Journal, part 3d pag. 63. sayeth, These bo­dily Convulsions, I believe come from the Devil; who, now the Work of GOD is going on, wants to bring an evil Report upon it? And seeing that nothing is more evident, than that Mr. Tennent is the grand Instrument of promoting those animal Convulsi­ons, into which many of our new Converts have fallen, and upon which so great a Stress is laid by many in the Work of Conversion.’

[Page 45] Ans The Heat of our Authors Prejudice, has confus'd him much in this Paragraph, he Shifts about this Way and that Way, in order to cast his Squibs at Mr. Whitefield, the Boston Ministers, and my self. And first he gravely, but impertinently, asks the Ministers of Boston, whether they are of the same Mind, Spirit and Judgment with Mr. Whitefield? How childish is this, these Rev. Gentlemen so far as I know, have never so much as insinuated, that they or I were of his Judgment, in every circumstantial or minute Point; but both of us may be justly said to be of, or in the same Spirit, when we a­gree with him in the fundamental Doctrines of Religion, and are dispos'd to promote and encou­rage the same vital Godliness with him. And this I believe was their Meaning, in these Words of their Preface which our Examiner criticises so much upon. But his sarcastical enquiring of the Boston Mi­nisters, whether they came in the same Spirit? When Mr. Whitefield and C. as has been related, consider'd in Connection with that Passage in the Preface, which he grumbles at, cannot well be reconcil'd to that com­mon Sense to which he appeals in his Title Page: For the Rev. Ministers, whom our ill natur'd Author fleers at, were in Boston at that Time he refers to. This was the Place of their fix'd Residence. See the Force of Prejudice, it will sometimes drive Men of Wit and Address, into Impertinence and Nonsense, as well as Falshood; in order to gratify its Rancour. 'Tis like our Author is a Man of Sense, Sed aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus, Sometimes Homer sleeps. His unhappy Prejudice is so strong, that it seems some­times to disturb his Judgment, so that he talks od­ly like a Man just wak'd out of Sleep, who had been dreaming of some dreadful Events: Witness the frightful Catalogue of Crimes, which he put in his Indictment against me, before mentioned, namely, Discord, Intrusion, Confusion, Separation, Ha­tred, Variance, Emulation, Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Here­sies, &c. see pag 5. And here he is fond to bring [Page 46] in abruptly, a Passage of Mr. Whitefield's Journal, about bodily Convulsions, which was not suffi­ciently guarded, that he might offer some matter of Reflection and Triumph. However if the Affair be examined, there will be found little Reason for either. The Rev. Mr. Whitefield has not said that he believes, that all these bodily Convulsions came from the Devil, and if he had, neither the Rev. Ministers of Boston (so far as I know) or my self, have ever been of that Opinion These Things may be other ways accounted for, consistent with the animal Oeco­nomy. What if that dear Servant of God, Mr. Whitefield had been mistaken in a circumstantial Point? Shall his Spirit, his State and Temper of Mind, be condemned for this? Or the State and Temper of others, because they agree not with him herein? Is this our Author's Charity, which he talks so much of?

But the Examiner proceeds to say, ‘And seeing nothing is more evident, than that Mr. Tennent is the grand Instrument of promoting those ani­mal Convulsions, into which many of our new Converts have fallen, and upon which so great a Stress is laid, by many in the Work of Con­version.’

Ans. Nothing is more evident, than that this is a notorious Falshood, viz. That I am the grand Instru­ment of promoting those animal Convulsions. This Ca­lumny is invented by the Father of Lies, the Accu­ser of the Brethren, in order to cast odious Colours, upon the Work of God, and me his Servant. All my Congregation, and Multitudes more, can wit­ness, that I never encouraged those Things, but on the contrary, that I have from the first Begin­nings of such Appearances, in this Part of the Coun­try (which was long since) endeavour'd in the openest Manner to discourage and check them, yea sometimes to such Degree, as has griev'd several religious People. I have repeatedly done this before many thousands of Hearers.

[Page 47]But our Author farther adds, ‘That great Stress is laid upon these animal Convulsions, by ma­ny in the Work of Conversion.’

Ans. What does the Examiner mean by that Phrase in the Work of Conversion? Does he think that Con­viction strictly considered is gradual, then he is an Arminian; and its no wonder he dislikes my Discourses against the Moravians, and indeed this is the most natural and easie Sense of his Words. Or does he speak of Conversion in a larger Sense as including the preparative of Order viz. Con­viction, as well as the Fruits thereof, and mean thus, that some depend upon those bodily Convulsions as a Sign of Conversion. In the first Sense his Charge cannot be true, because Conversion in that respect is instantaneous; and tho' the latter may be true, yet I have great Reason to believe it to be false: The Notion is absurd and ridiculous, contrary to common Sense, and therefore improbable to be true. Besides I never met with one Man in any Part of America, that was of that Opinion; or that ac­quainted me that he or they knew any one to hold it. But if our Author only means by the aforesaid Phrase, that many imagin'd those outward Con­vulsions, or the excess of Passion that occasion'd them, were in any respect Helps to Conversion, I will not undertake to be the Patron of such: For I think it is an unreasonable and ridiculous Noti­on. Possibly some few ignorant Persons, have been of this Opinion, but if so what then? Shall their Folly be imputed to the whole Body? Or is it reasonable to reflect upon the whole Work, because of the Weakness of some of the Subjects of it? Some of the Opposers in diverse Parts of the World, have of late insisted much upon this Topick, these bodily Convulsions being somewhat uncommon, and surprising, they have harp'd much upon this plau­sible String; in order (as it seems) to amuse and prejudice the People against the Work of God!

[Page 48]While the Woman the Church has been in Travail among us, the Dragon has speu'd out Floods, Multitudes of Slanders and Calumnies, in order to destroy the Woman and her Child. This is truly the Case, notwithstanding of all the artful Colour­ings, and deceitful Blinds that are put upon it by crafty Men.

But the Examiner proceeds to say, ‘Do they not take the Devils Part, who use Methods to farther such sad Appearances, and condemn them for opposers of Gods Work, who labour to un­deceive People about these Fits, by ascribing them to an inferior Cause?’

Ans. If any do use unscriptural Methods, to fur­ther such Appearances I think it is blame worthy, and have always been of this Mind; but I know of none who condemn Persons, as Opposers of God's Work, meerly for their labouring to undeceive People about the aforesaid Fits, &c. Our Author with much Art and Sophistry, misrepresents the true State of the Case, both ways, first by insinuating that there are many Persons, who take Pains to promote animal Convulsions, as their principal Aim; this I cannot think is true. Any that have encou­raged such Appearances, have had chiefly in their View the increasing and fixing that Soul Concern, which preceeds Conversion in the Adult: And is sometimes accompany'd with such Appearances, be­cause of a greater degree of Distress which some endure in their Minds, which from the nearness of the Union between Soul and Body, must needs have greater Influence upon it. If a sudden View of some great temporal Imergent does sometimes Occasion the greatest bodily Disorders Why then shou'd it be tho't strange, if Things of infinitely greater Weight and Moment when view'd in equal Points of Light, do produce equal Effects?

And on the other Hand, he wou'd insinuate, as if the chief Cause why many are condemned, as Opposers of the Work of God, is because they [Page 49] only endeavour, to give Persons a just Notion a­bout those bodily Commotions.

Ans. The Case is not so, we are glad that Peo­ple have just Notions about such Appearances, we know the Work of God is very distinct from them. But we charge this Examiner, and others of his Stamp, with opposing of God's Work, because they speak diminutively of it altogether, and use the aforesaid bodily Commotions artfully, as an Engine to black­en the whole Work. This Charge sticks so fast to the Examiner and others of his Brethren; that tho' they wash them with Nitre and take much Sope, yet their Iniquity is mark'd before God.

And now we are prepared, to listen to what the Examiner offers in his next Paragraph, which is as follows. ‘But is it not Matter of Fact, when many of the Hearers of some Preachers fall in­to Convulsion-like Fits, and roar'd, that the usual Note of such Preachers then was, will any of you come to Christ? When at the same Time they pronounc'd heavy Curses upon such, as took not such fits, as being hard hearted Pharisees, &c.

Ans. As to the first Part of the Charge, some Per­sons of eminence in Religion do think the Method therein arraign'd is justifiable, but for my own Part, I cannot see the expediency of it.

As to the latter Part of it, it is ambiguous, ‘It is said they pronounc'd heavy Curses upon such, as took not such Fits, as being hard hearted Pha­risees.’

Ans. If the Objector means all such, it is doubt­less a false Charge: For it has never been suggest­ed, so far as I can learn, even by opposers, that any who favour'd God's Work believ'd, that the Regenerate must undergo such bodily Commotion; and can it be tho't that any but mad Men wou'd pronounce Curses upon the Regenerate! But madness has not yet, that I remember been charged upon the late awakening Preachers, (this way) If the [Page 50] Objector only means that some took not, as his Phrase is, such [...], namely, the unconverted, then might not the Preachers pronounce Curses upon such? The Objector didn't say that heavy Curses were pronounced upon Persons, meerly because they didn't take such Fits. But if it be insinuated by the afore­said Objection, that any of those Preachers who have favour'd the late Reformation, were of Opinion that enduring of bodily Commotions, was of abso­lute necessity to Conversion, it is a false invidious Slander contrary to common Sense.

But the Examiner has not done with the Boston Mi­nisters yet, he goes on to say in his next Paragraph thus ‘Again these Reverend Gentlemen say, this our dear Brother, entred into Mr. Whitefield's Labour's, that is in other Words, Mr. Whitefield planted and Mr. Tennent watered, as if the Gos­pel had never been planted or watered in this Wilderness, before these Rev. Messieurs, intro­duced the Practice of itinerary Preaching.’

Ans. Admirable! That a Man of so much Cha­rity as our Author pretends to, could not find a more favourable Gloss upon that Passage, of the Rev. Ministers of Boston, will not the Words bear this easy Sense, namely, ‘that Mr. Whitefield was us'd by the Almighty, as a Mean of reviving Religion remarkably in New-England, and that it pleas'd the Sovereign God, to use me also in carrying on the same begun Work?’ Is it not contrary to common Sense, to which our Author appeals in his Title Page, to imagine that the worthy Gentlemen mean't otherwise? It is very cross grain'd in the Exami­ner, to cast so much Dirt at the Ministers of Boston, who are above his Disdain (and will be esteem'd by the Devout and Judicious whether he will or not) and that meerly because they have a favourable Opinion, of Mr. Whitefield and my self, and that blessed Work of God, which we thro' pure Grace have been instrumental to promote. But me thinks the Examiner had better be good Humour'd, for tho' [Page 51] he shou'd fret himself never so much while there is Piety in New-England, there will not be want­ing some, among both the Clergy and Laity, who will think and speak honourably of that Work, which he despises!

But I hasten to consider our Authors next Pa­ragraph, and this he has tho't proper to borrow, from the Lucubrations of the malignant Opposers of Religion this Way. The Words are these, ‘but pray, will Mr. Tennent tell the World, what Suc­cess had Mr. Whitefield or himself, but where they had Opportunity, to enter into other Men's Labours, and who planted and watered Con­gregations for them, to crow of their Succession: For in Maryland, Virginia and North-Carolina, where Ministers are comparatively scarce, what News Mr. of Whitefield's great Success?’

Ans. Doubtless our Author approv'd of this Pas­sage, otherwise he would not have borrow'd it. Here let the Reader observe in these Words, a Testimony to the great Success of Mr. Whitefield, and my self, extorted from the Pens of our Ene­mies, and that even at a Time, when they were endeavouring to run us both down, and the blessed Work of Conviction and Conversion which we have been endeavouring to promote. This puts me in mind of an old Proverb, viz. magna est veritas & preva­lebit, i. e. great is the Truth and will prevail. But in the mean Time set the Reader observe, that the afore­said constrained Testimony, is contrary to what these Men have said in other Parts of their Writ­ing, one Example of which, I shall only mention at present for brevity's sake, express'd in their Ex­amination of my Remarks pag. 107. 8. 9. thus ‘We shall not be so rash as to pretend to judge Mat­ters before the Time, i. e. whether there be Truth in the Account as to some Instances: For that is no Part of our Debate; for we know but our Part of what is manifest. Secrets we leave to God, nor shall we pretend to determine, whi­ther [Page 52] there be such a Eutopia as Mr Tennent here describes, somewhere in distant Parts; for we live at Home: But yet if Men will allow us the Rights of private Judgment, we think it is but just we should be allow'd to suspend our Belief in the Point, till we hear some valid Proofs, or else are invited to come and see: For a Partyman's Say so in one Ear, when Experience contradicts it loudly in both, is too feeble to beget Faith. For tho' we should grant that in Times of yore, when Men were all that is good and desireable, subject to no Mistakes, and spoke no Falshoods in their own or their Friends Behalf, if ever there was such a Time; Men's, own ver­bal Declarations for themselves, might pass for valid Proofs of their inward Graces; and it might be counted a daring Piece of Presuming Boldness, to oppose an Argument which depended upon such stable Maxims, which like the koinai enoiai, are never to be denied, such as are, ask his fel­low, whether he be a Thief, &c. But since Pando­ra's Box is opened, our Saviour has broke down this Claim, by saying, If I bear witness of my Self, my Witness is not true. And when Experience tells us, that in this Iron Age, a fluent Orator with his orient Colours, will instantly fill the Wrin­kles of the most furrow'd Face, and again deform the most beautiful Complexion, just as Mr Pain­ter pleases, or as good Will or ill Will prompts him. Seeing therefore we have not a large Stock enough of Time and Candles to run thro' the Woods to find out Mr. Tennent's Eutopia: For it is the Cry of many, and that in many different Places, that solid Religion seems to loose Ground faster, & Vice and Debauchery seem to gain more Ground in one Year, since this new Commotion, than they gain before in Ten; and that a­mong those who appear debauch'd there are more than a few of those who were lately famous for their being Cryers, and Fallers, and Pretend­ers [Page 53] to Convictions, &c. We hope therefore, that Mr. Tennent will in his next tell us, where to find this fine Reformation, otherwise we despair of coming at it. For when we ask some of Mr. Tennent's Party where it is? We are told, it is in New England; and probably when enquir'd of in New England it is here; and we are much mistaken, if Mr. Tennent's Elisian Fields be not a meer Me­seek, if not a Babel, in the Esteem of many as judi­cious as ever he was, or is like to be. And we appeal to Mr. Tennent and his Party, whether they have not been much disappointed in many Instances that have made as great Boastings and as glaring Shows as any of the rest for a Time? And can Men rationally expect, while they judge of Men's gracious States by their own Declara­tions and vain Boastings, but that their Disappoint­ments will multiply in Proportion with their en­crease in number.’

It is not my Business, at present, to expose the va­rious Absurdities of this Paragraph, only the Rea­der may plainly see, that it is full to the Purpose that I brought it for. Yet I confess it is inconsist­ent with it self, for while these Men pretend, that they will not be so rash as to pretend to judge Matters be­fore the time, i. e. whether there be Truth in the Ac­count as to some Instances, while they pretend to suspend their Belief in the Point, in the mean Time, they call the late glorious revival of God's Work in the Land, of which I had given some Account, in my Remarks upon their Protest, (to which they refer) my Eutopia, (or Fiction) they prend to be at a Loss where to find it, they say that Iniquity has gain'd more Ground in one Year, since this new Commoti­on, than in ten before and that solid Religion looses Ground faster. They call it my Elysian-Fields, (or vain Fancy and Notion) and reckon it to be a Mesech if not a Babel. May God have Mercy upon those unhappy Men, that thus rise up in Arms against God himself, by slandering the Work of his Holy Spirit.

[Page 54]And this Author that I am now more particular­ly considering, does hereby contradict himself, com­pare what he adopts as aforesaid, with what he says pag. 30. ‘Strip this Work of its Extraordinaries, and you will discern what is the Work of God, from that which is added to it, by Art and Man's Device, pray what is Extraordinary, on one Side more than 'tother? But what is justly to be exploded, viz. Extraordinary Errors, Disorders, Intrusions, rash Censures, clamorous Exclama­tions, vain glorious Boastings, Fits, pretence of Sights, Vi­sions, Roarings, Tremblings, &c.

These Words are likewise borrow'd probably from the same dear Friends, —If our Author had been pleas'd to favour me with his proper Name, and Sir Name, I might have set them in a real Opposition to each other, in different Collumns, for his own Conviction and the Readers Edification; but not knowing his Name, I cannot gratify him in that particular for the present; and perhaps our cautious Author was afraid of this, and so prevented me, (by concealing his Name) of the Opportunity and Pleasure of obliging him as aforesaid.

As to Mr. Whitefield's little Success, in the Places before mentioned, it may be observ'd, that next to the Pleasure of a Sovereign God, who blows by his Spirit where it listeth; the Occasion thereof, was his short Stay in those Places; but in St. George's near to Maryland, which was, as I am in­form'd a very Ignorant Place, where he made a longer Stop, his Labours were crown'd with remark­able Success.

But God forbid, that Mr. Whitefield, or my self, should rob the Ministers of the Churches, of their just Honours. No doubt, a number of them, has been us'd as Instruments of converting Sinners to God, and building up Saints and others in Faith and Holiness, as well as of preparing Men for Conversion, by instructing them in the Know­ledge of divine Truths.

[Page 55]But to proceed, our Authors finishing Stroke, in Relation to the Boston Ministers (pag. 9. 10) is as follows ‘We beseech our ascended Saviour, the Head of the Church in particular, to use this faithful, judicious, and seasonable Endeavour of his Servant, for a Guard and Defence about his sacred Truths, and his glorious Work in the Midst of us; which too many are ready to speak evil of, and oppose.’ Upon which the Ex­aminer observes as follows, viz. ‘I would charita­bly hope, that that these Rev. Divines don't pre­tend by the last Paragraph, to patronize all the Extraordinaries, that they have pass'd current for the Work of God, in this Time of Strife of Tongues, and Confusion of Babel, or oppose all with the black Character of Opposers to his Work, who are Enemys to Enthusiasm and Delusion.’

Ans. Here's a little Charity, exercised by the Ex­aminer towards the Rev. Ministers of Boston, and in­deed but a little; for observe, how he speaks, I would charitably hope, &c. Aye poor Man! He seems to be put hard to it about them, to clear them, of what he calls Enthusiasm and Delusion. He exercises a little Charity towards them, and indeed but a little, he would willingly hope, but scarce can; his Charity is bro't just to the last Gasp as it were. But pray don't these Rev. Gentlemen, understand what is Enthusiasm and Delusion as well as he? What magnus Appollo is this Gentleman in his own Eyes? Here you may see, the extent of his Charity and Humility. The aforesaid Ministers have shewn, what they take to be the Work of God, and what they mean to pa­tronize; in their Preface to the Rev. Mr. Jonathan Dickenson's excellent DIALOGUES; lately printed at Boston; which are a rational and nervous De­fence, of the late revival of Religion in this Land. These Rev. Gentlemen shew in the aforesaid Pre­face, that they are against all real Enthusiasm and Disorders, but for that scriptural and rational Conviction of Sin, and Conversion from it, to God in Heart and Life, [Page 56] and Communion with God; which is falsely branded with the odious Name of Enthusiasm, by the ignorant profane, and some dead dry Formalists. From this it natural­ly follows who they judge to be Opposers of it.

But this Author proceeds to say, ‘there are ma­ny wild Disorders and Confusions in some of our Churches, at this Day; which really resemble the Corrinthian Disorders, in the Times of the Apos­tles.’

Ans. This is likely to be true, and the Case is much to be lamented! but are not the proper Cau­ses thereof, the Enmity, and Policy of Satan, and evil Men in opposing the Power of Religion? This, this, is the real Cause! And the Ignorance, Blunders, and real Imprudencies of some Friends to Religion, have doubtless contibuted hereto; which is for a Lamentation! Now in order to a Cure, the Cause should be removed.

The Examiner farther adds, ‘Necessity is there­fore laid upon the faithful Ministers of Christ; to bear publick and seasonable Testimony against them; and pity those Rev. Gentlemen, let slip so good an Opportunity, as this to do it.’

Ans. No doubt it is a Duty, to bear publick Testimony against Disorders and Confusions; and that of opposing God's Work, among the first of them: For that is the proton pseudos, the first fatal Source of the other Abominations; and this, these Rev. Gentle­men have done, as well as given their explicite Suf­frage, to the labouring Truths of God, in this Day of Degeneracy and Error. But has our Author, when he had so good an Opportunity? No not a Word of that; but he is griev'd, that they have not reproved me, in their Preface, for Disorders, Con­fusions, &c. "Pity it is says he." Poor Man! He seems to much distress'd on my Account, that I should escape Censure: Aye, well, has not he out of the Abundance of his (pretended) Faithfullness, made up their (suppos'd) Deficiencies, in that Point?

[Page 57]But, before I proceed to any other Matter, I must here beg, of the Rev. and honoured Ministers, who wrote that Preface; which this anonimous Author, has drawn his Structures upon; as he calls them; that they wou'd please to pardon my Boldness, in of­fering any Thing in their Defence, who are blest with much superior Capacities, to baffle the Cavils of Opponents; but in as much as the Examiner's Reflections, are intermix'd with many Charges, a­gainst my Conduct in New England; which conse­quently I may be suppos'd to have a more perfect Knowledge of, than others. I thought it was neces­sary for me to speak to them. What I have said in your just Defence, Rev. Sirs, I hope you will ex­cuse, as a Testimony of my Respect; but I hope it will not prevent your more elaborate Confutation of the Examiner's Reflections, if you judge them worthy of your Notice.

