[
{"created_timestamp": "01-01-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0001", "content": "Title: Poor Richard, 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nCourteous Reader,\nThis is the third Time of my appearing in print, hitherto very much to my own Satisfaction, and, I have reason to hope, to the Satisfaction of the Publick also; for the Publick is generous, and has been very charitable and good to me. I should be ungrateful then, if I did not take every Opportunity of expressing my Gratitude; for ingratum si dixeris, omnia dixeris: I therefore return the Publick my most humble and hearty Thanks.\nWhatever may be the Musick of the Spheres, how great soever the Harmony of the Stars, \u2019tis certain there is no Harmony among the Stargazers; but they are perpetually growling and snarling at one another like strange Curs, or like some Men at their Wives: I had resolved to keep the Peace on my own part, and affront none of them; and I shall persist in that Resolution: But having receiv\u2019d much Abuse from Titan Leeds deceas\u2019d, (Titan Leeds when living would not have us\u2019d me so!) I say, having receiv\u2019d much Abuse from the Ghost of Titan Leeds, who pretends to be still living, and to write Almanacks in spight of me and my Predictions, I cannot help saying, that tho\u2019 I take it patiently, I take it very unkindly. And whatever he may pretend, \u2019tis undoubtedly true that he is really defunct and dead. First because the Stars are seldom disappointed, never but in the Case of wise Men, Sapiens dominabitur astris, and they fore-show\u2019d his Death at the Time I predicted it. Secondly, \u2019Twas requisite and necessary he should die punctually at that Time, for the Honour of Astrology, the Art professed both by him and his Father before him. Thirdly, \u2019Tis plain to every one that reads his two last Almanacks (for 1734 and 35) that they are not written with that Life his Performances use to be written with; the Wit is low and flat, the little Hints dull and spiritless, nothing smart in them but Hudibras\u2019s Verses against Astrology at the Heads of the Months in the last, which no Astrologer but a dead one would have inserted, and no Man living would or could write such Stuff as the rest. But lastly, I shall convince him from his own Words, that he is dead, (ex ore suo condemnatus est) for in his Preface to his Almanack for 1734, he says, \u201cSaunders adds another Gross Falshood in his Almanack, viz. that by my own Calculation I shall survive until the 26th of the said Month October 1733, which is as untrue as the former.\u201d Now if it be, as Leeds says, untrue and a gross Falshood that he surviv\u2019d till the 26th of October 1733, then it is certainly true that he died before that Time: And if he died before that Time, he is dead now, to all Intents and Purposes, any thing he may say to the contrary notwithstanding. And at what Time before the 26th is it so likely he should die, as at the Time by me predicted, viz. the 17th of October aforesaid? But if some People will walk and be troublesome after Death, it may perhaps be born with a little, because it cannot well be avoided unless one would be at the Pains and Expence of laying them in the Red Sea; however, they should not presume too much upon the Liberty allow\u2019d them; I know Confinement must needs be mighty irksome to the free Spirit of an Astronomer, and I am too compassionate to proceed suddenly to Extremities with it; nevertheless, tho\u2019 I resolve with Reluctance, I shall not long defer, if it does not speedily learn to treat its living Friends with better Manners. I am, Courteous Reader, Your obliged Friend and Servant,\nR. Saunders\nSays \u2644 to \u2642, Brother, when shall I see\nPenn\u2019s People a scraping Acquaintance with thee?\nSays \u2642, only \u2643 knows; but this I can tell,\nThey neglect me for Hermes, they love him too well.\nO, if that be Case, says \u2644, ne\u2019er fear,\nIf they\u2019re tender of Hermes, and hold him so dear,\nThey\u2019ll solicit thy Help e\u2019er I\u2019ve finish\u2019d my Round,\nUsing \u2642 Hermes\u2019 Foes to deter or confound.\nXI Mon. January hath xxxi days.\n  The two or three Necessaries.\nTwo or three Frolicks abroad in sweet May,\nTwo or three civil Things said by the way,\nTwo or three Languishes, two or three Sighs,\nTwo or three Bless me\u2019s! and Let me die\u2019s!\nTwo or three Squeezes, and two or three Towzes,\nWith 2 or 3 hundred Pound spent at their Houses,\nCan never fail cuckolding two or three Spouses.\nLook before, or you\u2019ll find yourself behind.\nBad Commentators spoil the best of books,\nSo God sends meat (they say) the devil Cooks.\nApprove not of him who commends all you say.\nBy diligence and patience, the mouse bit in two the cable.\nFull of courtesie, full of craft.\nXII Mon. February hath xxviii days.\nAmong the vain Pretenders of the Town,\nHibham of late is wondrous noted grown;\nHibham scarce reads, and is not worth a groat,\nYet with some high-flown Words and a fine Coat,\nHe struts and talks of Books, and of Estate,\nAnd learned J---s he calls his Intimate.\nThe Mob admire! Thus mighty Impudence\nSupplies the want of Learning, Wealth and Sense.\nA little House well fill\u2019d, a little Field well till\u2019d, and a little Wife well will\u2019d, are great Riches.