man must Judge for himself, & tis impossible another can Judge for him, and that hereupon he ought to follow the Dictates of his own Conscience-That tis every mans duty to pursue this end, as tis the Noblest & highest that can be proposed by the fittest & best means-from these principles wh are indisputable, it evidently follows, that when a man apprehends he can obtain the afores end better in one Congregation than in another, he ought to Join to that weh he Judges the better for that purpose. & when a number sufficient to embody in Church order have the same Judgm' as to that point they ought to separate & embody; it then becomes their duty for it is certainly a duty to use those means we Judge fittest, for obtaining the best end: & the omission of it is the omission of a Known duty, for which Conscience will Inevitably Condemn-he that denies this must with the same breath condemn the Reformation for upon these & such like principles the Reformed Church Separated from the church of Room, who condemnd them for it, for she mortally hated Separations- He therefore that will not allow of it in the cases here put, must if he will be consistent in his principles. Return to the mother Church from which the first Reformers separated- Now the civil Magistrates Ought to be the minister of God for good to the People, & where their greatest good is concernd ought to give them the greatest Countenance. If it be said tis enough for such separatists to enjoy their Liberty of Separating without being Eas'd of their taxes-the answer is that would be making them purchase their_Liberty of those who enjoy their own freely & is not Liberty Equally every mans right who has not forfeited it? If so no man should be oblig'd to purchase it at a dearer Rate than his neighbour, and where such a separation is made from an apprehension of duty & in Obedience to Conscience it is so far from being Just matter of Reproach or blame to the party or of offence to others, that it ought on the other hand to Receive that Countenance & approbation justly due to those who have a sense of duty & tenderness of Conscience sufficient to put them upon the performance of itThe Respond's indeed say the Petitioners are a small number of Persons, who separate thro' unreasonable prejudice & here again they suppose that true wch we deny, namely that we have no Reason for separating-for it appears to us to be duty upon such principles & arguments as have been before mentioned & therefore think ourselves free from the just imputation of prejudice, & they have no Right to judge our hearts & condemn us for Hypocrites- Beside how easy it is to charge, & to Return the charge of unreasonable prejudice. Every party in Politicks as well as Religion is exceeding apt to think all the opposition to their measures proceeds from unreason able Prejudice, & if men would but open their eyes they must needs see things as they do and none more apt to run Riot in this opinion than that party which is uppermost, which always supposes it self in the Right- But here it seems in this case it is quite plain there is the opinion & Result of a CouncilBut we cant think it proper to trouble this Court with those affairs, a particular detail & Consideration of wch would be more than could be done in a weeks time, nor are they at all proper to be discuss'd here- and after all should it be done it would amount to no more than this-Two men differ each calls in his friend to advise which they do, but advise differently according to their Different Apprehension & thereupon each man follows & applauds the advice he likes best- In short whenever a sufficient number agree to go off from a church or churches, & Embody by themselves & by their outward actions or the General course of their lives in a Judgment of charity there is Reason to think them sincere in their pretensions, if they are willing to support the preaching of the gospel & other ordinances among themselves & especially when their Separation does not break up the churches they leave, we humbly Conceive, & with great deference & submission would say they have a right to demand of the authority, that protection, Exemption & Countenance whereby they may Enjoy their Opinions & Sacred Rights on as Cheap & Easy terms as their neighbours so far as the Circumstances of their case will admit The Sixth & Last Article begins with charging the Peticion with absurdity &c In desiring some allowance for w they have paid towards the settlem' of the ministy &c- As to the settlem of the Rev Mr Odlin the Elder, tis out of the Question, but as to the other we see no such absurdity, for many Reasons, but especially considering this was purposely made as chargeably, even to us, as it could be, by making that a Public charge which might have been otherways defrayed, as to Other parts of this Article tis comprised in the foregoing there being no great difference between saying, men Separate from unreasonable pre Judice, & saying it is evil in self, that it is of Evil Example & draws others to do the like differs little from saying it would be of Dangerous consequence to the Churches, all which is only beging the thing in Question -for we think it for the good of the churches, if by Churches we understand the People of the churches & not the Minister only, & if by good, is meant their Spiritual Edification & not the great point of maintaining the minister in Affluence & Ease-But this they say if done will be a leading example & we say all the better, if it be a thing which ought to be done, which is