But I return to consider our Authors next Para­graph; which runs thus, viz. ‘that the Reader may be able to form a right Judgment, of the con­tending Parties, let him resolve this plain Query? viz. whether the Opposers of Enthusiastick Pranks set up under the Name of Reformation, or Re­ligion, or the warm Admirers of, and Contenders for such, deserve the Name of Opposers of God's Work?’

Ans. It is evident to any, that considers the Mean­ing of this Paragraph; together with its Relation to the following one; that our Author attempts to represent me to the World, as a Person, that sets up Enthusiastick Pranks; under the Name of Reformation, or Religion; and my Friends as warm Admirers and Contenders for such; than which nothing can be more false and unjust, what are the Enthusiastick Pranks, that I have been setting up for Reformation? Here our Author is silent, where he should be most particular. Pray have I not been opposing real Enthusiasm (pro veribus) ac­cording [Page 58] to my Capacity, in this late Performance, against the Meravians; which our Author has la­bour'd to cast Dishonour upon, and render inef­fectual, by representing it's Author as inconsistent and ridiculous?

But as for himself, and those of his Sentiments, they forsoth are opposers of enthusiastick Pranks, &c. Here the Examiner must excuse me, if I can't believe the Truth of what he says; for while he is oppo­sing, as it were pro aris et focis, the real Power of true Religion, apparent in the late revival of Pie­ty in this Land, under the false and feigned Cha­racter of enthusiastick Pranks, he excuses real Enthu­siasts, and casts contempt, (consequentially) upon a Book calculated to give check under the Divine Influence, to the spread of their Enthusiastical and erronious Notions. See how our Author excuses, that dangerous Party of Men pag. 20.

‘But, why doth this Gentleman, deny to those Moravian Gentlemen, the same Liberty he takes himself, to say and unsay Things as liketh him? More especially seeing he himself has had great­er Advantages, of coming to the Knowledge of the Truth, in a protestant Country than the Moravians, who have just emerg'd out of the Dark­ness and Errors of Popery.’ And in the follow­ing Paragraph, he makes some Apology, for Mr. Betners Contradiction.

Ans. O brave! And now let the Reader judge, if there ben't some Reason to suspect our Author, to be a real Enthusiast, or pretty much inclining that Way, notwithstanding of his vapouring Talk against enthusiastick Pranks. Now we have need of the Columns again, to shew our Author his Picture, but alas his Name we know not. However I wou'd beg leave, to remember him in the mean Time, of an old Saying, for I find he understands La­tin, viz. Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum. i. e. It is mean for a Teacher, to be guilty himself of the Faults he reproves in others.

[Page 59]And now we are prepar'd, to consider what our Author observes in his three next Paragraphs (pag. 10. 11.) and these are very warm in indeed! For thus he speaks ‘Upon the whole, I could find no other Key but that in the Sermon upon the little Foxes in the End of Mr. Tennent's late Treatise, to let him out of the Labyrinth into which he had plunged himself. Where it is said Pag. 8, 9. Foxes have Holes. Foxes have most commonly many Ways and Passages to come out at, because if one should be stop'd or closed up, they may have another to creep out at.—Foxes that they may not be so easily ensnared, sel­dom run right forward, but run to the one Side, and to the other Side and cross-ways —They have a sly Way of creeping into others Holes, and of turning other Animals (it may be said) out of their right­ful Possessions, so it is with respect to—for of this Sort are those which creep into Houses, 2 Tim. 3.6. And it may be generally said of them, that they creep into settled Ministries and Congregations, and turn out those that are Orthodox amongst them, &c.’

‘It is evident that Mr. Tennent design'd by translat­ing this Sermon, that it should be used as a Key to open the cunning, crafty Intreagues and Evasions of the Moravians in propagating their wild and frightful Errors. see pag. 65, 100.’

‘Mr. Tennent must excuse me if I turn the same Key upon himself, to let him out of many Incon­sistencies and Contradictions charged upon him, I expect that he will make use of Fox like Shifts to evade the Discovery.—Witness his second Letter printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette of September, 2. 1742.’

Ans. It seems if we may credit our Author, that he was puzled, with my (pretended) Inconsistencies, and Contradictions, &c. that he could find no Key, but that of the Fox, to salve them by; which he is pleas'd with much Complaisance, to turn upon me, well, in order to oblige our Author, I shall by and by endeavour, to present him with another [Page 60] Key, as I humbly conceive better suited to the Lock But in the mean Time, must beg leave to offer some few Reflections upon the aforesaid Paragraph. Here then let us enquire, whether the Characters of a Fox, as represented by Mr. Helenbrook, do realy belong to me, or to the Examiner? The

‘1st. Of which is, that they have Holes, Mr. Helenbrook adds, Foxes that they may the better conceal themselves, subsist not so much above Ground, as in Holes and Caverns, under the Earth. —Hereticks and Seducers always endeavour to hide their Doctrines, and Opinions, and keep them as secret as they can, certain it is, that they don't presently and openly appear to the World, but know how to hide themselves, under sly Shifts.’ Thus far he.

Now I appeal to the World, whether I have not acted a very contrary Part? I have appear'd open­ly upon the Stage of the World, and declar'd the Truths of Christ freely and plainly, and in secret have I said nothing. I have fairly and above board, ventur'd my Name and Character, in the Defence thereof, and of vital Religion; who can with any justice say, that I have endeavour'd, to conceal my Opinions or Name? But as for our Examiner, does he not Sculk in a Hole, and Ca­vern as it were; and screne his Name behind the Curtain; while he is labouring to destroy mine? and is he not very backward, as to the Discovery of his Doctrines? It may be likewise here observ'd, that the Opposers of Religion, while the bright Day of the Power of Divine Grace shin'd forth in the late rivival of Piet, they like other noxious Animals of the Night, cautiously and craftily kept their Holes, for Fear of the Worst, so that hardly any of them dars't appear to oppose in o­pen Day; but so soon as a Night of spiritual De­sertion came on, in respect of God's withdrawing the Influences of his Spirit,; as well as of the Falls of some Professors; into erronious Opinions, im­prudent [Page 61] Conduct, or bad Practices. I say, so soon as the Darkness came on, what Crouds of Foxes came out of their Holes, and fill'd the Neighbour­ing Air with their bold Barkings, as if it would be always Night? But stay, may be a gracious God may cause the Sun to break out with his salutary Rays, and frighten the Foxes to their Holes again; which may God grant for Christ's sake Amen, let all Christ's Sheep and Lambs, say Amen.

Another Character of Foxes, mentioned by the Examiner is, that they have many Ways and Passa­ges to come out at, &c. It depends upon our Author to prove, wherein I have us'd Reserves, Backdoors, and Equivocations; which I am con­scious he will never be able to do, and therefore is a false Accuser: The harmonious System of Truths, which I have, and do still believe, has laid me under no Temptation, to use such mean Ar­tifices.

But as to the Examiner, I will not undertake to clear him of these Things, seeing he favours a Party of Men, that are famous for them, and does what has a direct Tendency, to obstruct the Usefulness of a Book fram'd to hinder their corrupt Influence. It is an old Saying that (Simile simili gaudet) like rejoyces in like. Do not Birds of a Feather-flock together?

The next Character of Foxes, is Craft and De­ceit, which our Author gives no proof of as to me, and which I am sure he cannot, and is therefore a false Accuser. I may with justice apply to my Manner of Proceeding, what the Apstole Paul says of himself, Phil. 3.3, 6. For our Exhortation was not of Deceit, nor in Guile, even so we speak not as pleasing Men, but GOD, which tryeth our Hearts: For neither at any Time, used we flattering Words, as ye know, nor a Cloak of Coveteousness, God is Witness, not of Men sought we Glory. My Nottingham Sermon, which the Examiner is so much displeas'd with, is a Proof of this. If I had been a deceitful Flatterer, or Men pleaser, [Page 62] I wou'd not have used such Plainess and Acrimo­ny, in that Sermon, as I knew according to the common Course of Things, would expose me to much ill will, and Reproach from the ungodly. But I shall leave it to the Reader to judge, whether this Examiner has not us'd, much Craft and Deceit, in the false Charges I have already spoke to, as well as in representing the State of the Case, with re­spect to the Friends and Opposers of the late re­vival of Religion, while he endeavour'd to tear down the Life of it with all his Might, ‘and has not this a Tendency to cheat and decoy less harmless Creatures, and make a Prey of them? As Mr. Helenbrook observes, concerning the Foxes, pag. 9.’

The next particular our Author mentions, pag. 11. is this, Foxes, that they may not be so easi­ly ensnared, seldom run right forward, &c.’

Ans. I bless God, that I have the Testimony of my Conscience, that in Simplicity, and Godly Sincerity; I have had my Conversation in the World. I trust it will appear, by my Answers to this Gen­tlemans Objections; that this Charge is without Foundation. But I believe it will be hard, if prac­ticable, to clear our Author of this Property of the Fox: For sometimes in this Pamphlet, he professes Charity and blames me for the Want of it; and yet betrays a series of the most virulent Malignity, in publishing notorious Falshoods a­gainst me, several of which have been already con­sidered: In one Place pag. 9. he owns Mr. White­field's, and my great Success, and pag. 24. he denies that we had any Success at all, but pag. 30. he owns that we had some. As to the Moravians, pag. 11. he speaks against them, in respect of their wild and frightful Errors, pag. 20. he makes an Apology for them pag. 26 he acknowledges their unfair Dealings; and yet the Tendency of his whole Performance, is to hinder the Influence of that Book, which I [Page 63] wrote against them; from giving check to their pestilent Notions. As to the Work of God, pag. 8. he shews his Regret, that the Boston Ministers betray'd too great a likeing to it, and yet pag. 10 and 30. he owns the Reality of it, in some degree; but in pag. 10. he again denies it all together, un­der the Notion of Enthusiastick Pranks.

But I hasten to consider, the next Character; and that is a sly Way of creeping into other Holes, and of turning other Animals; out of their rightful Posessions; this the Accuser himself, as conscious of his Guilt, stops as it were half way in the Application of, and no wonder, for the Charge is false and slanderous. I have not slyly crept into the Congregations of orthodox Ministers, and turn'd them out of their Pos­sessions by poisonous Errors, as Helenbrook Expresses it. I have been invited by them, to preach where I have preach'd, and have never us'd sly Methods, to de­prive them of their Possessions. My late Letters that have been printed in New England, as well as those Sermons, against the Moravians, will witness for me; that I have oppos'd irregular withdrawing from the Ministry of Persons, sound in Principle, regular in Life, and approves of Gods Work. What is this Authors Practice as to this, I know not? For I can't tell who he is, and am therefore under a Disadvantage, in drawing his Character.

This Author asks my Excuse in a mannerly Way, while he turns the Key of the Fox upon me. I an­swer, that his using this Method with me gives no uneasiness, being conscious thro' pure Grace of my Integrity, I look upon his unjust Reproaches, as an honour done to me, and expect they will be Pearls in my Crown at last.

As to the Ground of our Author's Expectation, that I shou'd use Fox like Shifts, to evade the Disco­very, pag. 11. namely, my second printed Letter in the Pensylvania Gazette, Sep. 2. 1742. I must tell him, that it serves only to manifest the Strength of his Prejudice. Thro' Divine Mercy, I am not afraid of [Page 64] the brightest Light, but that this may appear the more plainly, I shall take leave to insert the Letter here.

Mr. Franklin,

FORASMUCH as a Letter of mine to Mr. Dick­inson, the last of February, together with a Post­script, lately printed in the Boston weekly News-Paper, has occasioned various Reflections; I have tho't it not improper (being thereunto excited by some Friends) to shew my Intention in some Pas­sages contained therein, which are more liable to Misconstruction. I profess that when I wrote the aforesaid Letter and Postscript, I had not the least Thought of their Publication; neither have I at any Time consented thereto; and truly, the Postscript was wrote in much Haste.

As to my Confession of Mismanagment in the Affair of Debate with the Synod, it respected on­ly the Defects which I conceived attended my Manner of Performing, what I did then and do still look upon to be Duty. I was not then, nor have not been since, convinced that the Matter or Substance of what I contended for was Wrong, and the Words of the Letter considered in their Connection, will easily bear this Sense.

As to the Postscript, altho' I question not Mr. Davenport's Piety and Integrity, and hope that he has been an Instrument of special Good to di­vers Persons; yet I cannot approve of some of his Methods of Proceeding (according to the Re­presentation which many give of them) and, par­ticularly, all the Instances in the Postscript, are in my Opinion very exceptionable and of hurt­ful Tendency.

It seems to me very unreasonable that any thing should be made a Term of Communion which cannot certainly be known by the Church; and such doubtless, are Men's gracious Experiences, the secret Recesses of the Heart, and Springs of Action, are only open to the all penetrating Eye [Page 65] of God: Yet seeing a probable Knowledge of Men's States towards God, may be attained by an Examination of Men's Principles, Experiences and Practice, Ministers no doubt ought to en­quire into the State of their Flock, and deal faithfully and discreetly with Persons in a pri­vate Way according as Things appear to them.

As to the Practice of setting up separate Meetings, upon the supposed Unregeneracy of the Pastors of Places, it is, in my Judgment, of un­happy Consequence to the Church's Peace and Purity, when the Ministers, supposed to be un­converted, are sound in Principle, regular in Practice, and Favourers of the Work of God.

But when Ministers conspire to blacken and oppose habitually the late memorable Revival of God's Work in this Land, and brand the Whole of it with Terms of the utmost Contempt and Ig­nominy; then; I see not how any that fear God can sit contentedly under their Ministrations (if they persist as aforesaid) without becoming acces­sary to their crimson Guilt.

Altho' there be no Probability of unconverted Ministers being near so serviceable to the Salvati­on of Mankind, as Persons of another Character; yet, doubtless, the sovereign God makes their Labours of some Use, at Times, for the Instructi­on and Reformation of Mankind.

As to the Practice of openly exposing Mini­sters, sound in Doctrine, blameless in Life, and Favourers of God's Work (who are suppo­sed by some to be unconverted) in publick Dis­courses, in their own Pulpits, by calling of them by their Names pronouncing Sentence against their internal State, and exhorting their People to forsake their Ministry; this, I think is a very extraordinary and unaccountable Me­thod of Proceeding, without any Precedent, that I know of, in Scripture, or Church-History; it directly tends to tear the Body of Christ in Pie­ces, [Page 66] and to procure a manifold and pregnant In­jury to all the valuable Interests of sincere Re­ligion.

As to the Practice of sending out unlearned Men into the Ministry, in ordinary Cases, upon the Supposition of their Piety, it has been always, and still is my Sentiment concerning it, that it justly deserves the Character given it in the Post­script.

Likewise, I cannot perceive either Decency or Expediency, in singing in the Streets; but on the contrary, it seems to minister Occasion to the Adversaries of Religion to revile and blaspheme.

In fine, altho' I freely own the absolute Ne­cessity of suppernatural Illumination and divine Energy, in order to the saving Instruction of Men's Minds and Renovation of their Hearts; yet I cannot but disclaim all Pretence to immediate Inspiration or objective Revelation, all following of immediate Impulses without Consulting the Word of God, and the Dictates of right Reason, as an enthusiastical and perilous Ignis fatuus, which may lead its delued Votaries into the strangest Absurdities in Opinion, and most enor­mous Evils in Practice.

G. TENNENT.

P. S. N. B. The Postscript of the Letter to Mr. Dickinson, was occasioned by a Report of Mr. Davenport's extraordinary Conduct, and had a direct Reference thereto. It may be also observ'd, that there are several Words misprinted in the aforesaid Letter and Postscript, such as Pickists, for Pie­tists; base, for Basis; of such, for to such; clear View, for clearer View; the last Errata consider­ably alters the Sense.

G. T.

And now Sir, you must excuse me, in turning the Key of the Fox in his Hole, I mean upon [Page 67] yourself Sir, and that from a better Foundation; it is you Sir, who is destroying the Vines and tender Grapes, who is artfully and cruelly aspersing Gods Work and Servants; and in the mean Time excusing Hereticks, Enthusiasts and Schismaticks; may God forgive your Iniquity.

But the Examiner goes on to say, pag. 11. ‘I shall follow the same Method Mr. Tennent has taken with the Moravians, and compare his Sermon preach'd at Nottingham, with his late Discourses and Appendix, in distinct Columns; or, in other Words, set Gilbert against Tennent, for the Rea­ders ease in finding out the Truth.’

Ans. Either the Examiner's Understanding, or his Veracity fails him here; I have not taken the same Method, with the Moravians which he takes with me, in setting Passages of any of their Writings, in a suppos'd Opposition to each other, in Distinct Col­lumns. I have only set the COUNTS Words in one Collumn, and some Observations of my own, upon the other: But its like this Author wanted some Umbrage, true, or false, for his contemptuous Manner of treating me.

And now we are arriv'd at his Collumns, in which as he says ‘We are to meet with contradictions, as impossible to be reconcil'd, as to unite the Poles; and with two set of Principles, as oppo­site to each other, as the Heathenish Principles, of a good and evil God.’ Well, tho' the Time of working Miracles be ceas'd, yet I'll put on a little Courage, and try to unite the Poles.

The first Instance, of pretended Contradiction is this, pag. 11. 12. borrow'd from the 47. pag. of my Mor. Serm. The Words are these, ‘In my Opinion a Disposition to separate from a true Church, because many of her Members are unconverted, and some are under Deadness, is a sign of a proud Spirit; were not the Pharisees of old proud Separatists? See this apply'd to the Mora­vians, in pag. 63.’

[Page 68]Compare his Sermon at Nottingham, pag. 12. of the last Edition under the second Inference, ‘we may learn, that such who are contented under a dead Ministry, have not in them, the Temper of that Saviour, they profess, it is an awful Sign, they are as blind as Moles, and as dead Stones, with­out any spiritual Taste or Relish.’

Well, where is the Contradiction? I suppose our Author thinks, it lyes in this; that in one of those Sermons, I say, that a Disposition to separate from a true Church, &c. is a Sign of a true Spirit, and in the other, that such who are contented under a dead Ministry, have not the Temper of that Sa­viour they profess. Here is scarce any Appearance of Contradiction, much less Reality.

But that my Meaning in the Moravian Sermon, may be the better understood, let this Paragraph be added, which immediately follows, what was cited by the Examiner, namely, ‘Our Lord allows, the Wheat and Tares to grow together, 'till Harvest; but some rash Zealots, are for parting them, or plucking them up directly, altho' they thereby risquo the Safety of the Wheat.’ There­fore that which I oppos'd in this Sermon, was such an uncharitable and irregular Breach of Com­munion, from the visible Church, as the Labadists were guilty of formerly in Holland; who pretended to form a perfect Church, as to its Members, i. e. to admit none but sincere Persons to Communion. And this they tho't they cou'd certainly know, and therefore made their Knowledge as to the in­ternal State, a Term of Communion. They so se­parated themselves from the Church of Holland, as to make a new Sect. The aforesaid Paragraphs I wrote with a Design to give Check as far as I could, to a censorious and divisive Temper, which I was inform'd was like to obtain, and do much Mischief in New England, which gave me great Uneasiness, for a long Time.

[Page 69]As to the Passage cited from my Nottingham Ser­mon, which is in the 18th pag. of the first Edition (for I have not seen the others) the following Words of the Paragraph, explain my Meaning fully, which are these, ‘And alas is not this the Case of Mul­titudes, if they can get one, who has the Name of a Minister, with a Band, and a black Coat or Gown, to carry on a Sabbaoth Day among them, tho' never so coldly and insuccessfully. If he is free from gross Crimes in Practice, and takes good Care to keep at a due Distance from their Consciences, and is never troubled about his In­successfulness. O think the poor Fools, that is a fine Man indeed, our Minister is a prudent cha­ritable Man, he is not always harping upon Terror, and sounding Damnation in our Ears, like some rash headed Preachers, who by their uncharita­ble Methods, are ready to put poor People out of their Wits, or to run them into Despair: O! How terrible a Thing is that Despair! Ay, our Minister honest Man, gives us good Caution against it.’

Well, and is not this a real Truth, as well as what is said in the other Paragraph? Does not our Author shew, what sort of a Spirit, he is of, by muttering against it?

The Passages of those two Sermons, cited by our Examiner don't respect the same Thing, and there­fore there cannot be a Contradiction in them. The one relates to an irregular uncharitable Separation, from a Church, because of the supposed or real Un­regeneracy of some of her Members. The other relates to Contentedness uner a dead carnal careless Mi­nistry, who do not preach closely to the Consci­ence, or endeavour to awake Sinners at all. And wou'd our Author have People to be contented under such a Ministry? O shame! If our Author suc­ceeds no better in his after Attempts, it wll cease to be a Miracle to unite the Poles. The

[Page 70]2d. Instance, is borrow'd from pag. 63. of my last Sermons, which for Distinction's sake, I may call my Moravian Sermons, the Words are these, ‘They have a Sheeps Coat on, they seem to be mighty mild, harmless, and innocent in their Looks; but inwardly they hold dividing dange­rous Principles, like Wolves they cruelly scatter the poor Sheep of Christ, by their damnable Doctrines: Beware my dear Brethren, of the Leaven of these Moravians, who like the Pha­risees of old, make broad Philacterys, and compass Sea and Land to make Proselytes.