\nOld Maids lead Apes there, where the old Batchelors are turn\u2019d to Apes.\nSome are weatherwise, some are otherwise.\nI Mon. March hath xxxi days.\nThere\u2019s many Men forget their proper Station,\nAnd still are meddling with th\u2019 Administration\nOf Government; that\u2019s wrong, and this is right,\nAnd such a Law is out of Reason quite;\nThus spending too much Thought on State Affairs\nThe Business is neglected which is theirs.\nSo some fond Traveller gazing at the Stars\nSlips in next Ditch and gets a dirty Arse.\nDyrro lynn y ddoeth e fydd ddoethach.\nThe poor man must walk to get meat for his stomach, the rich man to get a stomach to his meat.\nHe that goes far to marry, will either deceive or be deceived.\n  Eyes and Priests\n  Bear no Jests.\nII Mon. April hath xxx days.\nWilliam, because his Wife was something ill,\nUncertain in her Health, indifferent still,\nHe turn\u2019d her out of Doors without reply:\nI ask\u2019d if he that Act could justifie.\nIn Sickness and in Health, says he, I\u2019m bound\nTo keep her; when she\u2019s worse or better found\nI\u2019ll take her in again: And now you\u2019ll see,\nShe\u2019ll quickly either mend or end, says he.\nThe Family of Fools is ancient.\nNecessity never made a good bargain.\nIf Pride leads the Van, Beggary brings up the Rear.\nThere\u2019s many witty men whose brains can\u2019t fill their bellies.\nWeighty Questions ask for deliberate Answers.\nIII Mon. May hath xxxi days.\nThere\u2019s nought so silly, sure, as Vanity,\nIt self its chiefest End does still destroy.\nTo be commended still its Brains are racking,\nBut who will give it what it\u2019s always taking?\nThou\u2019rt fair \u2019tis true; and witty too, I know it;\nAnd well-bred, Sally, for thy Manners show it:\nBut whilst thou mak\u2019st Self-Praise thy only Care,\nThou\u2019rt neither witty, nor well-bred, nor fair.\nWhen \u2642 and \u2640 in \u260c lie,\nThen, Maids, whate\u2019er is ask\u2019d of you, deny.\nBe slow in chusing a Friend, slower in changing.\nOld Hob was lately married in the Night,\nWhat needed Day, his fair young Wife is light.\nPain wastes the Body, Pleasures the Understanding.\nThe cunning man steals a horse, the wise man lets him alone.\nIV Mon. June hath xxx days.\nWhen will the Miser\u2019s Chest be full enough?\nWhen will he cease his Bags to cram and stuff?\nAll Day he labours and all Night contrives,\nProviding as if he\u2019d an hundred Lives.\nWhile endless Care cuts short the common Span:\nSo have I seen with Dropsy swoln, a Man,\nDrink and drink more, and still unsatisfi\u2019d,\nDrink till Drink drown\u2019d him, yet he thirsty dy\u2019d.\nNothing but Money,\nIs sweeter than Honey.\nHumility makes great men twice honourable.\nA Ship under sail and a big-bellied Woman,\nAre the handsomest two things that can be seen common.\nKeep thy shop, and thy shop will keep thee.\nThe King\u2019s cheese is half wasted in parings: But no matter, \u2019tis made of the peoples milk.\nV Mon. July hath xxxi days.\n    On LOUIS the XIV. of France.\nLouis (\u2019tis true, I own to you)\nPaid Learned Men for Writing,\nAnd valiant Men for Fighting:\nHimself could neither write nor fight,\nNor make his People happy;\nYet Fools will prate, and call him Great;\nShame on their Noddles sappy.\nWhat\u2019s given shines,\nWhat\u2019s receiv\u2019d is rusty.\nSloth and Silence are a Fool\u2019s Virtues.\nOf learned Fools I have seen ten times ten,\nOf unlearned wise men I have seen a hundred.\nThree may keep a Secret, if two of them are dead.\nPoverty wants some things, Luxury many things, Avarice all things.\nA Lie stands on 1 leg, Truth on 2.\nVI Mon. August hath xxxi days.\nSam had the worst Wife that a Man could have,\nProud, Lazy, Sot, could neither get nor save,\nEternal Scold she was, and what is worse,\nThe D---l burn thee, was her common Curse.\nForbear, quoth Sam, that fruitless Curse so common,\nHe\u2019ll not hurt me who\u2019ve married his Kinswoman.\nThere\u2019s small Revenge in Words, but Words may be greatly revenged.\nGreat wits jump (says the Poet) and hit his Head against the Post.\nA man is never so ridiculous by those Qualities that are his own as by those that he affects to have.\nDeny Self for Self\u2019s sake.\nVII Mon. September hath xxx days.\nBlind are the Sons of Men, few of the Kind\nKnow their chief Interest, or knowing, mind:\nMost, far from following what they know is best,\nTrifle in earnest, but mind that in jest.\nSo Hal the Fiddle tunes harmoniously,\nWhile all is Discord in\u2019s Oeconomy.\nTim moderate fare and abstinence much prizes,\nIn publick, but in private gormandizes.\nEver since Follies have pleas\u2019d, Fools have been able to divert.\nIt is better to take many Injuries than to give one.\nOpportunity is the great Bawd.\n  VIII Mon. October hath xxxi days.\nLittle Half-wits are wondrous pert, we find,\nScoffing and jeering on whole Womankind,\nAll false, ALL Whores, ALL this and that and t\u2019other,\nNot one Exception left, ev\u2019n for their Mother.\nBut Men of Wisdom and Experience know,\nThat there\u2019s no greater Happiness below\nThan a good Wife affords; and such there\u2019s many,\nFor every Man has one, the best of any.\nEarly to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy wealthy and wise.