our apprehension of it, & that not only in this case but all others so circumstanc'd; as to other fearful consequences mention'd they are merely chimerical: & Deserve noAnswer- But here it is worth considering whether force, Compulsion or Restraint is a likely way to promote the Interests of pure religion, whether to compel to Conformity is a likely means Ever did or ever will Make a sincere Conformist, & what Interest is such a Conduct likely to promote, unless that of the purse of the parishioners & the more comfortable Subsistence of the Parson for the Larger the Parish, the higher the Salary is no false Logick-But those who are agst their neighbours Spiritual Benefit from Lucrative or frugal principles do not do as they would be done by, they do not Exercise that charity which seeketh not her own, and he is Effectually agt such benefit who prevents or Endeavours to prevent his neighbours from using those means he judges his duty to use. St Pauls Exhortation in this case is for every man to please his neighbours for his good to Edification-As to other matters taken notice of in this Article of the answer we cant think them of so much consequence in This debate as to need a particular Reply-The Building a meeting house or not is of no farther moment in this affair than as it argues those who have done it to be in Earnest & That they think it to be a matter of Some Consequence or they would not have been at that Charge Upon the whole it is Humbly Submitted whether the Interest of Religion will not be more promotedwhether any such pernicions consequences are like to follow as are Suggested & whether the Interests of a Considerable number of good & faithful Subjects to the Government will not be advanced by granting this Petition? and Lastly whether the Consequences are not likely to be more pernicious which must follow from a Denial We whose names are under written having by chance heard that his Excelency & the Honble Councel heath sent a Survaier (1) to the Parish of Brintwood in order to Devide the same, and we being taking into the Lower Part and have bin at Grate Charge in Getting the Parish, We Pray that we may not be Conbin'd therin for we are sencible that their is not a sufficient number in it be at the Nessuary Charges of a town Parish on Preseint, but that we may have a years Liberty for consideration on what His Excelency shall se fit to Give 18 (1) In the original MS. volume, pp. 27-31, are surveys or plans of the proposed distinct Parishes. ED. Jonathan Cram Jeremiah Row Jonathan Robenson Moses Jewett Jonathan Thing John Mudgett Petition of sundry inhabitants of Exeter to be incorporated into a new Parish. To his Excellency Benning Wentworth Esq' Captain Generall. Governor and Commander in Chief In and over his Majesties Province of New Hampshire and To the Honble His Majesties Council and House of Representatives Convened in Generall Assembly The Petition of a Number of the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of the Town of Exeter in Said Province Humbly sheweth That there has been a Minister settled in said Town of Exeter Contrary to the Minds of many of your Petitioners who Timely Enter'd their Dissents against it That your petitioners have hitherto (Contrary to their Minds) been compell'd to pay Taxes for the support of the said Minister (who carrys on the Publick Worship in the Old Meeting house in said Town) Which your Petitioners Humbly Conceive is unreasonable and Unjust That your Petitioners have Erected a Meeting house & Settled a Minister at their own Cost, and with the Help of Some Valuable Donations appropriated to the use of the Church Have supported the Gospel and Carry'd on the Publick Worship of God in the Said New Meeting house For about Twelve years last past with Peace and Concord amongst themselves Wherefore your Petitioners Humbly pray Your Excellency & your Honours to Take the case of your Petitioners under your wise Consideration and Grant us Relief, By Freeing your Petitioners with their Estates, & such other Persons (and their Estates) as shall joyn with us (within a time to be Limited by your Excellency & your Hon) From paying any Tax for the support of the ministry in the said Old meeting house for the Future; And by Incorporating us and Such Persons, and Investing us with Such Powers & Securing to us such Priviledges or otherwise Granting us such Aid or Relief as your Excellency & Honors In your Great Wisdom shall Think best And your Petitioners as in duty Bound shall ever Pray &cApril 8th 1755 Peter Gilman Sam Gilman Daniel Thing Thomas Lord Benja Thing Abner Thurston John Dean Nath Folsom Summersbee Gilman Josiah Ladd Sam Dollof Widow Mary Gilman Province of N. Hampshire In Council April 9th 1755 John Lougee, Jr Daniel Gilman James Thurston Jr Read & ordered to be sent down to the Honble Assembly Province of In Council, Eodin Die Read & Concurred Matthew Livermore, Clerk. Theod Atkinson-Secry. Province of In the House of Representatives, Sept 6th 1755 Upon hearing the Petitioners of the within Petition and the Respondents Voted that the Petitioners be set off as a Distinct and Separate Parish from the old parish in Exeter with the Estates they do or shall own in sd Town for the time being and for the future that when any person or persons shall come into sd Town to settle or any Person or Persons in sd Town shall arrive to the age of twenty one years such persons shall have the liberty of three months to determine to which Parish such Person will belong to gether with the Estates they then do |