The suppos'd opposite Instance, to what has been now mentioned is taken from the 19 pag. of the Nottingham Sermon. The Words are these, ‘If the Ministry of natural Men, be as it has been re­presented, then it is both lawful and expedient to go from them to hear godly Persons, yea it is so far from being sinful to do this, that one who lives under a pious Minister, of lesser Gifts, af­ter having honestly endeavour'd to get Benefit by his Ministry and gets little or none, but doth find real Benefit, and more Benefit elsewhere, I say he may lawfully go, and that frequently, where he gets most Good to his precious Soul.— let who will oppose it.’

But before I proceed to shew the Harmony of these Passages, I must more generally observe; that our Author uses very unfair Methods, in order to make a Contradiction between them e. g. in the In­stance he produces, out of the Nottingham Sermon; he leaves out of purpose, these following Lines of the Paragraph, which fully clears up my Meaning, and free me from the false Charge of dividing Doc­trine, in which I suppose, our Author immagined, to shew a Contradiction, between this and the other Sermon. The Words left out are these, ‘After regular Application to the Pastor where he lives, for his Consent, proposing the Reasons thereof, when this is done, in the Spirit of Love and [Page 71] Meekness, without contempt of any, as also without rash Anger and vain Curiosity.’ These Lines, our Author knew well enough wou'd spoil his Boast of a Contradiction, and therefore with more Art than Ho­nesty, he left them out.

Another Piece of unfair Dealing, under this Charge; is this, instead of the foregoing Words, which concluded the Paragraph in the Sermon, he skips like a Fox from the 19 to the 30 pag. and takes a Scrap of a Sentence from thence, which he adds to the other, namely, these Words, let who will oppose it, In order to represent me, as speaking directly contrary, both to my Intention and Express­ion. The Words cited in the 30 pag. I never intend­ed, in any Sense inconsistent, with the Explication of my Opinion in the 19 pag. at this rate of proceed­ing, our Author might form Contradictions, in all Writings under the Sun, yea in the very sacred Scrip­tures themselves! It is likewise I think unfair in him, under this Charge, to put his own Words in in one of the Collumns, in Opposition to mine: His Words are these, ‘and it is the Language of several Pages, under his 4th Inference, be ye separate.’

Well, where is the Contradiction, between the Passages aforesaid, of these Sermons? Because I assert, the Lawfulness, of a Peacefull charitable and regular withdrawing from the Stated hearing of one Minister to another, of the same denomination, when greater Good is got: Does this justify an irregular uncharitable Separa­ration, from a true Church? And the making of a different Sect? How triffling, and invidious is this Instance? And thus I trust the Reader perceives, that the Poles again are united. We shall not be put to much Difficulty, if our Author does not bring more weighty Objections. A

3d. Instance of pretended Contradiction, is bor­row'd pag. 48 of my Moravian Sermon, where I speak thus ‘It is also an Instance of Pride, to despise [Page 72] and slight Ministers or People, that are uncon­verted or suprosed to be so, is it not the Lan­guage of such a Practice, as the Prophet Isaiah describes it, stand off for I am koliar than thou.

The suppos'd opposite Instance, to what has been mentioned, is as follows, ‘alas how could Mr T.— preach and print this, after printing his Sermon at Notingham, without expressing deep Repentance for the hard contemptuous Speeches he has there pour'd upon the Body of the Clergy of this Ge­neration? Doth not this savour of Pride, and Uncharitableness? I shall beg Leave here to lay before my Readers, some of the reproach­ful Language, he has plentifully bestow'd upon the Body of the Clergy, of this Generation; as the Synod of Philadelphia, has lately collected it to my Hand, out of the same Sermon. (see Examin. pag. 149) they are represented herein, as Hirelings, Caterpillars, letter learned Pharisees, Men that have the Craft of Foxes, & cruelty of Wolves, plaister'd Hypo­crites, Varlets, the Seed of the Serpent, foolish Builders, whom the Devil drives into the Ministry, dry Nurses, dead Dogs that cannot Bark, blind Men, dead Men, Men possess'd with the Devil, Rebels, Enemies to God, Guides that are stone-blind, and stone dead, Children of Satan, that like their Father, may do Good to Men's Souls by chance medly, Daubers with untemper'd Mortar; moral Negroes, Salt without savour, that stink in the Nostrils of God and Men, Judasses, whose chief Desire is to finger the Penny, and carry the Bag, Hirelings, murderous Hypocrites, that are to take Care, least we feel the Force of a Halter in this World, or an aggravated Damnation in the next, subtil selfish Hypocrites, that would not let an honest Man come into the Ministry, if they could help it, Swarms of Locusts crouds of Pha­risees, that have as covetously as cruelly crept into the Ministry, in this Adulterous Generation, who as nearly remsemble the Character given of [Page 73] the Pharisees, as one crows Egg does another, whose Hearers are as blind as Moles, as dead as stones. Successors of Nicodemus, blind leaders of the blind Formalists, dead Drones, Sons of Sceva, with a fine long string of Prayers, false Apostels, deceit­ful Workers, Ministers of Satan &c.’

The pretended Contradiction, between the afore­said Passages, I conceive to be this, that in one of the Sermons, I say that it is an Instance of Pride, to slight Ministers or People, that are unconverted, &c. And in the other I am said to have given them such hard terms as have been express'd, and there­fore slight them. I Answer, by denying the Conse­quence. It is no evidence either of Pride, or Uncha­ritableness, to give unconverted Ministers their proper Titles, and Characters; for if so, our Lord himself must be guilty of the aforesaid Crimes; for he gave them hard Terms or Names also. See Mat. 23. Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, because ye build the Tombs of the Prophets, and garnish the Se­pulchres of the Righteous, and say if we had been in the Days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the Blood of the Prophets, ye Serpents, ye Generation of Vipers, how can ye escape the Damnation of Hell? Mat. 23 27.28. Wee unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, for ye are like whited Sepulchres, which indeed appear beau­tiful outward, but are within full of dead Bones, and of all Uncleaness: Even so ye also appear righteous to Men, but ye are within, full of Hypocrisie and Iniquity. Matt. 23:16.17.19. We unto you ye blind Guides, ye Fools and Blind; ye Fools and Blind; ye Fools and Blind. Verse 24. Ye blind Guides, which strain at a Gnat, and swallow a Camel. Have not false Teachers, the Charac­ters of Wolves, Dogs and Foxes, given them by the Spi­rit of God, in the Word? Act 20.29. Phil. 3: Cant: 2:15. Are they not likewise call'd, Wells without Wa­ter? 2. Peter 2 17. Clouds without Rain, Jud. 1 [...]. Deceivers. 2 John 3.7. And are not many unconver­ted Ministers false Teachers! Are not the habitual Opposers of Gods Work, such with a witness who [Page 74] Teach that to be Enthusiasm and Delusion, in which the Finger of God evidently appears? And who in­clucate new Doctrines respecting a call to the Mi­nistry, and the Conviction of Sin, &c.

Pray why mayn't the same ignominious Epithets be given to unconverted Ministers, as to unconvert­ed Men of another Station? does their Station sancti­fy their Hearts, no surely! See then how the Spi­rit of God in the Scriptures stigmatizes the wicked, they are termed Captives, Is. 61.1. Rebels, Rom 8.7. Bondslaves, Acts. 8.23. Sluggards, Pro. 6.9. Blind Men, Mat 23.26. thou Blind Pharisee, Fools, Ps. 14.1. Dead Men, Ephe. 2.1. Madmen, Eccles. 9.3. Luke 15.17.

They are compar'd to Bulls, Ps. 22.12. to Lyons, Ps. 57.4. to Foxes, Luke 12.32. to Goats, Matt. 25.33. to Dogs, Rev. 22.15. to Swine, Matt. 7.6. to Tares, Matt. 13 38. to Chaff, to Thorns, Jos. 22.13.

And are not Men said, to be of their Father the De­vil? John 8.44. to be possessed by the Devil, Luk. 11.21. Yea is not that wicked Minister Judas, call'd a Devil expresly? John 6.7.

Of all human Creatures wicked Ministers, who habitually oppose the very Work of Gods Spirit, and mask their Enmity with Religious Pretences, are the Worst, especially if this is done against Conviction and with Malice, ascribing it to a bad Cause! This as I humbly conceive, is the Sin against the Holy Ghost, which shall not find forgiveness in this Life, or that to come. This was the Sin of the Pharisees, those orderly Hypocrites; against which the Zeal of our Lord, the meek Lamb of God burned and sparkled with so great Flame! as has been al­ready express'd.

Now Reader observe, what tho' I have given unconverted Ministers bad Names; yet seeing they deserve them, it is no more but an Act of Justice in one respect; but under another Consideration it is an Act of Love to God and Man, or rather a sigh thereof: It manifests Love to God, while in faith­fulness [Page 75] to him we risque our Reputation, in detect­ing and opposing his Enemies, and especially when they are dishonouring his Name and Work, and endeavouring to destroy his Kingdom: Besides, Love to Man is hereby discover'd, in shewing to ungodly Ministers, their own dreadful Picture: For this has a Tendency to awaken and humble them, and turn them to God. I have no Prejudice against any of them upon the Face of the Earth, tho' they have labour'd to destroy my Character and Usefulness.

I would to God, I could do them Good by Night or Day: My Heart within pities them; neither have I us'd harsh Epithets out of Indignation to their Persons, but their Ways, as I have observed in the Preface to this Notingham Sermon, in these Words. ‘So far as I know my Heart it is Grief for the Injurys that have been done to the Church of God by natural Ministers, that has extorted such Acrimony from my Pen.’ The Opposition that some, this Way, have made against the Work of God in this Land, their murdering the Con­victions of divers Persons, their thrusting out, as I am credibly informed, unexperienced loose Men into the Ministry, and their opposing the coming in of Pious Candidates into the Church, has long distressed my Soul, and fill'd me with Sorrow and Indignation both.

And by representing the just Characters of the ungodly Clergy, Love is hereby expressed to Mankind, in warning them of their Danger, and exciting them, to their Duty, in chosing of, and ap­plying to the best Means. Our Author doubtless knows that the Meaning of the Word Charity (agape) is Love.

Neither does it Savour of Pride, to give ungodly Ministers such Names as suit their Case and Course: For this is out to follow the Example that our Lord Jesus, and the Eternal Spirit have set before us, [Page 76] as well as divers of Gods faithful Servants of Old, such as Jeremiah, Paul, &c. And thus the pretended Contradiction is remov'd

But to make this Case appear the more Plain, I shall take leave to observe, how unfairly our Au­thor and his Friends have treated me, under this 3d Instance. For 1st. he puts his own Words in one of the Collumns over against mine, it should have been my own Words and not his; for his Business was, according to his Proposal, not to shew a difference between him and me, for that probably is wide enough, but between me and my­self. A 2d unfair Method our Author uses here, is his citing after his own Words, a Collection of Words, pick'd up here and there out of the Notingham Sermon by my Opponents; he ought to have cited my own Words, in compleat Sentences in the Order I put them, and not broken shreads marshald by my Enemys, in such a Shape as might appear most formidable, in order to render me odi­ous among graceless Creatures, who are very fond of a blind Charity, upon a selfish Account, namely, to save their Bakon. A 3d. Instance of unfair Dealing in our Author under this Head, is his asserting that I bestow reproachful Language, upon the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, his manner of Expression, together with his Artful concealing of the Word unconverted, plainly intimates that I, according to his Representation, charg'd the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, with the afore­said Epithets, absolutely and directly, which is False and Sophistical, I have charg'd unconverted Ministers with them directly and absolutely; but as to the Body of the Clergy, the Charge comes in a­gainst them indirectly and hipothetically, on Ac­count of my Opinion about their State. I cannot but still think that the greater Part of the Clergy is unconverted, and that for Reasons mention'd in that Sermon. Strait is the Gate and narrow is the Way that leads to Life, and few there be that find it, not [Page 77] many Wise, not many Noble, are call'd, the Harvest truly is Plentious, but the Labourers are few. Saint Chrisostom has express'd his Tho'ts of the Paucity of fatihful Ministers, in a much stronger Light than I have done, for he tho't that Scarce any Ministers at all wou'd be sav'd.

Graceless Persons have a general Superficial groundless Notion concerning others Goodness, be­fore they themselves are awakned and made to feel the Difficulties of Religion: But then their way of thinking of Christianity, is alter'd in this Point, they neither weigh others nor themselves in such light Scales as they were wont to do before.

But let it be here observ'd, that I do not pre­tend to a like certainty, as to both these Points, namely; charging the aforesaid Epithets upon un­converted Ministers, and the Knowledge of the greatness of their Number, the first is of undoubted certainty from the Word of God and right Reason; but the other is only highly probable. As to this Point I should be glad to be mistaken in my O­pinion, but I am perswaded it is too true. But,

4thly. Another unfair Method of our Author and his Friends under this Head, is, their assert­ing that I charge all the particular Epithets they mention upon the Body of the Clergy of this Ge­neration; which is false, and cannot be prov'd from the Sermon: Indeed I believe they are all applicable to some of them; but they are not applicable to all of them. In several Paragraphs of the Sermon are li­mitted Words, which clear me from the aforesaid Charge. In pag. 12. are these Words, ‘many Mi­nisters, pag. 19. many Pharisee Teachers, have got a long String of Prayer.’ And in the same pag. the Word generally is likewise used, namely, ‘take them first and last, and they generally do more Hurt than Good.’

It would be contrary to common Sense, to ap­ply that Character of Letter-learned to all, for some are ignorant. Or that of plaister'd Hypocrites to all, [Page 78] for some declare their Sin as Sodom, and refused to be ashamed. Or that of false Apostles, deceitful Workers, and Ministers of Satan to all, I have apply'd that Scripture, which contain these Epithets only to such of them, as rise up in Arms against the Life of Piety, when it comes near their Borders, and con­sult, combine, and contrive against it in their Con­claves, as a common Enemy; and who with Art, Rhetorick, and Appearances of Piety, varnish their Opposition against the Kingdom of CHRIST; and who imitate the Apostles of CHRIST, as the Magicians did the Works of Moses.

Neither are these following Characters universal in respect of the ungodly Ministry. Namely, the Craft of Foxes and cruelty of Wolves, for some of them are doubtless as weak as their Neighbours, tho' di­vers of them it must be confessed are wiser in their Generation, than the Children of Light; and some are good temper'd, and are not roused to Arms by the near Approach of vital Religion. Nor are these Words following, to be apply'd universally to every graceless Minister, namely, ‘that they would not let a faithful Man come into the Ministry, if they cou'd help it!’ No its chiefly those of them that have their natural Enmity rous'd, and whetted, by the searching nearness of Gods Work to them, as well by the faithful Dealings, and holy Living of godly Ministers, by which they are detected and condemn'd; that are so cautious to keep pious Men out of the Ministry, upon selfish Accounts, namely, to pre­vent a Trouble to themselves, and the Loss of their Credit among the People.

But as to the rest of the Characters, which our Examiner's Friends, have with so much Care collect­ed, they belong to all unconverted Ministers, ei­ther absolutely, or comparatively, properly or figura­tively, and for the Proof of this, I appeal to the Scriptures and common Sense.

[Page 79]I might add to what I have said, were it ne­cessary, that divers of the Epithets and Censures charg­ed upon unconverted Ministers, in the Nottingham Sermon are borrow'd, from the Writings of Calvinisti­cal Divines, famous for their Learning and Piety, such as Messrs. Hildersham, Pool, Burgess, Baxter, Brackle, Fenner Besides what are expressly scriptu­ral, so that the Censure the Querist's labours to cast upon me, rather falls directly upon those Worthies of the Christian Church.

Indeed I have heard People, of Piety and good Sense observe, upon this Popular Paragraph, that the Gentlemen who had put it together, in its present Form, had taken a pretty deal of Pains, to draw their own Picture: But whether the main Strokes, of this unhandsome Draft, do exactly suit those Men, I will not at present determine, but leave to their farther Enquiry's. But in the mean Time, I would ask them, whether a Consciousness of Guilt, made them apply to themselves in particular, what I only spoke in general, without Application to any, Their Words are these murderous Hypocrites, that are to take Care, least we feel the Force of a Halter &c. If they find themselves guilty, they shoudn't take such Characters ill, but humble themselves before God, for their Wickedness in murdering the Convicti­ons of poor Sinners, and repent! A

5th. Instance of unfair Dealing, under the afore­said Charge, is this, that while they are pretending to give an Account of my Representation, of the Characters of unconverted Ministers, they slyly and sophistically bring in their Hearers. The Words they cite are these, ‘Whose Hearers are as blind as Moles, and as dead as Stones.’ What then are the People that hear the ungodly Clergy, Mi­nisters too? O strange! by bringing in this broken Scrap of a Sentence of my Sermon; they would seem to insinuate, that it is my Opinion, that all the stated Hearers of unconverted Ministers, are blind as Moles and dead as Stones, which is false. [Page 80] In that Paragraph, from whence this Scrap is taken, I there explain my self, that it is such who content themselves, with a cold, careless, general unawak­ening Ministry; who are blind, &c. One may per­ceive without the help of Spectacles, that their Po­litick Design, in bringing the aforesaid Scrap Head and Shoulders, was to alarm the angry Resentments of the People against me, and my Rev. Brethren thro' me who are cordial in God's Cause.

But I must here observe in the mean Time, that I think it somewhat odd, that those dear Brethren of the Examiner, should have left out one import­ant Branch, of the Characters of many graceless Ministers, which is mentioned pag. 6. of the Not­ingham Sermon in these Words. ‘It may be far­ther observed that the Pharisee Teachers in CHRIST'S Time, were great Biggots to small Matters in Religion, Mat. 23 23. Woe unto you, Scribes, and Pharisees, Hypocrites, for ye pay Tyth of Mint, Annis, and Cummin, and have omitted the weigh­tier Matters of the Law, Judgment, Mercy and Faith? Was it, because it plainly discovers the Vanity of their thread bare cant and cry, about Order, Order, Order; while they are labouring with both Hands, to tear down Gods Work and Servants. If so, they are more cautious, than candid.

Another particular, that I would just mention here, is the altering of the Word faithful-Man to Ho­nest-Man. If this Gentleman or his Friends have done this of Purpose, it is very base. The Passage I referr'd to, is pag. 17 of the Nottingham Sermon, where it is said, in the first Edition, ‘That if they cou'd help it, they woudn't let a faithful Man come into the Ministry.’ But in the Examiner's Performance, I find the Words are, Honest Man, which a Person may be, and yet intirely grace­less.

But tho' I hope by this Time, the Reader is satis­fied, that there is no Contradiction in my Writ­ings [Page 81] under this third Instance, yet I believe, it will be difficult, to vindicate our Author from what he charges upon me therein, which is Uncha­ritableness e. g. is it not uncharitable in our Au­thor? When he has no sufficient Foundation from my Words related by him, to charge me with the Evils before mentioned? Dosn't this look like an assuming of the incommunicable Prerogative of God, who alone is Kerdiognostos. For him to judge as aforesaid, without any Foundation from my Words, yea contrary to them; (as appears from the Preface to the Nottingham Sermon where I solemnly declare the Reason, why I us'd such Acrimony) isn't this rash judging with a Witness, and doth it not sa­vour of Uncharitableness? Alas! How cou'd our Author print this, after printing an Account of his Charity, in the first pag. of his Performance?

Is it not likewise uncharitable in our Author, to appear so much in Defence of ungodly Ministers, many of whom, do so much harm to the Church of God. Why is the Apple of his Eye touch'd? And why does he sigh so heavily alas, when they are painted in their own Colours?

I may add, doesn't it seem as if the Examiner himself judg'd the Body of the Ministry of this Ge­neration, to be unconverted? If it be observ'd, that after he cites my Words in the 48 pag. of my Moravian Sermon before related, he says, ‘I shall beg leave to lay before my Readers, some of the Reproachful Language he has plentifully be­stow'd, upon the Body of the Clergy of this Ge­neration.’ I had spoken those Things or Cha­ractes of unconverted Ministers, and behold he applys them to the Body of the Clergy of this Ge­neration; I leave it to the Reader to judge, whe­ther our Author, and his dear Friends, be consistent with themselves herein.

As to what is mention'd in the Margin ‘about some Rev. Gentleman's putting me to silence, by observing that he had heard me twice or thrice, [Page 82] but found that he had got such a short String of Prayer by heart, that he could almost repeat it verbatim.’

Ans. It is false, I know nothing of it, those that are us'd to hear me frequently, can witness that I am far from using the same Words often, unless it be the LORDS Prayer that the Objector means, that indeed I use frequently. Perhaps the Examiner and his Friends take this in Dudgeon, if they do, I can't help it, for my Part I think it is a very laudable Practice, I don't know what better Order or Words we can use in Acts of Religious Worship, than those our Lord has taught us?