\nTo be humble to Superiors is Duty, to Equals Courtesy, to Inferiors Nobleness.\nHere comes the Orator! with his Flood of Words, and his Drop of Reason.\n  IX Mon. November hath xxx days.\nThe Lying Habit is in some so strong,\nTo Truth they know not how to bend their Tongue;\nAnd tho\u2019 sometimes their Ends Truth best would answer\nYet Lies come uppermost, do what they can, Sir,\nMendacio delights in telling News,\nAnd that it may be such, himself doth use\nTo make it; but he now no longer need;\nLet him tell Truth, it will be News indeed.\nAn old young man, will be a young old man.\nSal laughs at every thing you say. Why? Because she has fine Teeth.\nIf what most men admire, they would despise,\n\u2019Twould look as if mankind were growing wise.\nThe Sun never repents of the good he does, nor does he ever demand a recompence.\n  X Mon. December hath xxxi days.\n\u2019Tis not the Face with a delightful Air,\nA rosy Cheek and lovely flowing Hair;\nNor sparkling Eyes to best Advantage set,\nNor all the Members rang\u2019d in Alphabet,\nSweet in Proportion as the lovely Dies,\nWhich bring th\u2019 etherial Bow before our Eyes,\nThat can with Wisdom Approbation find,\nLike pious Morals and an honest Mind;\nBy Virtue\u2019s living Laws from every Vice refin\u2019d.\nAre you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.\nOne Mend-fault is worth two Findfaults, but one Findfault is better than two Makefaults.\nReader, I wish thee Health, Wealth, Happiness,\nAnd may kind Heaven thy Year\u2019s Industry bless.\nOf the Eclipses, 1735.\nThere will be four Eclipses this Year, two of the Sun and two of the Moon.\nThe first will be of the Moon the 27th of March, in the Morning; the Moon, being near setting, will be below our Horizon before the greatest Obscuration; so that we shall not see above 5 Digits eclipsed; but those who live far enough westward may see the whole, which will be near seven Digits.\nThe second is of the Sun, April 11. invisible in these Parts.\nThe third is of the Moon, September 20. beginning at 15 minutes after 7 Afternoon; the middle at 20 min. after 8, the End at 11 minutes after 10; total Duration 2 ho. 56 min. Digits eclipsed 6 and a quarter.\nThe fourth and last is an Eclipse of the Sun, October 4. at 9 afternoon, invisible.\nI shall not say much of the Signification of the Eclipses this Year, for in truth they do not signifie much; only I may observe by the way, that the first Eclipse of the Moon being celebrated in \u264e\ufe0e Libra or the Ballance, foreshews a Failure of Justice, where People judge in their own Cases. But in the following Year 1736, there will be six Eclipses, four of the Sun, and two of the Moon, which two Eclipses of the Moon will be both total, and portend great Revolutions in Europe, particularly in Germany; and some great and surprizing Events relating to these northern Colonies, of which I purpose to speak at large in my next.\n  The Courts.\nWhen Popery in Britain sway\u2019d, I\u2019ve read,\nThe Lawyers fear\u2019d they should be damn\u2019d when dead,\nBecause they had no Saint to hand their Pray\u2019rs,\nAnd in Heav\u2019n\u2019s Court take Care of their Affairs.\nTherefore consulting, Evanus they sent\nTo Rome with a huge Purse, on this Intent\nThat to the Holy Father making known\nTheir woful Case, he might appoint them One.\nBeing arriv\u2019d, he offers his Complaint\nIn Language smooth, and humbly begs a Saint:\nFor why, says he, when others on Heav\u2019n wou\u2019d call,\nPhysicians, Seamen, Scholars, Tradesmen, all\nHave their own Saints, we Lawyers none at all.\nThe Pope was puzzel\u2019d, never puzzel\u2019d worse,\nFor with pleas\u2019d Eyes he saw the proffer\u2019d Purse,\nBut ne\u2019er, in all his Knowledge or his Reading,\nHe\u2019d met with one good Man that practis\u2019d Pleading;\nWho then should be the Saint? he could not tell.\nAt length the Thing was thus concluded well.\nWithin our City, says his Holiness,\nThere is one Church fill\u2019d with the Images\nOf all the Saints, with whom the Wall\u2019s surrounded,\nBlindfold Evanus, lead him three times round it,\nThen let him feel (but give me first the Purse)\nAnd take the first he finds, for better or worse.\nRound went Evanus till he came where stood\nSt. Michael with the Devil under\u2019s Foot;\nAnd groping round, he seiz\u2019d old Satan\u2019s Head,\nThis be our Saint, he cries; Amen, the Father said.\nBut when they open\u2019d poor Evanus\u2019 Eyes,\nAlack! he sunk with Shame and with Surprize!", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "02-04-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0002", "content": "Title: On Protection of Towns from Fire, 4 February 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nMr. Franklin,\nBeing old and lame of my Hands, and thereby uncapable of assisting my Fellow Citizens, when their Houses are on Fire; I must beg them to take in good Part the following Hints on the Subject of Fires.\nIn the first Place, as an Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure, I would advise \u2019em to take Care how they suffer living Brands-ends, or Coals in a full Shovel, to be carried out of one Room into another, or up or down Stairs, unless in a Warmingpan shut; for Scraps of Fire may fall into Chinks, and make no Appearance till Midnight; when your Stairs being in Flames, you may be forced, (as I once was) to leap out of your Windows, and hazard your Necks to avoid being over-roasted.