But that which I spoke against, was the long Strings of lifeless, sapless, spiritless formal, Prayer, which some are generally guilty of, who tire their Audience with their long and dead Acts of Devotion, & who seem not to strive after the Breathings of the Spirit; but whatever the Frame of their Souls be, their Words are much the same, and their Prayers of an equal Length. I have had credible Informa­tion of a Minister in Boston, now a no better Friend of God's Work, than our Author; who about 17 or 18 Years agone was then a Candidate for the Mi­nistry, and fam'd among some, for the Neatness and Elegancy of his Prayers; whose Prayers were ge­nerally an Hour long, and in many Times upon Tryal by the Watch did not vary scarce a Minute under or over. Perhaps our Author will say, that this is orderly, I shall not at present dispute the Point with him, but only observe, that such Ex­actness in this Particular, does not suit me, I do not care to be so strait laced. I proceed to the

4th Instance of supposed Contradiction, contain'd in his 14, 15, and 16. pages, which is cited from pag. 48 of my Moravian Sermon thus, ‘And here I must take leave to observe, that the Practice of staying at home, rather than their going to hear such Ministers, (sound in Principle and regular in Practice) as are judged by some to be unconvert­ed, [Page 83] is unscriptural and of dangerous Tendency, in my Opinion; for it hangs the whole Weight of the publick Worship of God upon the un­certain Judgment of Men, tho' unconverted Mi­nisters are not likely to do so much Good, as o­thers, yet seeing that many of them doubtless do preach the same Word of God, which others do, why may not the Soverign God who permits them by his Providence to come into the Mi­nistry, bless the Word deliver'd by them for the Good of Mankind?’

‘Besides, the aforesaid Practice of staying at Home, &c. opens a Door to Delusion by false Teachers, as well as to Confusion and Schism in the Church of God.’

Pag. 49. ‘I must declare to the World, that I dread the tho'ts of Schism, and Separation in the Church of God, &c.’

Now the suppos'd opposite Instance, to what has been mentioned, in the preceeding Paragraph, is taken from pag. 8. of the Nottingham Sermon which is introduced thus, ‘he scarce owns a possibility of profiting under an unconverted Ministry, when he says, is a dead Man fit to bring others to Life? Sad experience verifies the unprofitable­ness of the Ministry of unconverted Men. Look into the Congregations of unconverted Ministers, and see what a sad Security reigns there, not a Soul convinced that can be heard of for many Years together! What if some Instances could be shewn, of unconverted Ministers, being in­strumental in convincing Persons of their lost State, the Thing is very rare and extraordinary, and for what I know, as many Instances might be given of Satans convincing Persons by his Temptations, it is a kind of Chance Medly be­tween the Father and his Children, when any such Event happens. And is not this the Rea­son why a Work of Conviction and Conversion has been so rarely heard of for a long Time, in [Page 84] the Churches, viz. that the Bulk of her spiritual Guides, are stone blind and stone dead.’

‘Again pag. 20. I beseech you my dear Brethren to consider, that there is no probability of your getting Good by the Ministry of Pharisees, for they are no Shepherds, (no faithful ones) in CHRIST'S Account, they are as good as none, nay worse than none upon some Accounts, for take them first and last, and they generally do more Hurt than Good. See the Note at the Asterism *’

‘* This Declaration, is much like that in the 27 pag. of the aforesaid Examination, &c. Where Mr Tennent declares, as to what is alledged of our encouraging, the Flocks of our protesting Bre­thren to forsake their Ministry. I know nothing of this, neither do I know any of our Number that has. They answer, it seems very strange to us, that Mr. T. of all Men alive shou'd have the Face to ex­press himself thus, after writing, preaching and printing his Sermon at Nottingham; for did not his own Party understand that Sermon, as an En­couragement to forsake our Ministry, and have not their Adherents at Nottingham, and many other Places, set up separate Meetings in compliance with said Sermon, and others of the same Kind? Moreover they affirm, that the whole Country knows, that it is a notorious Falsehood, and that he has encourag'd them, both from the Pulpit and Press to forsake their Ministry.’

Here let the Reader observe, that the Examiner according to his Custom, uses unfair Methods, in representing my Words, in order to make a Con­tradiction. For,

1. He of Purpose leaves out such Sentences, as serve to explain my Meaning, and shew a Harmony in my Writings e. g. what our Author cites, from the 49 pag. of my Moravian Sermon, is but a little Piece of a Sentence, broken off from a large Para­graph, more than two Thirds whereof are left out. The whole Paragraph runs thus ‘I must declare [Page 85] to the World, that I dread the Tho'ts of Schisms and Separations in the Church of God (this was all our Author cited, now the Words immediately following are,) because of the dismal Handle, that is thereby given to Seducers, to promote their erronious Tenets; as also because of the Dishonour that is hereby cast upon God's Name, Ways, and People. Hereby wicked Men are strengthned in their Prujudices against Religion; hereby Professors are diverted from promoting Gods Work to personal Controversies of no Moment. therefore when the Case so happens, that People are disatisfied with their Minister, and can't get Edification by his Ministrations, after long and impartial Labours. To this End it seems most ad­visable for them, humbly and peaceably (in a re­gular Manner) to seek to get an Assistant with him, if the Place be able to support two; but if not, to ask Leave of their Pastor, and other Church Officers, to go where they are more edifyed; in the mean Time laying aside all rash Censures. And should not Ministers also for Peace sake de­ny themselves, and consent to the reasonable Pro­posals of their People? waving all exasperating Reflections upon their disatisfy'd People, and more especially in their publick Performances. O! may the God of Peace incline us to study, and pursue the Things that are for Peace.’ Now I leave it to the Reader to judge if the remaining Part of the aforesaid Paragraph, does not fully explain my Meaning, and shew a harmony in my Writings, and whether it was not unjust in our Author to leave in out? And,

2dly. As to the Instance taken out of the Noting­ham Sermon; our Author deals unfairly also, the first Words he mentions, namely these, ‘Is a dead Man fit to bring others to Life?’ is a Sentence taken out of the Middle of a large Paragraph, which you may find chiefly in the 11 pag. the rest of which is wholly omitted. To the aforesaid Sen­tence, [Page 86] our Author joyns six Lines taken out of the beginning of another Paragraph in the 12 pag. without giving the least Notice of this to the Rea­der, and leaves out all the Rest, of a large Para­graph, and then adds another Paragraph in the 31st pag. (of the first Edition) and there takes a little and leaves the rest. What Writings can stand before such partial Proceeding? But

3dly. Another unjust Method of our Author is this, in order to oppose the Declaration I have made in the 43d pag. of my Moravian Sermon, namely of my ‘dreading the tho'ts of Shisms, and Separation in the Church of God.’ He dosn't bring my Words only, which he ought to have done, but refers to, and cites the Words of my Enemies; who oppose the Work of God in this Part of the Country: What, does their differing from me shew a Difference be­tween me and myself? which our Author was to prove. Are then they myself? if so, our Author has proved his Point, otherwise not. Alas! what sorry shuffling is here? The Examiner seems to be aware of this, and therefore he does not put their Words in the opposite Collumn to mine, which would be too bare Fac'd and too easily discovered; but sets an Asterism there, referring to them, and gives his reader a Hint to see the note at the Aste­rism; and thus he leaves a Blank in the Column, and cites their Words in the Margin. What sneaking petty Sophistry is this? It would not only have look'd better to have set them in the Collumn, but have shewn a little more Honesty in our Au­thor. But enough of this.

In Answer to what this Gentleman cites, from the Writings of my Opponents, in contradiction to another Declaration of mine, before related, (which is mention'd in my Remarks, on their Protest; which Declaration, harmonizes with that in the Moravian Sermon.) I shall only say at Present, that I affirmed nothing therein but the very Truth; however strange they may pretend it is to them. [Page 87] And that I hope the Almighty will always give me Boldness to express, whoever oppose it, either to gratify their Spleen, or guard their Credit and worldly Interest.

Neither does the Notingham Sermon oppose the Declaration aforesaid, for it only asserts a regular withdrawing, from the stated hearing of one Minister to another (in ordinary Cases) for greater Edifica­tion, in the General, without particular Applica­tion to any. The Notingham Sermon as to the Substance of it, upon that Head they refer to (and others also) I had wrote as my Opinion and preach'd, a matter of ten Years before I ever was at Notingham.

I am not accountable for any Sense that Persons may put upon my Words, for which they have no Foundation in them. The Sermon gave no more Encouragement to leave their Ministry than my own, on Condition it was as it should be, and if it was not how could I help that? It is true in­deed, divers Persons after they were awakned, de­clared that they could not find any Relish under the Ministry of some of their Number, nor get any Benefit by it, and were therefore dispos'd to go else where, where they did get Good to all Appearance. And that which strengthned the A­version of many godly Persons to their Ministra­tions, was their slighting of Gods Work, together with the Instruments Jehovah was pleas'd to use in promoting of it. And here give me Leave to propose this Querie to Mr. Thomson and his Asociates, whether it was because that such as were convinc'd of Sin, had generally a less Esteem of his Ministra­tions, and of some of the rest of his Party, that he and some (at least) of them, have so fiercely oppos'd the blessed Opperations of the Holy Ghost, in a­larming and convincing a secure World of Sin, Righteousness and Judgment? If so is not it selfish and sordid with a Witness, and a blow at the Root of Piety? For my own Part I must say, That I [Page 88] humbly conceive that to be the Secret of the Story of their Opposition, the Bottom of the Mistery, the true Spring of their Malignant contending a­gainst vital Godliness, the False and ungenerous Me­thods, as well as long Continuance of their Oppo­sition to the Work of God, under so much Ad­vantage of Light and Evidence in favour of it, together with their dangerous Errors before men­tioned, frees me from the just Imputation of Rash judging in thinking, as I have express'd.

As to what they say of, ‘our Adherents setting up separate Meetings at Nothingham and many o­ther Places, in complyance with said Sermon, and others of the same Kind.’ This is False; there is not a Word in that Sermon that encoura­ges separate Meetings from any Ministry, merely because they are unconverted. No, the very con­trary is express'd pag. 15. in these Words. ‘Dear Sirs, we should most earnestly pray for them, that the Compassionate Saviour may preserve them by his Mighty Power thro' Faith unto Salvation, support their sinking Spirits under the melan­choly Uneasiness of a dead Ministry, sanctify and sweeten to them, the dry Morsels they get under such blind Men, when they have none better to repair to.’ No, it was their bitter Opposition to the Power of Religion, that gave Rise to separate Meetings, together with their irregular and unjust attempt, to cast us out of Synodical Communion; neither have I or any of my Brethren that I know of, ever preach'd any Sermon of that kind they Mention.

Their affirming that the whole Country knows, that it is (meaning my Declaration aforesaid) a no­torious Falsehood: And that I have encourag'd People from the Pulpit and Press, to forsake their Ministry, is a dreadfull Instance of effronted Impiety. O shame! What sort of Men are these? Who not only assert an egregious Falsehood, but ap­peal to the whole Country to prove it. To confront [Page 89] their Charge, I do appeal to the numerous Multi­tudes, where ever I have preach'd the Gospel of CHRIST, if what they have alledged be not a groundless and crimson Calumny, which those E­nemies of the Power of Religion, do impute to me? It is the Necessity of their wretched Cause, that ur­ges those unhappy Men, to take such sinful and scandalous Methods, in order to cloak their Hor­rible Wickedness, in opposing Gods Work, which has been the real Cause of the Divisions subsisting a­mong us; which they without Foundation ascribe to me.

Neither does what I have said, pag. 29. of my Remarks, on their Protest, contradict what I have now alledged. The Words are these ‘No doubt there is a Relation, between a Pastor and his People, but the Design of this being to promote their Good, we think it unreasonable, that it should subsist to the Prejudice of that which it's de­sign'd to procure, however in ordinary Cases, we think it to be the Peoples Duty, to make regular Application to their Pastors to go where they get the greatest Benefit.’

‘But when Ministers conspire to oppose, the Work and faithful Servants of God, in the most open and flagrant Manner, we see no Harm in this Case, in using an extraordinary Method.’

Here observe; that the aforesaid Remarks, were compos'd and publish'd after Things were brought to the utmost crisis and Confusion among us; by their strange and unaccountable Conduct: And af­ter a Rupture was forc'd between them and us, by their Protest; and therefore nothing I have said therein cou'd possibly be even the Occasion of either.

As to that of extraordinary Cases, I have spoken to it before, and therefore shall not now add, ex­cepting this, that if Ministers conspiring to oppose the Work and Servants of God, as aforesaid,—be not an extraordinary Case, I know not what is,

[Page 90]But to return from this digression, to the 4th In­stance of supposed Contradiction, in my Sermons, which I was discoursing upon: I shall just take leave to add, to what has been already observed, these [...] particulars following, namely.

1. That the Occasions upon which they were written, were different. The Passages referr'd to in the Moravian Sermon were occasioned by reports of a separating Disposition obtaining in New-England: I was inform'd that some were separating from the Ministry of such as were sound in Principle, regular in Life, and approvers of God's Work; and that some stay'd at Home, rather than they would hear such, meerly because they judg'd them unconverted! This distressed me in Mind much▪ and to this Case the fore-cited Paragraphs, in the 48 and 49 pages of my Moravian Sermon, directly refer.

But the Nottingham Sermon was occasioned by the View I had of the Danger of unconverted Ministers in general, and the Mischief that I was credibly in­form'd, some of them had done to the Souls of Men in particular, especially of late!

Again, let it further be observed, that in both those Sermons, I acknowledge these Things following.

1st. That unconverted Ministers might be instru­mental in doing Good. And

2dly. That they should be heard, when we have no better. See Nottingham Sermon, page 15.

3dly. I assert in both, That we should not leave their Ministry in ordinary Cases, without regular Application.

Therefore the only appearance of Contradiction is this, that in the Moravian Sermon I seem'd to speak more favourably of unconverted Ministers doing Good; then in the Instances our Author alledges or cites from the Nottingham Sermon.

But to remove this apparent Difficulty, let it be considered, that it is only of such of them as preach sound Doctrine, are regular in Life, and favour God's Work, that I have spoken so mildly of in the Mora­vian [Page 91] Sermon, and not of all. And that in the Not­tingham Sermon, in the Pages referred to by our Author, there are exceptions admitted, as may ap­pear by these Words. "p. 11. the Ministry of natural Men is for the most Part unprofitable, and pag. 31. ‘for take them first and last, and they generally do more hurt than Good.’

It is certain that unconverted Ministers are of different Sorts. For,

1st. Some of them are unsound in Fundamen­tals, these every one must acknowledge, are not like­ly do do good, but much hurt.

2dly. Some are Prophane in Practice, these are not likely to do Good, but Hurt.

3dly. Some are malignant Opposers of God's Work, these are not likely to do good but much Hurt,

4thly. Some are quite Secure, unacquainted with Conviction, and the Similiar Workings of the Spirit of God, now there is no Probability that such will do Good, in respect of the Conviction and Conversion of Sinners, tho' they may be means of Instructing Per­sons in the Knowledge of some doctrinal Points of Religion, which is doubtless Good in its Place and necessary.

5thly. Some are under Conviction, and the Similiar Workings of the Spirit, sound in Doctrine, and favourers of God's Work. There is indeed some Probability, that such will be means of awaking and converting Sinners.

Besides it may be farther observ'd, that when in the Nottingham Sermon I have spoke diminitively of the usefulness of unconverted Ministers, it was chiefly in respect of Conviction and Conversion. See p. 13.

Now altho' what I have offer'd does fully remove the Appearance of Contradiction, objected by our Author; yet because one of the Passages he cites, from the 13th. p. of the Notingham Sermon about Satans Temptations, and Chance Medly, as before related, has been frequently us'd and much triumph'd in by opposers this Way, I have thought it necessary [Page 92] to signify my meaning, more fully in those Expressi­ons. And,

1st I do not, nor never did intend by these Ex­pressions, to put the Temptations of Satan in respect of Tendency, to convince, upon a par with the Preach­ing of an unconverted Minister, when he preaches sound Doctrine, according to the Scriptures; No! God forbid, I abhor the thought! But

2dly. The Particulars therefore, that I there in­sist upon, are these namely, that the Instances of Conviction, by the Ministry of unconverted Men, are (for the General) very rare and Extraordinary, and so they are as appears from what has been said before. And 2dly I do not positively assert, that as many are convinced by Satans Temptations, as by the preaching of unconverted Ministers, I only say for what I know the Number may be equal. I have met with some myself, that have been awakned, by the Temptations of the Enemy; which gave me some Room to say, what I have said. But whither the Number be equal I will not assert, however I may safely say, that I don't know cer­tainly but it may; if others do, let them declare it and prove their Assertion if they can, but as for myself, I must profess Ignorance in this Point. And,

3dly. As to that of chance medly, between the Father and his Children, I mean no more but this, viz. ‘That when Persons happen to be con­vinced by Satan's Temptations, he dosn't intend it; and that it is so also, with many unconverted Ministers.’

For Illustrations sake, I shall beg leave to tell a Story or two. I remember to have heard of a graceless Minister, that was once preaching in Bri­tain, and it happned that a Gentlewomans Maid was convinc'd by his Sermon, (who understood as little of the Nature and Necessity of Conviction as the Minister) and therefore she came to the Minister, and told him in a frett, that he had spoil'd her Maid by his preaching, for the Maid was so distress'd that she [Page 93] coud'nt work. He told her, that he was very sorry for it, and that he intended no such Thing.’ Now Sir, was not this chance medly? The good na­tur'd Minister intended no Harm to the Girle, (as he recon'd it) but it fell out something un­luckily to him, poor Man!

Another such Instance, as I have been credibly inform'd, has hapend lately in Holand. A certain Minister not long since, was raising against some pious Ministers in the Neighbourhood; because they brought People into distress by their Preaching: And in the mean Time, one came and told him, ‘That a particular Person was brought into distress by his preaching,’ which surpriz'd him, (as well it might) and soon stop'd his Mouth, poor Gen­tleman! How could he help it? For Accidents will sometimes happen, whatever care be taken to prevent them.

I might come nearer home, and tell you a short Story, that has happened not long agone, in this part of the Country, as I have been inform'd by divers Persons; which take as follows, A certain Preacher took up one of Mr. Whitefield's Sermons, and read it in a Family where he was well ac­quainted, (the Heads of which had a considerable Respect for him) by reading the Sermon aforesaid, the Man and Woman were convinced; who had afterwards less regard for him, when their Minds were enlightened then before, the Preacher came afterwards to the House, and express'd his uneasi­ness at what had happened, as to their being brought under Trouble by the Sermon.

I should be glad that Mr. Thomson for his own sake, as well as on the Account of the poor Souls, he deludes with his false and dangerous Doctrine about Conviction before related, might meet with some such Instances of chance-medly in his Ministra­tions. Perhaps it might stop his Mouth, and check his Pen, from uttering such sophistical and unjust re­flections, [Page 94] against the Convincing Operations of God's holy Spirit. I proceed to the,

5th, Instance of suppos'd contradiction, which is as follows, Moravian Sermon, p. 53 in order to preserve our selves, and our Posterity, from the Infection of Error, I think it is needful to use (in our proper Spheres) all suitable Means, to obtain a godly learned and regular Ministry; when ignorant Novices are admitted into the Ministe­rial order, they are apt to be puff'd up to the Churches great Prejudice, as well as their own, and to spread Error when they know it not.’

‘To say that these Qualifications may be or­dinarily attain'd, without human Learning is notoriously Enthusiastical, and Foolish. In short human learning is necessary, or there must be Inspiration to supply the want thereof.’

The suppos'd opposite, is drawn from the 11 p. of the Notingham Sermon; which runs thus, viz. ‘The most likely Method to stock the Church, with a faithful Ministry, (not learned) in the pre­sent Situation of Things, the publick Academy's being so much corrupted and abus'd generally, is to encourage private Schools, or Seminarys of learning, which are under the Care of skilful and experienced Christians, in which those only should be admitted, who upon strict Examination, have in the Judgment of a reasonable Charity, the plain Evidences of experimental Religion. This Method has in my Opinion a noble Tendency, to build up the Church of God, don't think it much if the Pharisees be offended at such a pro­posal, &c.’ To what has been mentioned, the Examiner anexes some Lines of a Writing of the Opposers in Pensylvania, which runs thus,

‘Some of Mr. Tennents very good Friends have confessed, that this Proposal has a friendly aspect on his Fathers Log-House: But it's generally tho't, if that should be built upon the ruin of our pub­lick Academy's, neither Religion nor learning [Page 95] would be greatly serv'd thereby. See the Exami­tion pag. 13. 52.’

Here it will be only necessary to remove, what our Author has added, and to add what he has left our, and then the Contradiction evanishes. And,

1st. The Examiner adds to what he cites from the Notingham Sermon these Words of his own, in a Parenthesis, in Italick Characters, namely (not learned) so that the Sentence runs thus, viz. The most likely "Method to Stock the Church, with a faithful, "(nor learned Ministry) here indeed if the Parenthe­sis is included, as our Author doubtless designed, by inserting of it, it is a real Contradiction, for faith­fullness is oppos'd to learning, but it is entirely of our Authors making: if he Thinks that Faithful­ness and Learning cannot consist together, I pity him, but beg to be excus'd from concuring in so detesta­ble a Notion. No Conjunction is more amiable in its self, and useful to the Church of God, then of those habits or Qualities, which our Author labours to set at an unfriendly Distance.

2dly. The Examiner leaves out the following Sentence, viz. ‘Pious and experienced Youths, who have a good natural capacity, and great de­sires, after the Ministerial Work from good Mo­tives, might be sought for, and found up and down the Country; and put to private Schools of the Prophets, especially in such Places where the Publick, ones are not.’ Here let the Rea­der observe, that what our Author cited, was immediately before and after this Sentence, and yet it was left out, which must be of Purpose; what unjust Treatment is this? And yet the Examiner pro­fesses Charity, and now let the Reader judge, if we don't need the Collums again, after this Union of the Poles.

As to what our Author borrows from the oppo­sers, this way. I think it only needful to say, briefly as follows, viz. What it the Proposal had a favourable Aspect upon the Log-House, where is the [Page 96] Harm of it? Mayn't Persons be taught as well in a Log-House as in a Stone or Brick-House? in the mean Time every Eye may see, that the Propo­sal respects not one House more than another, where both Piety and Learning are regarded. The Insinuation of building the Log House upon the ruin of publick Academys, is Invidious and without Foun­dation, as appears from what has been already menti­oned; the Distance between this private School and any publick Academys, is so great that their is no danger of its interferring with them.

Whatever contempt these Men, from whom our Author borrows the aforesaid Passage, are pleas'd to cast upon the School, under my honoured Fa­thers Tuition; yet Multitudes of Pious People in this Land can witness, that divers who have come out of it, have been eminently successful in propo­gating the truly noble Interests of vital Christia­nity; as the Design of its Instruction, was to in­troduce more faithful Ministers into the Church, that thereby experimental and pactical Religion, might, together with human learning, be promo­ted, so it has pleas'd a gracious God, (adored be his Name) to crown with auspicious Smiles, the humble Essays, that have been made to serve his Glory and his Church. The,

6th, Instance comes now to be considered, (p. 17) which is taken from Moravian Sermon p. 62. ‘For any Men to pretend to know certainly, who are gracious, as one of the Moravian's did in my hear­ing, is to assume an incommunicable Prerogative of God, and to run upon this Plan in Church Matters, is to turn all into the wildest Confusion and Disorder.’

The suppos'd opposite to what has been mentioned is this, ‘The Querists pertinently observe, p. 10. part 3. That the Scope of the whole Sermon at Notingham, seems to imply that Mr. Tennent would have Men to believe, that they may know a converted from an unconverted Mini­ster, [Page 97] or else would not the main Part of the Fabrick fall?’

Here let the Reader observe how our charitable Author deals with me again, viz. instead of my Words he sets the Querists Words in one of the Collums, viz. Their Judgment of the Scope of the Notingham Sermon, that Men may know, &c. I answer, well what then, so they may know fallibly and probably a converted from an unconverted Minister, and thus the Fabrick of the Sermon is supported, without any unfriendly Opposition to the other Column; except our Author makes fallible and infallible Knowledge to be the same, which will prove a herculian Labour.

But the Examiner proceeds to say thus, ‘The Moravians speak out what is more artfully conceal'd by Mr. Tennent, under the Guise of a near Guess, a probable Knowledge, &c. of Mens State to­wards God, by an Examination of Mens Prin­ciples, Experience, and Practice. Who made thee a Judge of Mens inward Experiences and se­cret State.’

A. Well, said Mr. Examiner, you are realy in a fair Way to commence Moravian, if you are not one already. The Moravians speak out, what I artfully conceal you say, so, so, they are then in your O­pinion candid and open, but I reserv'd and Hypocriti­cal; well, I see you are still as charitable to me as you was, just when you put on the Cloak, in the beginning of your worthy Performance. I see you are no Changeling in respect of your sort of Charity! I am oblig'd to you Mr. Examiner, for the largeness of your Love to me. You ask who has made me a judge of Mens inward Experiences and secret State?

Ans. I pretend not to judge of Mens Experiences and State, immediately or infallibly, but only me­diately and fallibly, by the outward Signs of Speech and Action; and this our Savour allows of, when he tells us, that the Tree is known by its Fruit. And is not the Church of Ephesus commended for trying those [Page 98] that said they were Apostles, and were nor, and for finding or discovering them to be Lyars Rev. 2. And is not the Shepherd more particularly bid to know the State of his Flock. Prov. 27.23. How can we love the Brethren in particular, except we judge them to be such? The Truth is, a Judgment of one kind or other, concerning the States of those with whom we converse, we cannot avoid; and therefore it is our Wisdom to use Caution in forming of it: And one Thing, among others, that helps a judicious Christian much in this Affair, is Persons relating what the Lord hath done for their Souls, or their Experiences of a Work of the Law and Gospel upon their Hearts: If their Experiences be agreeable to the Holy Scrip­tures, and they be also Sound in the main Doctrines of Religion, and both be confirm'd by a holy Con­versation, then should we judge charitably of their State, otherwise we have not Reason for it. What tho' some should be sound in Principle, and regular in Life, yet if, according to their own Account, they are utterly Ignorant of the due influence of the Law and Gospel upon their Hearts, or of Conviction of Sin, Communion with God, and a heavenly ha­bitual Byass of Heart, we have Reason to think that their regular Practice is but a dead Form. And doubtless great Caution should be used in expressing our Opinion concerning others States towards God, least by rash judging, we strengthen the Presump­tuous and discourage the Sincere-Hearted, hurt their Characters and hender their usefulness in the World! Our Judgment of a Persons bad State, should not be express'd, except there be some sufficient Cause for it, and some valuable End can be answered by it. The contrary Practice tends to Confusion and Discord.

But in the mean Time may I crave leave to ask our Author this Question, viz. Who made him a Judge of my secret Thoughts? Is it not inconsistent in the Ex­aminer to find fault with my judging of the present States of Men towards God by outward Signs, while [Page 99] in the mean time he judges my Tho'ts or State with­out them, yea contrary to them? For dosn't he in effect say, I am of the Moravian Opinion, as to judging, tho' I say the contrary, and conceal my Opinion under the guise of a near Guess?—Dosn't he herein assume God's unalianable Prerogative?

But the Examiner proceeds to to cite a Passage from the Writings of our Opposers in Pennsylvania, pag. 115, 116. which runs thus, ‘Will Mr. Tennent tell us where God required it of Ordinary Mini­sters, or People, to make positive Judgment of the secret States of orderly Professors, or to set up a Court of Inquisition to pry into one anothers secret State, any farther than it appears in their Profession and Practice?’

Ans. Besides what has been already observ'd upon the Point of Juding, for Brevity's sake, I shall only add, that I have profess'd no more than what our excellent Directory inculcates, under the Head of Ordination of Ministers, in these Words, ‘which being considered by the Presbettery, they are to proceed to enquire touching the Grace of God in him, and whether he be of such Holiness of Life as is requisite in a Minister of the Gospel.’

I think seeing those Gentlemen profess so great a regard to the Church of Scotland, and have adopted her Directory in this, as well as other Points, they should have forbore comparing her with the Church of Rome, upon the Account of enquiring in­to Mens secret States, or as our excellent Directory better expresses it, touching the Grace of God that is in them, invidiously terming it setting up a Court of Inqui­sition, hereby alluding to the Spanish Inquisition: It's a pitty that these Men don't endeavour to be better acquainted with their profess'd Principles! Its strange that they will neither act according to themselves, or suffer us to do so without Reproach? Why are they so fond of appropriating the Presbyterian Name to themselves, While they take so much Pains to confute Presbyterian Principles? They would act [Page 100] a more consistent Part, if they either renounc'd their Practice or Profession.

Their opposing all enquiries into Mens secret State, as they term it, gives Reason to suspect their want of experimental Religion, as well as unfaith­fulness in the ministerial Work! Those who have Christian Experience, are so far from thinking that the relating thereof is like a Spanish Engine of torture, that they take gaeat Pleasure, with the Psalmist of old, in telling to those that fear God, what the Lord has done for their Souls; and in rendering a Reason of the Hope that is within them, to every one that asketh a Question —What a superficial sort of Ministers must those be who oppose all en­enquiries into the State of their Flock? for without this, how can they speak suitably in a particular Manner, to the various Cases of their Hearers? For Ministers to try to convince or comfort Persons in their private Discourse, before an Enquiry into their State, is like a Physician's giving Doses of Physick at random, without enquiring into the Nature of the Disease that the Patient labours under. Whether such a Practice dosn't tend to kill rather than cure People, let the Reader judge.

I shall only add at present, to what has been said under this Head, this Sentece from my Nottingham Sermon, which I think is just, tho' some, for their own Ends, despise it, namely, "That Thieves flee "a Search, least their stolen Goods should be dis­covered. See John 3.19, 20, 21. And this is the Con­demnation, that Light is come into the World and Men loved Darkness rather then Light, because their Deeds were Evil; for every one that doeth Evil, hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, least his Deeds should be reproved. But he that loveth Truth cometh to the Light, that his Deeds may be made Manifest that they are wrought in God.

I hasten to the 7th Instance of pretended Contra­diction, p. 18. which is borrow'd from Moravian Sermon p. 66. ‘Do any esteem this new upstart [Page 101] Moravian Sect because of their shew of Humility, while in the mean time they undervalue all but themselves?’

‘Some of the Heads of that Party have spoken reproachfully at New-Brunswick, of all the Pro­testant reformed Churches. One of them, in my hearing compar'd them to Babel: Is this Humility to imagine themselves more advanced in Grace, then all the World besides?’

The suppos'd opposite Instance, is taken from the Nottingham Sermon p. 11. 12. where he says, ‘I condemn the Body of the Clergy of this Gene­ration, as swarms of Locusts, crowds of Pharisees, that have as covetously as cruelly crept into the Ministry, in this adulterous Generation; who as nearly resemble the Character given of the old Pharisees, as one Crows Egg does another.’

Again p. 9. ‘the Bulk of her spiritual Guides, are stone Blind and stone Dead.’

This reproachful Censure of the Body of the Clergy of the Protestant reformed Churches, is abun­dantly confirmed by Mr. Ts reply to Mr. Dickinson's Proposal for an Accommodation in Behalf of him­self and adherents, says he, ‘We are informed, that the Church of Scotland is in a very declining, degenerate State, many of her Members corrupt in Principles, and more void of the Power of Religion; as also that the Church of Ireland (I mean the Presbyterian) is notoriously corrupted. They seem to be, as far as we hear, sunk into a deep and dreadful Security.’

‘We are informed that the Presbyterians in En­gland have generally but little of the Life of Re­ligion among them; and that several of them are corrupted with gross and damnable Errors. And by the best Information we can get, a dead For­mality generally prevails too much in Boston, and many other Places of New-England. Indeed we are of Opinion that the Majority of Church-Ju­dicatories, almost every where, are dead For­malists, [Page 102] if they have got that length; and therefore we incline to make no more Application to Men in the Affair aforesaid.’

Where then is Wisdom and the Power of Godliness to be found? Why truly among the little Bruns­wick Party, that little Flock. The Genera­lity of Protestants are but dead Formalists at best; for so Mr, T. proceeds to say,

‘We are assured, Gentlemen, That it is the Cause of GOD that We are engaged in, and therefore resolved to defend it till Death against all Oppo­sers.’ See Examinaiion, &c. Page 9, 11, 12 ‘The above Character given of the Ministers of our Persuasion in England, Scotland, Ireland and New-England, agrees well with Mr. T's pronoun­cing the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, Judas's, hypocritical Varlets, &c, *’

‘* Mr. Tennent in his Sermon at Nottingham, ap­pears as an Ishmael among the Body of the Clergy of this Generation.’

Where is Mr. T's Charity to himself and his Party shewn here? and yet this is the Gentleman that has the Face to recommend the Vertue of Charity to others in his fifth Sermon, &c. viz.

‘That Charity which thinketh no Evil: surely then it will speak none. That Charity which inclines to Mildness, Candour and Courtese in Speech and Behaviour, it behaveth itself not unseemly. That Charity which prefers a publick Good to a private Interest, it seeketh not her own Things. And that Charity that inclines those that possess it to Hu­mility, it vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?

Well we have had a long Story, but where is the Contradiction? Why I have faulted the Moravians for their undervaluing all but themselves, and speak­ing reproachfully of all the Protestant reformed Churches. And this our Author labours to make me Guilty of, by mustering up again the thread bare Story of Names, which has been before considered; [Page 103] but what a poor Proof is this? Both the Passages cited do not respect the same thing, and therefore there cannot be a Contradiction in them. The one respects the Protestant reformed Churches in particular; and the other the unconverted Clergy in General, of all forts of Christian Societies. If our Author believes that the Clergy is the Church, as it wou'd seem he does, by pretending a Contradiction in those Passages, then he is a Papist (at least in that Point) but if he thinks that the unconverted Clergy of all the Churches in general, are the Protestant re­formed Churches in particular, (which is necessary to make out the Charge against me) then he has lost Common Sense: And if he thinks that the Body of the Clergy of all Denominations are Uncon­verted, (as it would seem by his charging directly upon the Body of the Clergy, those Epithets which I charg'd directly upon the Unconverted, and but indirectly and hypothetically upon the Body of the Clergy of this Generation) I say, if the Case be so, the Examiner does himself what he finds fault with in me.

But be that as it will, our Author represents my Mind unfairly, while he trys to make his Reader believe that I Charge the aforesaid Characters upon the Body of the Clergy directly, and carefully leaves out the Word Unconverted (as it would seem) least the Reader should form a just Notion of my Sen­timents.

And when our Author mentions some part of my reply to the Rev. Mr. Dickenson's Proposals, he art­fully turns what I had said in the Nottingham Sermon against unconverted Ministers of every Church in general, to the Body of the Clergy of the reform­ed Churches in particular, which tends to heighten the Charge, without a just Ground, against that Sermon, as if I had intended in it, only the un­converted Ministers of the reformed Churches, strictly so called, which is really false. The Ex­pressions in the Sermon are indefinite and general, [Page 104] and therefore cannot, without a force upon them, be restricted, as our Author suggests. I mention in the Sermon the Badges of different Kinds of Clergymen, namely, not only Bands and Black Coats, but Gowns, (See p. 18.) which shows that I had in View the Clergy of different Churches in the Composure of it.

Well and what do I say in the aforesaid Reply, but relate a credible Account, which we have had of the declinging State of Religion in general, a­mong the Presbyterians in England, Scotland, Ireland and New-England; and was not the Relation true at that Time? If not, let the Examiner favour us with a juster Account of the Matter, and we shall be obliged to him. I should be exceeding glad to be mistaken on that side of the Question. I say what is there in the reply, but the aforesaid Relation, excepting that Passage of the Majority of the Church Judicatory's being dead Formalists, &c. But it should be observed, that the following qualifying and limiting Terms are added to it, namely, that it is not re­presented as a Matter of absolute Certainly, but of Opinion only; and that the Words almost every where, are added thereto. Our mentioning this, after the aforesaid Relation of what we had been informed of, shews that it was bottom'd thereupon, in some Measure.

Our Author next adds, several Lines of his own in the middle of the Paragraph he cites from me, which has a tendency to marr my meaning. But what is it that he is so eager to utter, why this silly Satyr, namely, Where then is Wisdom and the Power of Godliness to be found? Why truly among the little Brunswick Party, that little Flock. The Gene­rality of Protestants are but dead Formalists, at best, &c.’

Ans. Why does the Examiner, without any Foun­dation, insinuate, that I confine Wisdom and the Power of Godliness to my self and Brethren, or pre­fer ourselves to other faithful Ministers of the re­form'd [Page 105] Churches, when there is not a Word of this Tendency in all our writings; God forbid, that we should entertain such an unreasonable and de­testable Opinion of ourselves; no we desire, as we have great Reason, to prefer others before our­selves in Love, and do judge of ourselves, (and are willing to be tho't so of others) less then the least of all Saints.

Neither will the Foundation our Author goes upon in the Insinuation aforesaid, bear the Stress he lays upon it. What if we had said, That the gene­rality of Protestants are but dead Formalists at best. Will nor the Scripture support such an Assertion, while they inform us, That many are call'd and few cho­sen, That Strait is the Gate and narrow is the Way that leads to Life, and that few find it, That many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able. And dons't the Para­ble of the Sower give farther Light and Force to this Argument? For therein, but one in four received the Word aright. Dosn't the Examiners offering the aforesaid particular, as an Objection against us, betray gross Ignorance of the Scriptures, and look like an utter unacquaintedness with expe­rimental Religion?

Our Author adds another Paragraph of his own to this Effect. ‘Where is Mr. Tennent's Charity to himself and his Party shewn here? and this is the Gentleman, that has the Face to recom­mend Charity to others in his 5th Sermon.’

Ans. I see no uncharitableness in asserting that to be the Cause of God, which we were then and are still endeavouring to promote; namely, experimental and practical Religion, and in a resolute opposing of two Acts made by a Majority of the Synod, which we were and are still perswaded had a Tendency to obstruct the same, tho' doubtless they appeared to others of our Brethren (some of whom we believe are heartily engag'd in promoting experimental Pie­ty) in another Light. These Acts which I have mentioned in my Remarks upon their protest, gave [Page 106] rise to the uneasinesses which subsist among us. Our reasonings against which, mention'd in the a­foresaid Remarks, our opposers have not tho't proper yet to make any particular reply to.

I still approve of the Description of Charity, which our Author cites from my Moravian Sermon: And am perswaded that I have acted according to it, in setting forth the Danger of an ungodly Mini­stry; but this I have spoke upon before, and there­fore must not insist here.

Only I must beg leave to ask our Author, who professes so much Charity, how he can reconcile therewith his manifold unjust dealing with me, and his patronizing the ungodly Ministry, his grum­bling and taking it ill that they should have their just Characters? while in the mean Time he favours heretical Moravians, and other Shismaticks this way, and adopts their invidious Character of me, viz. ‘That I appear in my Notingham Sermon, as Ishmael among the Body of the Clergy of this Generation.’— While in the mean Time he slights and opposes those pious Ministers in general, who have been instru­mental in promoting the late Reformation. To oppose and detect ungodly Ministers, does it not look more like the Practice of Jeremiah and Micajah, then of Ishmael? And now Sir, I beg you wont take it amiss, if in the Conclusion of this Paragraph, I re­turn your Question, thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thy self?

Having now considered our Authors Charges as to pretended Inconsistencies in Doctine, let us pro­ceed to examine his Comparison of the Conversion, and after Experiencies said to be propogated by Mr. T. and his Party; and this our Author is pleased to introduce, with an Apoligy for Count Zinzendorff and Mr. Betener's contradicting of themselves, p. 20. He asks, ‘Why I deny to those Moravian Gen­tlemen, the Liberty I take to my self to say and unsay Things as it liketh me.’

[Page 107] Answ. I have never taken such a Liberty, and I hope never shall, and as our Author has not nor cannot prove his malignant Charge, it is slanderous cruel Calumny, which may God of his infinite Mercy forgive.

And now we come to our Authors Charge, p. 21. which is as follows, quoted from p. 103 of the Apendix.

The Conversion of the most of them, is very slighty, done in a Moment; have we not reason to fear their Conversion is but a strong flight of I­magination, a Satanical Delusion?

And we have more reason for the Fear afore­said, when we consider how easie they are ge­nerally, after their supposed Conversion, with­out Fears, without complaints of Sin, &c. did not the Seed sown on the stony Ground, spring up quickly; but on the Contrary, did not the good Ground bring forth fruit with Patience?

If we will believe the Scriptures, does not their Conversion and after Experiencies, look like Presumption and Delusion?

In the opposite Collumn are these Words, ‘If we are to judge of the unsoundness of Conversion, by the Suddainness thereof, have we not as much Rea­son to fear, that the Conversion of many among the N. Brunswick Party, is a strong flight of Imagina­tion, or a Satanical Delusion?’

‘Even such is the easy, quiet, happy State of Multitudes of the late Converts, without fear, without Complaints, &c. Why then should the State of the one, be better and safer then that of the other?’

Answ. It is invidious in our Author still to keep up the contemptuous title Page over the Heads of his Collumns; while in the mean Time he puts his own Words in one of them, and not mine; but to pass this.

I beg leave to observe that our Author is very partial and defective in his Representation of the [Page 108] Reasons of my Fears, respecting the Moravian Con­version, he picks up a piece of a Sentence here and there, and leaves out the chief Part; to make this appear I will cite the whole Paragraphs he re­fers to, and they are these.—

‘As to their Conversion and after Experiencies, the Conversion of the most of them (if we credit the Count's Assertion, and we may reasonably suppose that he knows pretty well the State of his own Sect) is very slighty, its without any Preparatory Law Work, done in a Moment. If they have received the aforesaid Doctrines, have we not Reason to fear that their Conversion is but a strong flight of Imagination, or a Satanical Delusion. And we have the more Reason for the Fear aforesaid, when we consider how Easy they are generally after their suppos'd Conversion, without Fears, without Complaints of Sin, Stran­gers to the Spiritual War, Stangers to the Know­ledge of their own Hearts, always in one sort of Frame, or as it were put to Sleep and happy, as the Count expresses it. did not the Seed sown on the Stony Ground spring up quickly? but on the Contrary, did not the good Ground bring forth Fruit with Patience? did not the poor Man in the Gos­ple bewail his unbelief? And are we not commanded to fight the Fight of Faith? If we will believe the Scriptures, does not their Conversion and Expe­riences look like Presumption and Delusion? Their Ignorance about the Nature of a true and saving Faith, adds awful weight to what has been now observ'd.’