\nAnd now we talk of Prevention, where would be the Damage, if, to the Act for preventing Fires, by regulating Bakehouses and Coopers Shops, a Clause were added to regulate all other Houses in the particulars of too shallow Hearths, and the detestable Practice of putting wooden Mouldings on each side the Fire Place, which being commonly of Heart-of-Pine and full of Turpentine, stand ready to flame as soon as a Coal or a small Brand shall roul [roll] against them.\nOnce more; if Chimneys were more frequently and more carefully clean\u2019d, some Fires might thereby be prevented. I have known foul Chimneys burn most furiously a few Days after they were swept: People in Confidence that they are clean, making large Fires. Every Body among us is allow\u2019d to sweep Chimneys, that please to undertake that Business; and if a Chimney fires thro\u2019 fault of the Sweeper, the Owner pays the Fine, and the Sweeper goes free. This Thing is not right. Those who undertake Sweeping of Chimneys, and employ Servants for that Purpose, ought to be licensed by the Mayor; and if any Chimney fires and flames out 15 Days after Sweeping, the Fine should be paid by the Sweeper; for it is his Fault.\nWe have at present got Engines enough in the Town, but I question, whether in many Parts of the Town, Water enough can be had to keep them going for half an Hour together. It seems to me some Publick Pumps are wanting; but that I submit to better Judgments.\nAs to our Conduct in the Affair of Extinguishing Fires, tho\u2019 we do not want Hands or Good-will, yet we seem to want Order and Method, and therefore I believe I cannot do better than to offer for our Imitation, the Example of a City in a Neighbouring Province. There is, as I am well inform\u2019d, a Club or Society of active Men belonging to each Fire Engine; whose Business is to attend all Fires with it whenever they happen; and to work it once a Quarter, and see it kept in order: Some of these are to handle the Firehooks, and others the Axes, which are always kept with the Engine; and for this Service they are consider\u2019d in an Abatement or Exemption in the Taxes. In Time of Fire, they are commanded by Officers appointed by Law, called Firewards, who are distinguish\u2019d by a Red Staff of five Feet long, headed with a Brass Flame of 6 Inches; And being Men of Prudence and Authority, they direct the opening and stripping of Roofs by the Ax-Men, the pulling down burning Timbers by the Hookmen, and the playing of the Engines, and command the making of Lanes, &c. and they are impowered to require Assistance for the Removing of Goods out of Houses on fire or in Danger of Fire, and to appoint Guards for securing such Goods; and Disobedience, to these Officers in any, at such Times, is punished by a Fine of 40s. or Ten Days Imprisonment. These Officers, with the Men belonging to the Engine, at their Quarterly Meetings, discourse of Fires, of the Faults committed at some, the good Management in some Cases at others, and thus communicating their Thoughts and Experience they grow wise in the Thing, and know how to command and to execute in the best manner upon every Emergency. Since the Establishment of this Regulation, it seems there has been no extraordinary Fire in that Place; and I wish there never may be any here. But they suffer\u2019d before they made such a Regulation, and so must we; for Englishmen feel but cannot see; as the Italian says of us. And it has pleased God, that in the Fires we have hitherto had, all the bad Circumstances have never happened together, such as dry Season, high Wind, narrow Street, and little or low Water: which perhaps tends to makes us secure in our own Minds; but if a Fire with those Circumstances, which God forbid, should happen, we should afterwards be careful enough.\nLet me say one thing more, and I will be silent. I could wish, that either Tiles would come in use for a Covering to Buildings; or else that those who build, would make their Roofs more safe to walk upon, by carrying the Wall above the Eves, in the Manner of the new Buildings in London, and as Mr. Turner\u2019s House in Front-Street, or Mr. Nichols\u2019s in Chesnut-Street, are built; which I conceive would tend considerably to their Preservation.\nLet others communicate their Thoughts as freely as I have done mine, and perhaps something useful may be drawn from the Whole. I am yours, &c.\nA. A.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "02-11-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0003", "content": "Title: A Man of Sense, 11 February 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nFranklin wanted his newspaper to instruct as well as inform, and sometimes published in it, he wrote in the autobiography, \u201clittle Pieces of my own which had been first compos\u2019d for Reading in our Junto. Of these are a Socratic Dialogue, tending to prove, that, whatever might be his Parts and Abilities, a vicious Man could not properly be called a Man of Sense. And a Discourse on Self denial, showing that Virtue was not secure, till its Practice became a Habitude, and was free from the Opposition of contrary Inclinations. These may be found in the Papers about the beginning of 1735.