Here the Reader may easily perceive, that what I have said respecting the Suddainness of their Con-Conversion, is join'd in the same Sentence with their want of a Preparatory law Work, upon which the principle Stress is laid.—

Besides what I have said of their Ease after Conver­sion, is join'd with the Account of their being Strangers to the spiritual War, and the Knowledge [Page 109] of their own Hearts; my Fears respecting their Conversion, are likewise bottom'd upon the Sup­position of their receiving or embracing the dread­ful Doctrines contain'd in the Apendix, particular­ly upon their asserting historical Faith to be saving, and their rejecting of God's Law.

Dosn't our Author know in his Conscience, that these things can't be justly charg'd upon us, God knoweth that we abhor them. What a wicked and shameless Part does the Examiner then Act, in his partial deceitful Application? And how un­reasonable is his Query from thence, viz. Why then should the State of the one be better and safer than the other? Has our Author then no regard to the precious Doctrines of Christianity which the Moravians op­pose? Has he no respect for the Law of God, and a preparative Work of it?

As to what our Author says concerning Multi­tudes of the late Converts, being in an easie, quiet and happy State without Fear.

Ans. That some are deceiv'd respecting their State towards God, who have been under good Im­pressions during the late revival of Religion in this Land, I doubt not. This is but a usual Event, and therefore no way disparages God's Work, Presumption flows from the Sophistry of Satan, who blinds the Eyes of those that believe not, and from the Corrup­tion of Mens Hearts, which are deceitful and despe­rately wicked. It cannot be therefore charg'd upon Ministers, except they preach Doctrines that tend thereto; which we defy the Examiner to prove upon us. If our Doctrines had been of a presumptious Tenden­cy, is it probable that so many Thousands would have been alarmed by them, out of their Security? And therefore the Examiner is guilty of a notori­ous falsehood, when he says, p. 21. That such a Conversion and Experiencies as he describes, was pro­pogated by me and my Party. Whereas the Al­mighty knows and many of his People, among whom we have labour'd, that it has been our Prin­ciple [Page 110] endeavour to sap the Foundations of a False hope.

Our Author must excuse me if I can't so easily credit his Assertion, as to the multitudes of the late Converts being without Fear, &c. he has so often fail'd in his Charges against me, that I can't but Questi­on his Veracity, especially when he is prejudiced, as he certainly is against the late revival of Religi­on, see p. 24. What good do the Itenerants do by "their Traveling, unless it be to sow Tares to "corrupt and devide religious People?

Here the Examiner absolutely denys, that any good was done by Itinerary preachers. And yet he owns p. 27. That some were brought under a pre­paratory Work of the Law by my Ministry (who am doubtless intended us one of them) in these Words, ‘It notioious that he himself not only smil'd but laugh'd heartily over his Converts, while they were under a preparatory Work of the Law.’ Now the Examiner must either acknowledge that it is doing no good to bring (instrumentaly) se­cure sinners under a preparatory Work of the Law, or confess his Contradiction. Besides a Contradic­tion to the aforesaid passage is imply'd, in his Words that I am now considering: For while he says, That Multitudes of the late Converts are without Fear, this plainly supposes that some of them are not. And so that there has been some good done by the Itinerary Preachers, who have been us'd as Principle In­struments in promoting the late Conversions. And indeed this, the Examiner in some sort confesses in relation to my self, while he calls me a Principal mover and promoter of the passionate Religion now prevailing among so many, p. 26.

It is not probable that our Author wou'd converse with so many of the late Converts as he talks of, considering his present Prejudice, and therefore his knowledge must come by the Information of others, who its like were as much prejudiced as himself. I belive I have had an opportunity of conversing [Page 111] with more of them then our Author, by Reason of my Travels. And I must declare to the Glory of divine Grace, that I have met with Multitudes, who in the Judgment of a Scriptural and reasona­ble Charity, had the plain Signatures of a special Work of God upon their Souls.

The principal Members of the Presbytery of New-York, have the last Year in their Protest, given their solemn sufferage to the reality of the late revival of Religion in this Land, and this Year both our Presbyteries viz. of New-Brunswick and New-Castle, have given a unanimous Declaration in behalf of God's Work, which has been sweetly spreading among us lately. Blessed be Jehovah for it.

And now let us proceed to our Authors, 22d. p. and here he observes that I say in p. 8. of my Moravian Sermon thus. ‘What is the Moravian Faith, but a sorry mushroom, of a nights growth unworthy of the name of Faith.’

Upon the opposite Collumn to which the Exami­ner inserts these Words of his own. ‘Yea and all such like suddain Conversions, are equally Pre­sumptuous and Delusive, but as a sorry mushroom of a Nights Growth.’

Here let the reader observe, that the Examiner wrongs me in not representing my true Sense and Meaning. He only cites a short Conclusion, which I drew from certain Premises, in which my Opini­on was explain'd without mentioning the Premi­ses themselves, E. G. He has (as it seems) purpos­ly left out the following Lines, which do immediately go before what he related, and fully shew my meaning, namely, ‘What then can we reasonably suppose that Faith to be, which has no humbling Preparatives, no after Conflicts and Troubles, and consist not in a receiving of CHRIST, and resting upon him for Salvation?’ And then follow the Words he has cited.

[Page 112]The reader may easily see, how partial and un­just his comparison is, and therefore Inconclusive, whatever suddain Conversions there be, attended with the aforesaid Characters; we reject them and believe them to be but sorry Mushrooms; but we dare not reject Conversions meerly because of their Suddain­ness, if these Persons have had humbling Prepa­ratives, have been enabled to receive CHRIST, and rest upon him for Salvation; have after conflicts, and a general free bent of Heart, and Practice Godward and Heavenward.

And this we have the fullest Evidence, that the Nature of such Things can admitt of, is the Case of many who have been, during the late glorious revival of Religion, brought from a State of Na­ture to a State of Grace in this Land. We dare not presume to bound Omnipotence, or set limits to the Operations of an infinitely sovereign God, in his bringing fallen Creatures to an interest in his Love. His Spirit blows when and where he listeth.

And indeed I can't but think the Examiner is pro­fanely bold in doing so, in those Lines of his which I but just now mentioned. At this rate of pro­ceeding the most of the Conversions in the Apostolick Times, must be condemned as Mushrooms, for was not the Conversion of the three Thousand as well as of Paul, Zacheus and Lydia, suddain?

And what tho' suddain Conversions be followed with Raptures, if they have the Antecedents, Concom­mitants and Effects, before mentioned, they should not be rejected on the Account of them. For are we not told, That the Kingdom of God consists in Righ­teousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost? And didn't some in the primitive Times receive the Word with Joy, yea rejoice with Joy unspeakable and full of Glory, and what can be greater than this?

If Persons after much sorrow and uneasiness, upon their meeting with some unexpected and im­portant temporal Good, have been so overcome with [Page 113] Joy and Rapture, that they have fainted away; is it any wonder that divine Things shou'd affect as much, which are of infinitely greater Weight and Consequence, when they are beheld by that Faith which is the Substance of Things not seen, and the Evi­dence of things hoped for. Certainly the greater Distress Persons are in before they receive Comfort, thro' a sight of God's Justice and Holiness, as well as of their own Vileness, together with the Fears of impending Vengeance, the more in Proportion they are wont to be affected with a Sense of pardoning Mercy.

I remember to have heard in the famous Story of Massianello the Neapolitan, that during his Re­gency, some poor Man that had received certain valuable temporal Presents, was so transported there­with, that he cry'd out frequently in the open Street, before a great Concourse of People, all this is mine, all this is mine. And when some Body present desi­red him to be still, telling him that such behaviour was unseemly, he reply'd, That he needn't wonder that he cry'd out so, but rather that he didn't take up Stones and throw at him He was so mad for Joy.

If Archimedes when he had found out some Ma­thematical Demonstration, was so transported with it, that he cry'd out, Eureca, Eureca, I have found, I have found. Is it strange that some of softer and stronger Passions, who after a view of their forlorn State, upon finding the Pearl of great Price; should be so transpor­ted with a Sense of God's imerited and immense Good­ness, as that they coud'nt refrain crying out with the Spouse in the Song of Songs. I have found him whom my Soul loveth.

I have heard of one who was condemn'd to be hang'd for some notorious Crime, in consequence of which after Imprisonment, he was carried to the Gallows; but behold a Pardon being brought to him, while he was within view of the awful Instru­ment of Execution, overcame him with such an excess of joy, as made him expire in Death. [Page 114] What I have said elsewhere concerning the Souls near union to the Body, and its consequent Influ­ence upon it, is applicable here.

And now before I proceed farther, I must just observe, that the Examiner has wrong'd me in the Application aforesaid, by insinuating that I spoke against suddain Conversions, or joyous Raptures altogether, whereas I only spoke against such, as had not suita­ble Antecedents, Concommitants and Effects, as was before observ'd.

He has likewise offended against the Generation of God's Children, by condemning all of them that have been converted suddainly. Let the Exami­ner seriously consider the following Place of Scrip­ture, Matt. 18.6. He that offends one of those little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a Mill­stone was hung about his Neck and he cast into the midst of the Sea.

Our Author in his next Paragraph mentions what I say p. 66. of my Moravian Sermon.— ‘Thus do any esteem this new upstart Moravian Sect, because they say they have Communion with God, and in Consequence hereof Joy and Sweet­ness. I answer when we consider the Antinornian Principles they hold concerning Faith and Justi­fication, as well as the proud Effects of their pre­tended Good Frames, and that under a Mask of Humility, &c. we have good Reason to suspect their Communion to be but a Delusion of the grand Enemy, and their Joys to be the Joys of Time Believers, and stony Ground Hearers. True Communion with God doth certainly humble the Soul, Job 42.5.6. It's no new Thing for Antino­mians and Enthusiasts, to talk of Joys and Comforts but they are a false cure to all Soul Troubles.’

In the opposite Collumn he mentions the follow­ing Words of his own, viz. ‘every reader of common Observation, will find the Transition very easy, from the Moravians to many of the Converts now a Days, who talk boldly of their high [Page 115] Joys and full Assurances, under a mask of Hu­mility, and at the same Time trusting in themselves, that they are Righteous and despising others.

Let them not be high minded but fear, least their Communion be but a Delusion, and their Joys the Joys of stony Ground Hearers.’

By comparing those Paragraphs, every Eye may see the Examiners Partiality, in applying what I have said concerning the Joys of the Maravians, to many of the late Converts, for in his Comparison, he omits one of the principle Reasons of my sus­pecting the Moravian Joys, namely their Antinomian Principles, concerning Faith and Justification, he in­deed mentions proud Effects, namely trusting in them­selves and despising others, and if the Case be truly and habitually so with any, it is an awful sign of De­lusion.

But perhaps our Author, has term'd a reasona­ble rejoycing in the Assurance of God's Love, a modest and seasonable discoursing thereof to others, together with a faithful Endeavour to detect and awaken secure Hypocrits, and dry Formalists, a talk­ing boldly of their high Joys, and trusting in themselves and despising of others, because of his strong Prejudice and repeated Partiality. In the mean Time I woudn't be understood to signify, as if I believ'd that all who recond themselves Converted, or were esteem'd so by others, during the late revival of Religion were really so: No not at all, neither is this any dispa­ragement to the Work of God. For thus it was in the Apostolick Times.

But to conclude, what I wou'd offer upon this Head of Conversion and Experience, I must observe that the Examiner is most unjust in asserting in the Title thereof, that I and those whom he calls my Party, propogate such a manner of Conversion and after Experience, as he relates in the opposite Collumn to my Words. I challenge him to prove his false and cruel Charge, wherein have I or any that join with me propogated a Conversion consisting [Page 116] in Imagination or Satanical Delusion, or such an Easie State after Conversion, as is without fear, without Complaints, or a Mushroom Faith, false Joy, spiritual Pride, and self Confidence. These very Sermons which the Examiner labours to cast dirt upon, (consequen­tially) evidence the Contrary, as well as all the Ser­mons I have publish'd to the World, particularly that Book entitled the Presumer detected, which was directly calculated to unhinge delusive Hopes and Joys. Neither is there one of my Reverend Brethren that can be justly charg'd with those Things, some of them have prov'd the Contrary by their printed Discourses, and all that know the rest, know the Charges against them to be false. What if some be deceived under our Preaching, seeing that the Doc­trines we preach and our distinct manner of handling them, has no Tendency that Way, but the very contrary; our Author can no more justly charge us herewith then the Apostles, with all the presump­tuous Hopes of their Hearers. Why does our Au­thor unjustly charge upon us, the Crimes of the Devil and the ungodly, who are under his Influence, while we detest them in our Hearts, and endea­vour to detect and oppose them by our Speech and Practice.

And now we are prepar'd to consider another part of the Examiners Performance, which he entitles thus, Mr. T's Reflections on the Spirit of the Moravians, compared with his own Spirit and of his Adherents.

The Passages of mine which he cites, are Ap­pendix, Moravian Sermon, p. 104. the Words are these, ‘Are not the Moravians, many of them, uncharitable and divisive in their Speech and Practice, and that under a pretext of Charity and Catholicism. Witness Mr. SPANGENBERG'S comparing the Pro­testant Churches to a Babel, &c.’

‘Witness their not being willing to join with a­ny Protestant Body of Men, and yet their re­ceiving Persons of divers Societys to their Fellow­ship, with little Examination into their Principles.’

[Page 117]On the opposite Collumn to what has been men­tioned, he speaks thus ‘And are not Mr. T. and many of his zealous Advocates just like them? Witness his Sermon at Nottingham, which is as full of uncharitable and divisive Principles and Speeches, as a Crows Egg is full of Meat.’

‘Witness also Mr. T. and many of our late Zealots, Ministers and others, who have been ready to censure and separate from all that differ'd in Sentiment from them, but at the same Time receiving into their Fellowship, and with Charity eno', every one that pretended to be of their Way, pronouncing them true Converts upon little Examination, and proof of a Work of Grace in them.’

Here let the reader note, that what the Examiner objects, respecting (pretended) uncharitableness and dividing Principles in the Notingham Sermon, has been before largely considered, and therefore I shall not now resume what has been said. But supposing I had been under some mistakes in that Sermon, I see no Justice in his charging them upon my Brethren, except he proves their Consent thereto which he has not so much as attempted.

But in Answer to his next Charge against me, namely a readiness to censure and separate, from all that differed from me in Sentiment. I shall mention a Pa­ragraph of our Apology offer'd to the Consideration of the Synod, some Considerable Time before the Rupture happened, which runs thus. ‘To conclude we profess a hearty Charity for those Gentlemen who are on the other Side of the Question in this Debate, doubtless Things appear to them in ano­ther Light, we have only in the Course of our Reasonings, labour'd to expose the Absurdity of an Opinion which we think prejudicial to the Interests of the Saviours Kingdom, and if we are herein mistaken, we are willing to be convinced by Scripture and Reason. But whether we get Conviction or not by our Brethrens Arguments [Page 118] we believe that the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace may be preserved, notwithstanding a di­versity of Sentiment in lesser Things, if mode­rate Councils be followed, and that mutual for­bearance be allowed, which the Gospel of CHRIST requires.’ See remarks upon a Protest­tation, pag. 68. The aforesaid Apology was sign'd by divers Ministers of our Number. The same Thing in Substance I have likewise express'd in the 19 p. of the Remarks aforesaid, thus: But ‘tho' we did Protest against what we apprehended (after deliberate enquirys) to be wrong in our Brethrens Conduct, a practice not unusual in ju­dicatorys of our Denomination, yet we were far from carrying Matters to the present Crisis, which our Bretheren have done by their Pro­test, namely, to exclude our dissenting Brethren, from Communion upon that Account.’ And p. 9. are these Words.

‘The Truth is, tho' we differed in Sentiments from our Brethren, in respect of some Acts or Cannons they had made, yet we designed no Se­paration from them upon that Account, we tho't that mutual Forbearance would be the best Expe­dient in the Case aforesaid. As we desired liber­ty of acting according to our Consciences, in the controverted Affair, so we were far from a desire of imposing our Judgment upon our Brethren, or imagining that there was a necessity of Separa­tion, upon the Account of the aforesaid diversity of Sentiment.’

Now what regard can it be resonably suppos'd the Examiner has either to Truth or Charity, when he asserts an absolute Falsehood, while he had our solemn publick mutual Declaration in his Hands to convince him thereof.

And here let me farther observe, that in Pur­suance of the aforesaid Declaration, we kept Syno­dical Communion with them, until they after an il­legal, unpresidented and unjust Manner, violently [Page 119] and abruptly broke communion with us by a Protest without allowing us Liberty to speak in our own Defence, before the Protest was signed, tho' it was again and again desired. See now Mr. Examiner your partiality in favouring such Schismaticks, and in con­demning the Innocent with their Crimes, and be at last ashamed of your unaccountable Conduct.

If some who have favour'd the late Reformation in New-England, have been ting'd with a separating Spirit, or Disposition to abandon abruptly the Mi­nistry of any that were sound in Principle, blameless in Practice, and favourers of God's Work, as it has been reported, it deserves Censure, and calls aloud for Lamentation▪

But why do you Sir impute their Faults to me? when you know in your Conscience, that I have op­pos'd such Separations there, as appears by the Ser­mons which you so much contemn, (as aforesaid) and my Letter to the Rev. Mr. JONATHAN DICKINSON, and the other which was wrote to explain it more fully (which you Censure) Pray Sir consider whether you are not very inconsistent with yourself in this Point, inasmuch as while you Censure me, without Foundation, as being of a divisive Spirit, you try by many Methods to cast dis­honour upon my Essays against it, and favour those that are guilty of it?

As to what you say in the latter Part of your Pa­ragraph, of my receiving into Fellowship, with Charity enough, every one that pretend to be of our way, pronoun­cing them true Converts upon little Examination and Proof of a Work of Grace in them.

I would observe that you Contradict yourself in two particulars, 1st In blaming me for excessive Charity; when in divers other Places in your Per­formance, you Blame me for the Contrary, See p. 13. And 2d. In Blaming me for Examining too little concerning a Work of Grace in Persons; while you Blame me elsewhere, viz. pag 17. for attempting to do any such Thing at all; your Words are, Who [Page 120] made thee a Judge of Mens inward Experience and secret State. After which you adopt the Querists Words, who compare it to the Spanish Inquisition.—But per­haps you will say in Answer to the first Particular, that it was only a Party Charity you faulted me for, and charg'd me with. To which I reply, that the Accusation is false. My Soul abhors the sordid Meanesless and contracted Views of Biggotry and Party Zeal! I have a Witness in Heaven and many upon Earth, that my chief Desire and Labours have been (since Almighty God has of his free Mercy given me the saving Knowledge of himself) to promote vital Religion, and not any Party whatsoever. And I have likewise great Reason to believe that this is the Temper and Disposition of all the Ministers that join with me in these Parts. There is one indeed, who is I hope a pious Man, Mr. ALEXANDER CRAIGHEAD, by Name, who was formerly in a State of Union with us, but having more Zeal and Positiveness than Knowledge and Judgment, has Schismatically broken Communion with us, and adopt'd the rigid Cameronian Scheme. He is indeed ringed with an uncharitable and party Spirit, to the prejudice of real Religion in some Places this Way May the Almighty forgive him and rectify his Judg­ment. His late and present censorious Temper and divisive Conduct, we utterly detest and disclaim.

I think the Rev. Mr. WHITEFIELD's Observation, in one of his Letters concerning the Covenanting Scheme, is very just and true, viz. That it is two narrow a Foun­dation to build any great Superstructure upon. And on the contrary I cannot but highly approve of the catholick, generous and noble Sentiments of the very Rev. Dr. BATES and Mr. HOW, who observe a just Me­dium between two dangerous Extremes of a rigorous Severity upon the one Hand, and a perilous Laxness on the other.

And I am likewise far from approving of divers Particulars which are Charged upon Mr. DAVEN­PORT'S Conduct; one of which is, as the Re­port [Page 121] goes, That after he has examined Ministers a­bout the State of their Souls, he has publickly in the open Congregation declared his Opinion concern­ing their bad State, and exhorted their Hearers to leave them. My Abhorrence of this Practice I have express'd in a Letter to Mr. DICKINSON, which has been made Publick, to which I refer the Reader. And the late Story about Burning divers valuable Books at New London in Connecticut, is like­wise exceeding Scandalous and Ridiculous, and de­serves to be detested by all Mankind (but I am glad that I can now, upon a certain Foundation, in­form the Publick, that Mr Davenport appears to be deeply sensible of his criminal Conduct in that Affair.)

It is likely that Mr. DAVENPORT and Mr. CRAIGHEAD, by their imprudent Conduct, have been accessory to the creating and fomenting of Divisions in several Parts of this Country, which is much to be lamented: And while I am con­strain'd, by the Regard I have to the Honour of God and interest of his Kingdom, to bear a publick Testimony against the exceptionable Conduct of these Ministers before mentioned, in the mean Time I declare, that I cannot but love their Persons, and believe that in the simplicity of their Hearts they have gone astray. I likewise acknowledge, to the Glory of God's Sovereign Grace, that I have Rea­son to believe, that both of them have been Instru­ments of doing remarkable Service to many Souls.

But why does our Examiner unjustly Charge the Misconduct of either of those Gentlemen upon us, who have never encouraged it? But on the Contrary our Author must need know in his Conscience, that I have expresly oppos'd the Misconduct of one of them, in my printed Sermons and Letters.

The next Particular the Examiner mentions, is borrow'd from p. 65 of my Moravian Sermon, which is thus express'd, ‘How very different are the Fruits of their coming into the Country from the [Page 122] Reverend Mr. WHITEFIELD's? His plain and pungent Preaching the Truths of the Reforma­tion, united generally the Hearts of good Men thro' the Land. But the Moravians wherever they have any Influence divide the People of God, and set them a jangling. See p. 23. 24’

In the opposite Collumn to which, the Examiner mentions these Words of his own, namely, ‘Has not the coming of the Rev. Messirs. W. and T. and their Successors, into these Provinces divided the People of God, and set them a Jangling, as much as the Preregrination of the Moravians in Pennsyl­vania has done there?’

‘But it seems Mr. T. hath felt the bad Effects of their uncharitable intrusive Spirit near home, which makes him complain and flinch as much as his Neighbours, who felt the Weight of his rough Hands and heavy Fists.’

Answ. The Examiner's Application of the afore­said Instance to Mr. WHITEFIELD and me, is un­just and untrue which many Thousands in N. England can witness: When Mr. WHITEFIELD and I left N. England there was no such divisions and janglings as have since happened, but on the contrary Unity and Love seem'd generally to obtain among the People of God.

Here observe the Sophistical low Art of our Au­thor, in joining Mr. WHITEFIELD and me, with those whom he calls our Successors in their Pro­vinces, that so he might charge upon us the impru­dent Conduct of some of them; which we detest.

As to what the Examiner adds, respecting ‘my feeling the bad Effects of the Moravian unchari­table and intrusive Spirit near home, and that that made me complain and flinch.’

I answer that tho' I have seen bad Effects thereof upon some; yet thro' Mercy I have no Reason to flinch and complain, because of any bad Effects of it upon the Society which I am related to. For not [Page 123] one of them has been carry'd away with the Delusi­on entirely that I know of.

I am thro' Grace concious to my self, what ever our Author has uncharitably and ungenerously in­sinuated to the Contrary, that no private view has influenced my Zeal against the Moravians, but a sincere regard to the Truths and Power of Reli­gion, which they are opposing and undermining; neither have any of my Neighbours just cause of complaining of my rough Hands and heavy Fists, (as you are pleas'd with much Complaisance to word the Matter) in respect of Uncharitableness and Intrusion, as is suggested. I have not preach'd in any of their Places without Invitation, or condemned any of them without Cause.

The Examiner next cites my Words from Mora­vian Sermon p. 67. which are these, ‘Do any esteem the Moravians because they travel and take great Pains. I answer did not the Pharisees of old compass Sea and Land to make proselytes and do not Jesuits and many other Enthusiasts travel still. But what good do the Moravians do by their tra­veling unless it be good to sow Tares, to corrupt and divide religious People.’

In the opposite Column, we have the following words of the Examiner. ‘Exactly true; and pray, what good do the Itinerants do by their Traveling, unless it be good to sow Tares, to corrupt and divide religious People?’ After the aforesaid Words our Author refers by an Asterism to a Charge of our Opponents this Way, in their Ex­amination, p. 81. respecting the pretended dividing Principles and Practices of Itinerants; but in asmuch as nothing is offered to support the Charge but their Affirmation, I see no need of any farther reply at present, then what has been before given to the like in these Sheets.

But I cannot pass over in Silence, our Authors Judgment concerning the Success of Itinerants, name­ly, that it is nothing but sowing Tares, corrupting and [Page 124] dividing religious People; as is this as an uncharitable and false Charge, so it argues our Examiner to be in­consistent with himself, for he has else where ac­knowledged the Contrary, (See p. 9. 21. 30.) as has been observ'd before.

The Examiner in his 24. p. proceeds to cite from my Moravian Sermon, p. 104. the following Words, ‘Do not those Things together with their send­ing their ignorant Missionaries, to gather separate Societys in Places, where there is a sound Mini­stry, signify that their Design is not Catholick, whatever their pretences be notwithstanding?’ A­gain he borrows from Moravian Sermon p. 54. these Words. ‘Whatever good Appearances thrusting out ignorant Persons (how pious soever) into the Ministry may have, yet it is a dangerous Practice, tending directly to divide and corrupt the Church of God, and bring the Ministry thereof into con­tempt.’

In the opposite Collumn he says thus. ‘Who but the Brunswick Party thrust out Mr. ROWLAND into the Ministry, in Contempt of the Synod, after it was confess'd on all Sides he was very defici­ent in many Parts of useful Learning, tho' educated at the Log-House? Who but Party-Zealots have ordained Evangelists and sent them forth to gather Societys in Places where there is a sound Ministry, instead of sending them into ungospelized Parts?’ In this Paragraph our Author refers by an Asterism; to a Charge of our Opponents in their Examination p. 69. which runs thus. ‘Upon the same Lay that they ordained this One, they might ordain one Hundred, if Opportunity offered: And was not this One very deficient in many Parts of useful Learning required by our Di­rectory? And was not this One immediately thurst into the Bounds of a neighbouring Pres­bytery, without their Concurrence; and con­tinued there, in Opposition to and contempt of their Determination, to the occasioning of a [Page 125] Breach and much Confusion in a Congregation in their Bounds? And what hath his Practice to this Day been, but a continued Course of intru­sive Disorders? Besides that his Character has been under a very dull Cloud, as to Immo­rality, &c.’

‘Who but Party Zealots have admitted into their Pulpits such Novices as D—n E—s, S—i T—h—r, L—y—r P—ne, &c. tending to bring the sacred Ministry into Contempt, and divide and cor­rupt the Church of God?

I answer the Examiners Charge in the Negative. We have sent no Ignorant Missinories to gather separate Societies, where there was a sound Ministry. The Case is truly thus, all that we have Licens'd or Ordain'd for the Holy Ministry, were furnish'd with a competent Measure of human Learning, agreeable to our Di­rectory. Indeed we have not ordain'd every one to a fix'd Charge for this Reason, because the Congre­gations that depend upon us for Supplies, are so nu­merous, and our Number of Candidates so small, that we cannot supply them all at present with a settled Ministry, as we desire and intend (God willing) The People, in the mean time, urge us with almost in­cessant Importunities for some Supplies, in respect of Preaching, and likewise want to have Baptism ad­ministred to their Children; and it should like­wise be observ'd, that those Congregations are, many of them, far distant from each other. Now we knew of no better Method to remedy the present distres­sing Exigence, than that of Ordaining some ad mi­nisterium vagum,—or to preach about in divers Places for a while, and Baptize, until we cou'd get the Places supplyed with a settled Ministry, or until the Persons so ordain'd wou'd themselves incline to accept of a fix'd Charge, which Inclination we do not check or Discourage. And I think this Practice of ordaining, as aforesaid, has not been without Presidents in the reformed Churches.

[Page 126]But the Accusation of sending any into Places where there is a sound Ministry, to gather seperate Societies, is a Calumny. Some of our Opponents have discover'd more unsound­ness in their Writings of late, then we tho't for­merly they had been tainted with. We had some Charges against some of their Number, which we wanted to have examined, and judicially try'd, while a Union subsisted between us, (and without a View to the judicial decision of which, we can nei­ther come into a State of Union with them, or con­tinue in it) which we have not broken. But after they in an unjust Manner had broken it, (as before related) and by their Opposition to GOD's WORK and Servants, grieved the Hearts of his People and allienated their Affections from them, so that they cou'd not Profit under their Ministry, or with free­dom of Conscience attend upon it, least they should encourage them in their evil Course, and so be par­takers in their Guilt, and be liable to the penal issues of it. I say, when those poor oppressed People again and again Supplicated us for Relief, in the most moving and pathetick Strains! how cou'd we deny them, except we had Bowels of Brass and Adamant?

The Examiners Charge in relation to Mr. ROW­LAND is unjust. Mr. ROWLAND was neither Licens'd or Ordain'd by us, in Contempt of the Synod, but in compliance with the Dictates of our own Consciences. And We, who have had him under Ex­amination, did and do look upon him to be suffi­ciently Qualified for the Gospel Ministry, both in re­spect of Learning and Gracious Accomplishments, agree­able to our Directory.

As to what is added, of his beeng thrust into the Bounds of a Neighbouring Presbytery, without their Con­currence, and continu'd there in Opposition to, and in con­tempt of their Determination.

Answ. It is a wrong Representation of the Matter; he was Invited by a Body of Religious Peo­ple, who conscientiously dissented from those Acts [Page 127] or Laws, which were made by a Majority of the Synod, which occasion'd the Debate between us and them, and he himself likewise scrupl'd the Laws aforesaid. In consequence of which the Majority of the Synod had publickly warn'd all the People of their Bounds against Hearing of Mr. ROWLAND, because he had been licens'd by us, notwithstanding of their Cannon.

The People declin'd applying to that Presbytery in whose Bounds they were, because of the Case afore­said, and other Objections they had against their Conduct; and not being able to get a Minister else­where, they importuned Mr. ROWLAND to sup­ply them, with which he, at last, comply'd, not out of Contempt, but Conscience towards God, in order to relieve a pious, oppos'd and oppress'd People! which, thro' the divine Blessing, was to all appearance a Mean of saving Good to many precious Souls there, in their Conviction and Conversion to God.

As to what they say farther under this Head, viz. That his Practice hath been to this Day, a course of intru­sive Disorders.

I answer to this Charge Ignoramus, we want Proof. To what has been said, they add, that his Character has been under a very dull Gloud as to immorality.

Here I must beg leave to observe, that it is an aw­ful sign in our Opposers to endeavour to cast Contempt upon the Character of one, whose faithful Labours for God, has been Crown'd with remarkable and distinguish'd Successes, and to join with the Prophane in Persecuting of him. May God forgive their im­piety. But let them know to their shame, that the dull Cloud which, they say, covered his Character, is now, by the kind Providence of God, cleared up, and that his Inocence shines as the Light, and his Judg­ment as the Noon-Day! We wish with all our Hearts, that all their Candidates were Qualified like him, in respect of Grace and Learning, and that they them­selves, who are so wise in their own Eyes, understood Divinity as well as him, whom they despise, or that [Page 128] all of them together could shew so much Success of their Labours.

Who the Examiner means in his next Paragraph that have, as he says, admitted Novices into their Pulpits, I know not; neither do I know the Names be in­tends by those letters of them which he sets down, and therefore I cannot answer particularly to that Charge; but this I can say in general, that we have been as careful as we could, to keep Novices out of our Pulpits, least contempt should thereby come on the Mini­stry, and other injuries to the Chruch of GOD.

And now we are arriv'd at another head of our Authors Performance, p. 26. entitled, Mr. T's Reflecti­ons on the Practice of the Moravians compar'd with his own Practice and that of his Adherents.

The first Passage he cites from my Writings, is Appendix, p. 106. which is this, ‘Do not some Moravians slight human Reason and Learning? &c. p. 97. Mr. SPANGENBERG declaim'd in my hearing, more than once, against human learning, &c’ In the opposite Collumn to which he says thus. ‘Hath not Mr. T. declaim'd more publickly, and fiercely aginst Learning, then the Moravians, when he pronounc'd his Anathema against the publick Aca­demys, and pour'd contempt upon a learned Clergy, calling them Letter Learned. &c.’

Answ. I have neiter declaim'd publickly nor pri­vately against Learning, but in favour of it. Nor pronounc'd any Anathema against publick Universities. I only said that they are generally corrupt; I meant in respect of religious Principles and Practice, and are they not? Can our Author say the Con­trary? I spake according to the best Information I had, but should be glad to find it a mistake.

Besides I spoke of private School to be erected, especially where there were no Publick ones; which manifests that I had some regard to them.

And the Method I propos'd to be observ'd in private Schools respecting the Examination of Intrants as to their Piety, is different from what is observ'd [Page 129] in publick ones; and in my Opinion is of noble Tendency to serve the Church of God. For then there wou'd be a greater Probability of the Youths being preserv'd from the aforesaid Corruptions, as well as of their greater advances in Religion by the help of mutual Conversation, about experimental Piety.

How inconsistent is our Authors Charge that I should declaim against Learning, while in the mean Time I propose amd incourage Schools for that very end; and more fiercely then the Moravians too. O Strange! Well I see tho' the Examiner has no Charity for me, or my express Declarations; yet he has for the Moravians without any in their favour.

But the Examiner adds, that I pour'd contempt upon a learned Clergy, calling them Letter Learned, &c.

Ans. I didn't design in the Use of those Words our Author mentions, any contempt upon the learning of Ministers, but only to signify my dislike at Per­sons coming into the Ministry, that have no other Qualifications but human Learning. As the Words of the Sermon to which he refers, considered in their Connection do manifest. See Notingham Ser­mon, p. 1. 2. The Sentence runs thus: ‘Why, had the People then no Teachers, O Yes, they had heaps of Pharisee Teachers, that came out, no doubt, after they had been the usual Time at the Feet of Gamaliel, and according to the Acts, Cannons and Traditions of the Jewish Church. And is our Author offended with me for that, wou'd he have me to encourage graceless Men tho' learned, to come into the Ministry? Let him speak out, that we may hear his Mind upon this important Point. The Examiner's next Citation is from Moravian Ser­mon. p. 108. the Words are these. ‘I think it looks exceeding black in the Moravians, to slight spe­culative Knowledge, so as they do, which they call Head-Knowledge. Is not speculative Know­ledge the same for Substance with what is sav­ing, only destitute of its Influence upon Heart and Practice? Ibid. Don't the Moravians begin [Page 130] with the Affections first? And is this fair Dealing?’

In the opposite Column to which the Examiner speaks thus, viz. ‘Why then do we hear so much of the spiritual and mystical Sense of Scripture? &c.’

‘Pray, Has not this been the constant Practice of the Itinerants to address and move the Passions first?’

‘Is not Mr. T. the Primium Mobile, a principal Mover and Promoter of the Passionate-Religion, now prevailing among so many? Is it not as un­fair Dealing in the Itinerants as in the Moravians?’

Ans. Has our Author heard much or little from, me, of the spiritual and mystical Sense of Scripture, if so let him declare it in his next. It seems by this Passage that the Examiner wou'd represent us, as a Tribe of Allegorists and enthusiastick Mysticks; but we point blank deny the Charge, and demand his Proof. Our Author, as appears by the large Blanks in his Columns, seems to grow faint under the Weight of his task, and no wonder indeed. Its pity that a Gen­tleman of his genius should undertake such a bad Cause, as puts him unavoidably to such difficulties for the want of proper Materials. But I proceed to his Question, in answer to which I can truly say, that so far as I know, such as our Author terms Itinerants, their Method (in general) has been first to inform Mens Judgments, about the most impor­tant Points of Religion, and to endeavour to ap­ply them in a close distinguishing and pathetical Manner, to the Consciences and Affections of their hearers, so as to have a Tendency to alarm their Fear and incite their Love.

As to what is farther added against me in par­ticular, viz. "That I am the Primum Mobile, a principal mover and promoter of the Passionate-Re­ligion, now prevailing among so many.

Answ. Observe Reader, the Examiner acknow­ledges than an affectionate Religion, now prevails [Page 131] among many; well here is another Testimony from his own Pen in favour of the late Reformation. In the mean Time I utterly disclaim what he as­cribes to me in these Words, Primum Mobile or first mover. This is an honour which belongs to no meer Man. I am fully perswaded upon the most certain Foundation, that it is the holy Spirit of God, who was the first Mover of what he calls the passionate Religion; and this the Effects thereof, in the Change that has been wrought upon the Govern­ing Tempers of the Minds and general Course of the Lives of Multitudes, do incontestibly prove, to all that are not blinded with unaccountable pre­judice. Can it with any shadow of Reason be sup­posed that Satan wou'd so far fight against his own Interest, as to rouse Multitudes of Sinners out of the Sleep of sinful Security, and excite them to im­portunate Enquiries, and incessant Importunities af­ter Salvation by JESUS CHRIST? And that he would, if he could, change mens Minds and Practice as before observ'd. No surely! by the same Method of caviling, by which some Labour to condemn the late revival of Religion in this Land, they may condemn that Work of God which was in the Apostolick Age.—

But if our Author means no more, than that I have been a principal Promoter under God, of the passionate Religion, he does me much honour, tho' pro­bably not with design. I have been indeed endea­vouring to promote a Religion which includes both Judgment, Passion and Practice in it. And blessed be God he has given Success to my attempts. Pas­sion without Knowledge and Judgment in Religion, is certainly but vain Fancy, and Knowledge and Judg­ment without some degree of Passion, is but dead dry Formality. My own Conscience and multitudes of Mankind can witness for me, that it has been always my endeavour in the Course of my Ministry first to inform Mens minds before I address'd their Consciences and Passions, which I cannot but think [Page 132] is the only proper Method of dealing with intel­ligent Creatures. Certainly Passion is of no farther use in Religion, then it is under the Guidance of a well inform'd Judgment, but thus far it is of ex­cellent use. It is absur'd to suppose that God has given us Passions to be only employ'd about terrene trifles.

Let us now proceed to the 27 p. where our Au­thor quotes the following Words from my Moravian Sermon. ‘Do they not endeavour to insinuate themselves into Peoples Affections first, by Smiles &c. And in p. 65. Do any esteem the Moravian Sect, because they smile generally and appear loving; but Brethren is not this Judas like to betray us with a kiss; for while they shew such Love, they draw pious People into Errors, and so set them a quarelling with one another, shall we suffer them to smile us out of our Principles, then I'm sure we are poorly grounded in them.’

Ibid. ‘Do not they take special care to apply to young Persons, Females and Ignorant People who are full of Affection?’

‘Who do they imitate in attacking the weaker Part of Man, viz. the Passions, and the weaker Sex first, but the Devil, the Father of Lies and Er­rors? Did not he deal thus with our first Parents, and by the weaker Sex seduced Adam?

Upon the opposite Column we have these Words of our Examiner, viz. ‘Who can help smiling at this, that considers what is past and now is.— Strange that Mr. T. should complain of the Mora­vian Smiles in religious Matter! When it is no­torious, that he himself not only smil'd but laugh'd heartily over his Converts, even while they were under a preparatory Work of the Law, and his followers have practised upon him, and not been asham'd to express their Joy at,—by loud laugh­ing even in the Solemn Assemblies. Is not this ludere cum Sacris,? an unjustifiable Practice in one as well as another.’

[Page 133] ‘And is not this Practice exactly correspondent with the Practice of Mr. T. and other heady Itine­rants, which creep into Houses and have had most Success among Females and young ignorant People.

‘The whole Passage is so very applicable to Iti­nerants in general, That I should have taken it for a Representation, (not to say Refutation of their Conduct) if Mr. T. had not taught me to apply it to the Moravians.

Answ. Here let the Reader observe, that the Ex­aminer misrepresents my meaning, and has left out a pretty deal that serves to explain it; he says, I com­plain of the Moravian Smiles in religious Matters: But this is a false Charge, it is only their abuse of them that I complain of, and not the meer Use of them in religious Matters; namely, their trying to insinuate themselves into Peoples Affection by them, thro' shews of Love, and so to draw them into Error, while in the mean Time they conceal their Princi­ples, until the Affections are fixed.

If the Heart is fill'd with Love and Joy, it will naturally make the face Serene. And have I smil'd and laugh'd heratily over my Converts, (or People wro't upon by my Ministry) while under a prepa­ratory Work of the Law: Well, and where is the Harm of it, it shew'd that I was glad that poor sin­siers were in a likely way to come to Christ: And wou'd our Author have me to be sorry upon such an Occasion? God forbid! I wou'd rather immitate the Example of our Lord, who tho' a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with Grief, yet rejoyc'd in Spirit at such an event, viz. When Satan fell as Lightning from Heaven.

And here let it be noticed, by the by, that I am Honoured with another Testimony from our Examiner, to the Success of my Ministry, for it seems, even according to his own acknowledgment, that some were brought under a Work of the Law by my Labours.

As to laughing loud in Religious Assemblies, if any have been guilty of it, I will not undertake to be their Patron, in that I think it is undecent and of bad Re­port. [Page 134] But to shew the Examiner's unfair dealing un-this Head of Charge, I will cite the whole Para­graph he refers to, See Moravian Sermon page 106. the Words are these, viz. ‘Don't the Moravians be­gin with the Affections first? and is this fair Deal­ing? Do they not endeavour to insinuate them­selves into Peoples Affections first, by Smiles and soft Discourses about the Love of CHRIST, and by a seemingly innocent, simple and loving Behaviour, while in the mean Time they care­fully hide their Principles until the Affections are catch'd, and then let them out by Degrees? Should not they show their Principles first, before the Affections are fix'd, that so People might judge of them with calmness and impartiality?’

As to the next particular of Charge, viz. Creeping into Houses, &c. I answer that his Application is unjust and untrue: Neither I nor any of my Brethren have crept into Houses, &c. Instead of sculking and un­derhand Methods, we have declar'd our religious Sen­timents freely on all proper Occasions, and in the openest Manner possible, before the greatest con­courses of learned and unlearned Men that ever Ame­rica has seen of a Religious kind.

Neither has our Success, thro divine Grace, been confined to Females and young ignorant People, but has extended to Persons of almost every age, order and condition of Life, learned and unlearned, rich and poor, old and young, honourable and ignoble, male and female, tho' in the mean time we look upon the Conversion of Females and ignorant Persons, to be a Matter of infinite Importance, and do glo­rify God upon the Account thereof.