\u201d He originally indicated that the first of these had been \u201cprinted in Feb.\u201d but crossed the words out. These two pieces follow.\nMr. Franklin,\nBeing the other Day near the Meeting-House Corner with some Gentlemen, in the open Street, I heard the following Piece of Conversation; and penn\u2019d it down as soon as I came home. I am confident it varies scarce any thing from what really passed; and as it pleased the By-standers, it may possibly please the Publick, if you give it a Place in your Paper.\nIt not being proper to name the Persons discoursing, I shall call one of them Socrates, his manner of Arguing being in my Opinion, somewhat like that of Socrates: And, if you please, the other may be Crito. I am Yours, &c.\nA. A.\nSocrates. Who is that well-dress\u2019d Man that passed by just now?\nCrito. He is a Gentleman of this City, esteem\u2019d a Man of Sense, but not very honest.\nS. The Appellation of a Man of Sense is of late frequently given, and seems to come naturally into the Character of every Man we are about to praise: But I am at some Loss to know whether a Man who is not honest can deserve it.\nC. Yes, doubtless; There are many vicious Men who are nevertheless Men of very good Sense.\nS. You are of Opinion, perhaps, that a Man of Knowledge is a Man of Sense.\nC. I am really of that Opinion.\nS. Is the Knowledge of Push-pin, or of the Game at Ninepins, or of Cards and Dice, or even of Musick and Dancing, sufficient to constitute the Character of a Man of Sense?\nC. No certainly; there are many silly People that understand these Things tolerably well.\nS. Will the Knowledge of Languages, or of Logic and Rhetoric serve to make a Man of Sense?\nC. I think not; for I have known very senseless Fellows to be Masters of two or three Languages; and mighty full of their Logic, or their Rhetoric.\nS. Perhaps some Men may understand all the Forms and Terms of Logic, or all the Figures of Rhetoric, and yet be no more able to convince or to perswade, than others who have not learnt those Things?\nC. Indeed I believe they may.\nS. Will not the Knowledge of the Mathematicks, Astronomy, and Natural Philosophy, those sublime Sciences, give a Right to the Character of a Man of Sense?\nC. At first Sight I should have thought they might: But upon Recollection I must own I have known some Men, Masters of those Sciences, who, in the Management of their Affairs, and Conduct of their Lives, have acted very weakly, I do not mean viciously but foolishly; and therefore I cannot find in my Heart to allow \u2019em the Character of Men of Sense.\nS. It seems then, that no Knowledge will serve to give this Character, but the Knowledge of our true Interest; that is, of what is best to be done in all the Circumstances of Humane Life, in order to arrive at our main End in View, Happiness.\nC. I am of the same Opinion. And now, as to the Point in Hand, I suppose you will no longer doubt whether a vicious Man may deserve the Character of a Man of Sense, since \u2019tis certain that there are many Men who know their true Interest, &c. and are therefore Men of Sense, but are nevertheless vicious and dishonest Men, as appears from the whole Tenour of their Conduct in Life.\nS. Can Vice consist with any Man\u2019s true Interest, or contribute to his Happiness?\nC. No certainly; for in Proportion as a Man is vicious he loses the Favour of God and Man, and brings upon himself many Inconveniences, the least of which is capable of marring and demolishing his Happiness.\nS. How then does it appear that those vicious Men have the Knowledge we have been speaking of, which constitutes a Man of Sense, since they act directly contrary?\nC. It appears by their Discoursing perfectly well upon the Subjects of Vice and Virtue, when they occur in Conversation, and by the just Manner in which they express their Thoughts of the pernicious Consequences of the one, and the happy Effects of the other.\nS. Is it the Knowledge of all the Terms and Expressions proper to be used in Discoursing well upon the Subject of making a good Shoe, that constitutes a Shoemaker; or is it the Knowing how to go about it and do it?\nC. I own it is the latter, and not the former.\nS. And if one who could only talk finely about Shoemaking, were to be set to work, would he not presently discover his Ignorance in that Art?\nC. He would, I confess.\nS. Can the Man who is only able to talk justly of Virtue and Vice, and to say that \u201cDrunkenness, Gluttony and Lewdness destroy a Man\u2019s Constitution; waste his Time and Substance, and bring him under many Misfortunes, (to the Destruction of his Happiness) which the contrary Virtues would enable him to avoid;\u201d but notwithstanding his talking thus, continues in those Vices; can such a Man deserve the Character of a Temperate and Chaste Man? Or does not that Man rather deserve it, who having a thorough Sense that what the other has said is true, knows also how to resist the Temptation to those Vices, and embrace Virtue with a hearty and steady Affection?\nC. The latter, I acknowledge. And since Virtue is really the true Interest of all Men; and some of those who talk well of it, do not put it in Practice, I am now inclined to believe they speak only by rote, retailing to us what they have pick\u2019d out of the Books or Conversation of wise and virtuous Men; but what having never enter\u2019d or made any Impression on their Hearts, has therefore no Influence on the Conduct of their Lives.