And here let the Reader observe another Testi­mony to our Success from the Pen of an Opposer, and that even when he is trying to run us and it down, and that expresly contrary to what he has said page 24. in these Words, And pray what good do the [Page 135] Itinerants do by their Traveling, unless it be good to sow Tares, to corrupt and divide religious People.

But we proceed to his 28 pag. where he quotes the following Words from my Moravian Sermon, p. 107. ‘And don't they refuse generally to reason upon Points in Religion, whereby one might con­vince another, and leave People to be proselyted by sight only! It is politick in them indeed to wave Reasoning and to shun Discovery, for their Principles will bear neither.’

In the opposite Column the Examiner speaks thus, viz. ‘This Rev. Gentleman had forgot surely the Motto of his own Party, viz. Answer him not a Word, when he whote this, it is thought by some that their Strength was herein.’

Answ. I can't be said to forget that which I never knew. The controversal Writings that some of us have make publick, do declare to the World, that what has been now said is not our Motto, and I hope these Sheets will convince the Examiner that it is not mine.

But it seems indeed that our Author was of Opi­nion, that Answer him not a Word, was our Motto, otherwise how could he run such Lengths as he has done in his Performance.

The next Passage that the Examiner quotes from my Moravian Sermon is p. 65. the Words are these, ‘My Soul is greived to see the childish Fickleness of the Sons and Daughters of this Generation, who are toss'd about with every Wind of Doc­trine; who are smil'd out of their Religion, without being able to offer one solid Reason for their Change.’

Upon the opposite Column to which, he says, ‘Even so many judicious and serious Christians are grieved at the Heart to see the childish Fickel­ness of many Professors at this Day, who are as Children tossed to and fro, and carried about with diverse and strange Doctrines, separating themselves and having [Page 136] Men's Persons in Admiration; without being able to offer one solid Reason for their Change.

Answ. How unjust and unreasonable is the Examiners Application of the aforesaid Paragraph to me, and such as join with me, as it is evident he does, from the general Title of this Head of Charges before related. Wherein have I in particular been carried about with every Wind of Doctrine, or separated myself, having Mens Persons in Admiration? It is true indeed I can't give a solid Reason for my Change, because I have suffer'd none. Will this Author tell us how I have been smil'd out of my Religion?

Pray does the Examiner mean by Strange Doctrines the Doctrines of Grace, namely of original Sin, Justifi­cation by the righteousness of Christ alone, the New-Birth, the Perseverance of the Saints, are these Strange to him? If so I'm sorry for it: But I'm sure they are not so to the reform'd Churches, as appears by the har­mony of their Confessions of Faith. Now these are the Doctrines that ourselves and hearers have been chiefly affected with, and influenced by. And is the Examiner sorry for that, then he himself is an object of Pitty, and so are those whom he calls judicious and serious Christians, if they join with him therein.

As to the Accusation of having Mens Persons in Ad­miration, I hope I may say in behalf of my self and Brethren, that the chief Reasons why we admire Persons are their Goodness and Usefulness to the Church of God, and that it is our desire and endea­vour in the general, to proportion our esteem to the Degrees thereof. As to the Charge of Separation it has been before answered.

But our Examiner in the mean Time seems to be realy guilty of what he without Foundation char­ges upon us, in as much as by this Performance he seems to admire those, who oppose the Power of Religion this Way, and who hold, some of them, these Strange Doctrines, viz. That Conviction is not necessary to Conversion. That there is no inward call to the Ministry, and the Notion of the rigid Independants [Page 137] and Brownists, respecting the Peoples Relation to their Pastor, viz. that it is equal to that of a Marriage Con­tract: And who have separated themselves.—And thus our Author appears to be guilty of admiring of Persons in the worst Sense.—The next Passage our Au­thor quotes from Moravian Sermon, is p. 58. ‘Children are fond of new Things, that look bright tho' of little Value: Thus Novices in Christia­nity who are just beginning the Christian Course, ignorant in a great Measure, as to Christian Principles, but full of Affection and self Con­ceit, when a Moravian comes among them, sitts down a while, and look very Harmless, Innocent and Sober, gives some smiles, and talks about the Blood of Christ, in their Mystical Way, and of Love, Love. O brave, O what a fine Man is this!’

In the opposite Column we have these Words of the Examiner, viz. ‘It is a moving Argument, and Proof that People are not so well taught in this Land as is pretended, but have now as much need as ever to have their Minds instructed as well as their Passions mov'd.—The Image is very Strong and lively.’

Answ. The Examiners applying to us, the Mora­vians Mystical Way of talking about the Blood of Christ, is so false and trifling that it deserves no An­swer: Our Author was exceedingly straitned here, for the want of Matter, and well he might if he has any remains of Conscience in him.

But the Examiner proceeds to quote a Paragraph from my Moravian Sermon p. 107. which runs thus. ‘Certainly we should adhere inviolably to the Prin­ciples we have been instructed in, until we find better, which we should be always ready to re­ceive upon proper Conviction, which is not to be attain'd by a sight of the Grimaces of Strangers or by immediate Revelations or Enthusiasms, but by Scripture, Reason and Argument.’ And p. 52. I direct to hold fast CHRIST'S precious Truth, thus. ‘It is needful to wave a positive Conclusion respecting the Good State of Strangers, when we [Page 138] have not sufficient Evidences for it in respect of their Principles, Experiences and Practice. Rash judging either Way is certainly unreasonable and prejudicial, when Persons do speedily with­out sufficient Reason, conclude Strangers who come among them to be Pious and perhaps emi­nently so, because of their fair Appearances in Behaviour, without examining their Principles; by this rash Method of proceeding their Affecti­ons are apt to be unreasonably engag'd in their Favour, and these being inflam'd do give a secret wrong By ass to their Judgment, and thus they lay themselves open to all Manner of Delusion.’

After which the Examiner observes as follows, viz. ‘I am confident the impartial Reader is fully con­vinced by this time, that Mr. Tennent has drawn his own Picture to the Life, by the Representa­tion he has given of the Principles and Practices of the Moravians, and that I have only set the Mirror in such a Position that He and his Adhe­rents may see themselves, and be ashamed. But if they are blinded with Self-love, Admiration, Conceit, Party-Zeal, and the like, and will not, or cannot see their own Likeness; I believe o­thers have so much of a Spirit of discerning, as to see that M. T—t and his Partizans as nearly resemble the Character here given of the Moravians, as one Crow's Egg does another (to use his own homely Comparison.)’

Answ. If the Reader had no other Representation of the Case, then that Partial one which the Exa­miner has given in his Performance, he might proba­bly be enduced to think hard of me, and that I was inconsistent with my self; for tho' there be little re­gard to Truth and Candor in our Authors Composure, yet several Stroaks in it are manag'd with much Art and apparent Plausibility. I cannot but think that the Examiner is a Gentlemen of Wit and Address, otherwise he cou'd not have manag'd so well so bad a Cause as he has done, but 'tis Pitty his Talents are [Page 139] not turned into another Channel, that might better serve the Interests of Truth and Religion, as well as his own Reputation.

The Mirror our Author has set before the Rea­der, is but some broken Pieces set in a wrong Situa­tion, which serve only to deceive the Mind with false Images of Persons and Things.

It is true I am asham'd, when I read his Perfor­mance, but not for my Self but him. On the con­trary I think I am honour'd, when traduced for the Sake of Truth and Piety.

The Conclusion of the aforesaid Paragraph is as false as ever any thing was true, namely, That I and my Partizans (as he is pleas'd to term my dear and reverend Brethren) as neerly resemble the Character here given of the Moravians, as one Crow's Egg does a­nother. If the whole Paragraph be considered, it will appear that in this Sentence the Examiner has a Ref­ference, to all that he had cited from my Sermons respecting the Moravians. Here observe this Gen­tleman is Positive that the Similitude is as exact as any Thing can be, but under the particular Heads of Charge in several of his Columns, the judicious Reader may perceive, that sometimes he varies in the Application, leaves out some things altogether, and alters others to suit his Design; and in some Places he is Indistinct and General and speaks but a very little, leaving large Blanks (and perhaps it would have been more to his Credit if it had been all a Blank.) How inconsistent are these Things?

He says if we are so blinded, &c. that we will not or cannot see our own Likeness. He believes others have so much of a Spirit of discerning, as to see the Resemblance is as exact as that of one Crow's Egg to another.

Answ. A true Spirit of discerning will perceive as much Difference between the two, (if I may be allowed to use another homely Simile) as between an Apple and an Oyster, or rather as between black and white. To apprehend as he does, requires not right discerning or true distinguishing, but a Perversion [Page 140] of the Sight, either thro' a defect of the optick Or­gans, or by this false Mirror he presents.

However if the Examiner will not be offended, I will beg leave to use the homely Words, be com­plains of, once more in the following Manner, viz. That I am apt to think that by this Time the impartial Reader may perceive as great a resemblance between the Examiner and the Opposers of God's Work here, in divers Particulars, as between one Crow's Egg and another.

But I hasten to consider the next Paragraph in his 30th. p. which runs thus. ‘The Reader may take this Examination as an Help to discover what is Truth in the late Religious Commotion in this Country, and he will find it to be just that which the Opposers, so called, are zealous to maintain, viz. the Order of the Gospel, and the sacred Honours due to the holy Spirit of God. Strip this Work of its Extraordinaries, and you will discern what is the Work of God, from that which is added to it by Art and Man's Device. Pray what is there Extraordinary on one side more than t'other, but what is justly to be exploded, viz. extraordinary Errors, Disorders, Intrusions, rash Censures, Clamorous Exclamations, vain-glorious Boastings, Fits, Pretence of Sights and Visions, Roarings, Tremblings, &c. Compare Mr. T— with himself, and shave off his Extraordinaries (turning the Edge of his own Weapon on him­self) and his Strength will go from him, and he will be like any other Man; a Man subject to like Passions as we are. I can't find but that the New-Brunswick Party are fallible as other Men, and chargeable with as many Errors, Intrusi­ons, Contradictions, &c. as their Neighbours, whom they are ready to condemn as Enemies of God's Work and Enemies of Religion meerly for op­posing their Errors and real Indiscretions: Whereas the true Interest of Religion is doubt­less serv'd by such Opposition.’

[Page 141] ‘I know no shorter Method to open the Eyes of blind Party-Zealots, and convince them of the bad Tendency of extraordinary Self-Conceit, Domi­nion, rash Judging, &c. than to bring them home to their own Doors, and turn these Edge-Tools upon themselves; prove them now herewith, and you will find these crucified Gentlemen have yet as much Sensation and are as ready to cry out of Danger as any of their abused Neighbours.’

‘The Moravians it seems treated Mr. Tennent in the same uncharitable, censorious, imperious, di­visive Manner in which he himself has treated the Body of the Clergy of this Generation, and then the Spirit appears to him in a most frightful Shape, and must be avoided. Now it is come upon thee, thou faintest: And it toucheth thee, and thou art trou­bled.

In Answer to what has been said, let me brief­ly observe, that if any Body wants to entertain prejudice against the late glorious revival of Religion in this Land, or an unjust Notion of the greatness of it, the Examiner's Performance may be some help that Way in respect of some Stroaks that are in it.

However it should be remark'd for the Honour of the late revival of Piety, that while our Author is industriously painting it in a Sable dress, he is constrain'd to confess in this Paragraph that there was some reality in it, which he terms the Order of the Gospel and the sacred Honours due to the holy Spirit of God.

And while the Examiner proposes this Question viz, What is extraordinary upon one side more than ano­ther? He hereby allows an equality of Success in preaching as to Success, between the Friends and Op­posers of the late Reformation of Religion, then by an unavoidable consequence, our Author must either deny that they had any Success at all, (which I sup­pose he wou'd be loth to do) or acknowledge ours, I see not how he can get clear of this Dilemma.

[Page 142]But in the mean Time while he owns some reali­ty in it he puts a bear Skin over it, and talks of something added to it by Art and Man's Devise, and then repeats his thread bare Catalogue of frightful Things, extraordinary Errors, &c. &c. &c. which has been before considered. It's true indeed the Bear Skin he mentions is added to the late Work, by Art and Man's Devise. Let it be strip'd of those false Co­lours, and then it will appear in its own native Beauty: And unless he deals with it as its story'd of the Tyrant Procrustes, who cut off Men's Legs to make them of an equal Length, he cannot bring the Success of Itinerants down to a Level, with that of Opposers.

If the Opposers had been Zealous to maintain the honours of the holy Spirit there wou'd be no Debate subsisting among us respecting the late Reformation. But pray why does the Examiner put the Order of the Gospel (so call'd) before the sacred Honours due to the holy Spirit. By this unreasonable Precedence it seems that our Author perferrs Externals before the Life of Piety, which is sinful and Scandalous: But because the Examiner and his Brethen talk of Order (usque ad­ravim) so much, I will beg Leave to cite a Passage upon this Head, from the Works of excellent and judicious Mr. FLAVEL, in his Husbandry spirituliz'd Volum 2. p. 307. of the 4th Edition, upon an excel­lent but irregular Tree. ‘Seeing a Tree grow somewhat Irregular in a very neat Orchard, I told the Owner it was Pitty that Tree should stand there, and that if it were mine I would root it up, and thereby reduce the Orchard to exact uniformity. It was reply'd to this purpose, That he rather regarded the Fruit then the Form; and that this slight inconveniency was abundantly preponderated by a more considerable Advantage. This Tree, said he, which you wou'd root up hath yielded me more Fruit then many of those Trees, which have nothing else to commend them but their regular Situation. I could not but [Page 143] yield to the Reason of this Answer; and could wish it had been spoken so loud that all our uni­formity Men had heard it, who will not stick to root up many Hundred of the best bearers in the Lords Orchard, because they stand not in an exact order with other more conformable, but less beneficial Trees, who do perdere Substan­tiam propter Accidentia, destroy the Fruit to pre­serve the Form.’

"Not much unlike such foolish Men are those,

"That strive for Shadows and their Substance loose.

As to the Examiners complisance to me, in pro­posing the use of the Rasor, I would beg Leave to assure him, that I neither have, or ever had, such a monstrous Beard of Extraordinaries, as he talks of.

But I must make bold to tell the Examiner, that he has got a very long Beard, the Hairs of Falshood and Prejudice stick out so long upon it, that it is undecent, I wou'd advise him therefore to be shaven as soon as may be for his own Credit and Comfort.

As to that of turning the Edge of my Weapon upon my self, the Examiner has try'd artfully and industri­ously the Method he proposes, but I am not sen­sible that the Effect he mentions has been the Issue of it, viz. That my Strength is gone from me.

The New-Brunswick Party (as he calls them) have never pretended to infallibility,—and as to his Charge of Errors and intrusions, &c. it has been be­fore considered. But while our Author asserts that the New-Brunswick Party, are chargeable with as ma­ny Errors, Intrusions, Contradictions, &c. as their Neigh­bours. Seeing that he believes the aforesaid Accusa­tions are realy applicable to us, dosn't he declare by the same Breath, that his Dear Brethren the Oppo­sers here, are equally guilty of them in his Opinion, and if so why does he so partially prefer them be­fore us? as appears from divers Passages of his Per­formance, and particularly from the following Para­graph in which the Examiner calls us blind Party Zealots.

[Page 144] Answ. We are obliged to our Author for his kind Compliments, but are humbly of Opinion, that it is proper for him to enquire whether there be not Reason to apply them nearer home?

But methinks our Authors advice in respect of proving us, &c. as before express'd—and saying you will find these crucified Gentlemen have as much Sensation and are as ready to cry out of Danger as any of their Neighbours, somewhat resembles Satans Pro­posal concerning Job. Job 1.9.10.11. then Satan an­swered the Lord and said, doth Job fear God for nought, hast thou not made a Hedge about him—but put forth thine Hand now and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy Face. But the Examiner knows that after a most formidable Tryal, when even Heaven it self lowr'd, and Earth and Hell combin'd in a cruel Confederacy against him; when the most dis­tressing & gloomy Train of complicated Calamities of of various Forms, rold upon him in a thick and in­cessant Succession, his gallant noble Soul preserv'd its integrity and stood firm as an impregnable Rock amidst the boysterous Billows, which with unfriend­ly Violence in vain essay'd to disturb its repose and Security. In a Word, the Issue prov'd, God himself being Judge, that the Accuser of the Brethren was not able to maintain his envious Charge.

I can with integrity of Heart assure our Author that I do not cry out of Danger, on the Account of any Treatment I have received of the Moravians, but because of the Hurt they are doing to the Church of God. I am thro' Mercy so far from fainting upon that Account that it dosn't create the least uneasi­ness in me.—

O but the old Story comes over again, that I have treated the Body of the Clergy of this Generation in an un­charitable Manner, &c. Why didn't he say unconverted Ministers, for sure that is the Case, O No! that woudn't Answer his and his Friends Purpose, for then the nakedness and naughtiness of their Cause in defending the ungodly Ministry, would [Page 145] be open to every Eye, and therefore they give it an artful turn, in order to hide its filthy Face from the common People, and harp often upon this plausibly String, that I treat uncharitably and censo­riously the Body of the Clergy, the Body of the Clergy of this Generation: Why what's the Matter, do I speak a Word against converted Ministers in the Noting­ham Sermon, no not a Word. What need they then take in such great Dudgeon what I speak against un­godly Ministers in general. Except they be such themselves they shoudn't apply it, but if the Ca­racters mention'd in the Sermon suit their Case and Course, in its main Stroaks pretty exactly, why then indeed they ought to apply it, but kindly, and humbly pray for converting Grace. To use our Authors Words, when the Notingham Sermon touches them why do they faint and cry out of Danger? Indeed if they find themselves graceless and cry out of the Danger of their own present State, I shou'dn't find fault with them upon that Account; but for them to cry out of Danger in Relation to the Church of God, because the unonverted Clergy are plainly spoke against, is very preposterous.

What wou'd they have me do, should I speak well of graceless Ministers, when some of them especially, are the Bane of Religion, the Pest of the Church, and Burden of the Creation? In this I must beg to be excused.

Our Authors last Paragraphs are spent in cen­suring Mr. DAVENPORTS Clamorous preach­ing in Boston, against unconverted Ministers, and in an earnest Advice to me to retract the Noting­ham Sermon.

As to the Manner of Mr. DAVENPORT'S preaching in Boston against unconverted Ministers, not having heard him there, not having a full and certain Information on both Sides, I shall say no­thing to it.

But in regard to our Authors Advice to retract the Notingham Sermon, I must beg to be excus'd [Page 146] until I see some Reason for it. The Examiner calls that Sermon an Incendiary, and adjudges it to the fire, hard Words, hard Sentence indeed, why is there no good in it at all, or wou'd he burn the Good with what he calls bad, and is this equitable? I humbly conceive our Author is mis­taken when he says, that the Notingham Sermon causes Contentions: No, the true Cause is graceless Ministers opposing of it. Me thinks it would be more to their Credit prudently to let it alone upon their own Account, for when they keep mut­tering, growling and scolding at it, it does but give People Ground to suspect they are of that unhap­py Tribe and Party themselves, which is therein detected and censured.

And to conclude Sir, I beg leave to return your Compliment, so far as to advise you to consider, if your present Performance, which is fill'd with so many unjust Invectives against God's Work and Servants, dosn't deserve a hard Fate, but I am not so earnest for your burning it, as your repenting over your Impiety in the Composure of it,

I am Sir, your real Friend, tho' unknown, G. TENNENT.
‘Pride goeth before Destruction, and a haughty Spirit be­fore a Fall. Prov. 16.18.‘Nihil unquam tam impar sibi. Hor.
Niteris iucassum Christi Submergere Navine
Fluctuat at nunquam mergitur illa rates

P.S. That Passage which is mention'd p. 121 of Mr. Davenports misconduct at New-London, has been ad­ded long since the Composure of this Performance.

[Page]

ERRATA.

FOR feels, page 3. line 15. read feel. For en pas­sent, p. 6. l. 20. r. en passant. f. C. E. G. p. 17. l. 36. r. E. G. f. this, p. 21. l. 8. r. in this. f. pass under, p. 21. l. 17. r. under. f its Author, p. 32. l. 3. r. it and it's Author. f. proper Panegy­rick, p. 38. l. 17. r. a proper Panegyrick. f. bear, p. 43. l. 14. r. bear a. f. and C. p. 45. l. 20. r. &c. f. Succession, p. 51. l. 14. r. Success in. f. gives no, p. 93. l. 30. r. gives me no. f. others, p. 69. l. 3. r. other. f. within, p. 75. l. 12. r. within me. f. refused, p. 78 l. 1. r. refuse. f. well, p. 78. l. 27. r. well as. f. Charactes, p. 81. l. 32. 33. r. Characters f. is not it, p. 87. l. 37. r. is it not. for frees, p. 88. l. 9. r. free. f. hender, p: 98. l. 30. r. hinder. f. gaet, p. 100. l. 9. r. great. f. Scripture, p. 105 l. 13. r. Scriptures. f. consist, p. 111. l. 37. r. consists f. heard, p. 113. l. 13. r. read. f. School p. 128. l. 35. r. Schools. f. absur'd, p. 132. l. 5. r. absurd.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.