\nS. Vicious Men, then, do not appear to have that Knowledge which constitutes the Man of Sense.\nC. No, I am convinced they do not deserve the Name. However, I am afraid, that instead of defining a Man of Sense we have now entirely annihilated him: For if the Knowledge of his true Interest in all Parts of the Conduct of Life, and a constant Course of Practice agreeable to it, are essential to his Character, I do not know where we shall find him.\nS. There seems no necessity that to be a Man of Sense, he should never make a Slip in the Path of Virtue, or in Point of Morality; provided he is sensible of his Failing and diligently applys himself to rectify what is done amiss, and to prevent the like for the future. The best Arithmetician may err in casting up a long Account; but having found that Error, he knows how to mend it, and immediately does so; and is notwithstanding that Error, an Arithmetician; But he who always blunders, and cannot correct his Faults in Accounting, is no Arithmetician; nor is the habitually-vicious Man a Man of Sense.\nC. But methinks \u2019twill look hard, that all other Arts and Sciences put together, and possess\u2019d by one Man in the greatest Perfection, are not able to dignify him with the Title of a Man of Sense, unless he be also a Man of Virtue.\nS. We shall agree, perhaps, that one who is a Man of Sense, will not spend his Time in learning such Sciences as, if not useless in themselves, will probably be useless to him?\nC. I grant it.\nS. And of those which may be useful to him, that is, may contribute to his Happiness, he ought, if he is a Man of Sense to know how to make them so.\nC. To be sure.\nS. And of those which may be useful, he will not (if he is a Man of Sense) acquire all, except that One only which is the most useful of all, to wit, the Science of Virtue.\nC. It would, I own, be inconsistent with his Character to do so.\nS. It seems to follow then, that the vicious Man, tho\u2019 Master of many Sciences, must needs be an ignorant and foolish Man; for being, as he is vicious, of consequence unhappy, either he has acquired only the useless Sciences, or having acquired such as might be useful, he knows not how to make them contribute to his Happiness; and tho\u2019 he may have every other Science, he is ignorant that the Science of Virtue is of more worth, and of more consequence to his Happiness than all the rest put together. And since he is ignorant of what principally concerns him, tho\u2019 it has been told him a thousand Times from Parents, Press, and Pulpit, the Vicious Man however learned, cannot be a Man of Sense, but is a Fool, a Dunce, and a Blockhead.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "02-18-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0004", "content": "Title: Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue, 18 February 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nNew-Castle, Feb. 5. 1734/5.\nTo the Printer of the Gazette.\nThat Self-Denial is not the Essence of Virtue.\nIt is commonly asserted, that without Self-Denial there is no Virtue, and that the greater the Self-Denial the greater the Virtue.\nIf it were said, that he who cannot deny himself in any Thing he inclines to, tho\u2019 he knows it will be to his Hurt, has not the Virtue of Resolution or Fortitude, it would be intelligible enough; but as it stands it seems obscure or erroneous.\nLet us consider some of the Virtues singly.\nIf a Man has no inclination to wrong People in his Dealings, if he feels no Temptation to it, and therefore never does it; can it be said that he is not a just Man? If he is a just Man, has he not the Virtue of Justice?\nIf to a certain Man, idle Diversions have nothing in them that is tempting, and therefore he never relaxes his Application to Business for their Sake; is he not an Industrious Man? Or has he not the Virtue of Industry?\nI might in like manner instance in all the rest of the Virtues: But to make the Thing short, As it is certain, that the more we strive against the Temptation to any Vice, and practise the contrary Virtue, the weaker will that Temptation be, and the stronger will be that Habit; \u2019till at length the Temptation has no Force, or entirely vanishes: Does it follow from thence, that in our Endeavours to overcome Vice, we grow continually less and less Virtuous; till at length we have no Virtue at all?\nIf Self-Denial be the Essence of Virtue, then it follows, that the Man who is naturally temperate, just, &c. is not virtuous; but that in order to be virtuous, he must, in spight of his natural Inclinations, wrong his Neighbours, and eat and drink, &c. to excess.\nBut perhaps it may be said, that by the Word Virtue in the above Assertion, is meant, Merit; and so it should stand thus; Without Self-Denial there is no Merit; and the greater the Self-Denial the greater the Merit.\nThe Self-denial here meant, must be when our Inclinations are towards Vice, or else it would still be Nonsense.\nBy Merit is understood, Desert; and when we say a Man merits, we mean that he deserves Praise or Reward.\nWe do not pretend to merit any thing of God, for he is above our Services; and the Benefits he confers on us, are the Effects of his Goodness and Bounty.\nAll our Merit then is with regard to one another, and from one to another.\nTaking then the Assertion as it last stands,\nIf a Man does me a Service from a natural benevolent Inclination, does he deserve less of me than another who does me the like Kindness against his Inclination?\nIf I have two Journeymen, one naturally industrious, the other idle, but both perform a Days Work equally good, ought I to give the latter the most Wages?\nIndeed, lazy Workmen are commonly observ\u2019d to be more extravagant in their Demands than the Industrious; for if they have not more for their Work, they cannot live so well: But tho\u2019 it be true to a Proverb, That Lazy Folks take the most Pains, does it follow that they deserve the most Money?\nIf you were to employ Servants in Affairs of Trust, would you not bid more for one you knew was naturally honest, than for one naturally roguish, but who had lately acted honestly? For Currents whose natural Channel is damm\u2019d up, (till the new Course is by Time worn sufficiently deep and become natural,) are apt to break their Banks. If one Servant is more valuable than another, has he not more Merit than the other? And yet this is not on Account of Superior Self-denial.\nIs a Patriot not praise-worthy, if Publick Spirit is natural to him?\nIs a Pacing-Horse less valuable for being a natural Pacer?\nNor in my Opinion has any Man less Merit for having in general natural virtuous Inclinations.\nThe Truth is, that Temperance, Justice, Charity, &c. are Virtues, whether practis\u2019d with or against our Inclinations; and the Man who practises them, merits our Love and Esteem: And Self-denial is neither good nor bad, but as \u2019tis apply\u2019d: He that denies a Vicious Inclination is Virtuous in proportion to his Resolution, but the most perfect Virtue is above all Temptation, such as the Virtue of the Saints in Heaven: And he who does a foolish, indecent or wicked Thing, meerly because \u2019tis contrary to his Inclination, (like some mad Enthusiasts I have read of, who ran about naked, under the Notion of taking up the Cross) is not practising the reasonable Science of Virtue, but is lunatick.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "04-10-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0006", "content": "Title: Dialogue between Two Presbyterians, 10 April 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nFranklin was deeply involved in 1735 in the controversy about the Reverend Mr. Samuel Hemphill. Ordained in Ireland, coming with recommendations from the Presbytery of Strabane, Hemphill was received by the Synod of Philadelphia, September 21, 1734. In Ireland a charge of unorthodoxy had been made against him, but was found to be unsupported. A report of this affair, Hemphill charged, was sent to Pennsylvania expressly to harm him; it brought about an inquiry by the Presbytery of New Castle into two sermons he had preached at New London in Chester County. Acquitted by the Presbytery, Hemphill was then invited by the aging Reverend Jedediah Andrews, minister of the congregation in Philadelphia since 1698, to assist him by taking a service there each Sabbath.\nAndrews\u2019 sermons, as Franklin remembered, \u201cwere chiefly either polemic Arguments, or Explications of the peculiar Doctrines of our Sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting and unedifying, since not a single moral Principle was inculcated or enforc\u2019d, their Aim seeming to be rather to make us Presbyterians than good Citizens.\u201d Andrews succeeded as Franklin\u2019s spiritual adviser only to the extent of bringing him to church five Sundays in succession. Then Franklin stopped going and worshiped instead according to his private ritual. Hemphill\u2019s sermons, very different from those of Andrews both in content and style, brought Franklin into church again. Hemphill was young, vigorous, an effective speaker; his sermons contained \u201clittle of the dogmatical kind, but inculcated strongly the Practice of Virtue, or what in the religious Stile are called Good Works.\u201d To explain and urge the eternal laws of morality, Hemphill declared, was \u201cnot only a truly Christian, but beyond Comparison the most useful Method of Preaching.\u201d Such sermons attracted and pleased not only Franklin, but many others as well, and Hemphill soon had large congregations, including many from other churches. Andrews described the attendants afterwards as \u201cFreethinkers, Deists, and Nothings.\u201d\nInevitably, orthodox Presbyterians disapproved Hemphill\u2019s eloquently expounded views. Andrews attended his services all winter but, perhaps a little jealous of the younger man\u2019s popularity, thought his opinions dangerous. On April 7, 1735, he brought charges in the Synod. A commission was appointed to examine them.\nTo Franklin the issue was not merely whether Hemphill\u2019s \u201csubverting opinions\u201d were acceptable doctrine, but whether elder churchmen might silence and dismiss a man for preaching what they disapproved. He tried to organize supporters, and since Hemphill was a poor writer Franklin \u201clent him my Pen.\u201d His first defense was published only one week before the Commission was to meet.\nMr. Franklin,\nYou are desired by several of your Readers to print the following Dialogue. It is between Two of the Presbyterian Meeting in this City. We cannot tell whether it may not be contrary to your Sentiments, but hope, if it should, you will not refuse publishing it on that Account: nor shall we be offended if you print any thing in Answer to it. We are yours, &c.\nA.B.C.D.\nS. Good Morrow! I am glad to find you well and abroad; for not having seen you at Meeting lately, I concluded you were indispos\u2019d.\nT. Tis true I have not been much at Meeting lately, but that was not occasion\u2019d by any Indisposition. In short, I stay at home, or else go to Church, because I do not like Mr. H. your new-fangled Preacher.\nS. I am sorry we should differ in Opinion upon any Account; but let us reason the Point calmly; what Offence does Mr. H. give you?\nT. Tis his Preaching disturbs me: He talks of nothing but the Duties of Morality: I do not love to hear so much of Morality: I am sure it will carry no Man to Heaven, and I do not think it fit to be preached in a Christian Congregation.\nS. I suppose you think no Doctrine fit to be preached in a Christian Congregation, but such as Christ and his Apostles used to preach.\nT. To be sure I think so.\nS. I do not conceive then how you can dislike the Preaching of Morality, when you consider, that Morality made the principal Part of their Preaching as well as of Mr. H\u2019s. What is Christ\u2019s Sermon on the Mount but an excellent moral Discourse, towards the End of which, (as foreseeing that People might in time come to depend more upon their Faith in him, than upon Good Works, for their Salvation) he tells the Hearers plainly, that their saying to him, Lord, Lord, (that is, professing themselves his Disciples or Christians) should give them no Title to Salvation, but their Doing the Will of his Father; and that tho\u2019 they have prophesied in his Name, yet he will declare to them, as Neglecters of Morality, that he never knew them.\nT. But what do you understand by that Expression of Christ\u2019s, Doing the Will of my Father?\nS. I understand it to be the Will of God, that we should live virtuous, upright, and good-doing Lives; as the Prophet understood it, when he said, What doth the Lord require of thee, O Man, but to do justly, love Mercy, and walk humbly with the Lord thy God. \nT. But is not Faith recommended in the New Testament as well as Morality?\nS. Tis true, it is. Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one. And I should as soon expect, that my bare Believing Mr. Grew to be an excellent Teacher of the Mathematicks,  would make me a Mathematician, as that Believing in Christ would of it self make a Man a Christian.\nT. Perhaps you may think, that tho\u2019 Faith alone cannot save a Man, Morality or Virtue alone, may.\nS. Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means. What think you of these Sayings of Christ, when he was reproached for conversing chiefly with gross Sinners, The whole, says he, need not a Physician, but they that are sick; and, I come not to call the Righteous, but Sinners, to Repentance: Does not this imply, that there were good Men, who, without Faith in him, were in a State of Salvation? And moreover, did he not say of Nathanael, while he was yet an Unbeliever in him, and thought no Good could possibly come out of Nazareth, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no Guile! that is, behold a virtuous upright Man. Faith in Christ, however, may be and is of great Use to produce a good Life, but that it can conduce nothing towards Salvation where it does not conduce to Virtue, is, I suppose, plain from the Instance of the Devils, who are far from being Infidels, they believe, says the Scripture, and tremble. There were some indeed, even in the Apostles\u2019 Days, that set a great Value upon Faith, distinct from Good Works, they meerly idolized it, and thought that a Man ever so righteous could not be saved without it: But one of the Apostles, to show his Dislike of such Notions, tells them, that not only those heinous Sins of Theft, Murder, and Blasphemy, but even Idleness, or the Neglect of a Man\u2019s Business, was more pernicious than meer harmless Infidelity, He that neglects to provide for them of his own House, says he, is WORSE than an Infidel. St. James, in his second Chapter, is very zealous against these Cryers-up of Faith, and maintains that Faith without Virtue is useless, Wilt thou know, O vain Man, says he, that Faith without Works is dead; and, shew me your Faith without your Works, and I will shew you mine by my Works. Our Saviour, when describeing the last Judgment, and declaring what shall give Admission into Bliss, or exclude from it, says nothing of Faith but what he says against it, that is, that those who cry Lord, Lord, and profess to have believed in his Name, have no Favour to expect on that Account; but declares that \u2019tis the Practice, or the omitting the Practice of the Duties of Morality, Feeding the Hungry, cloathing the Naked, visiting the Sick, &c. in short, \u2019tis the Doing or not Doing all the Good that lies in our Power, that will render us the Heirs of Happiness or Misery.\nT. But if Faith is of great Use to produce a good Life, why does not Mr. H. preach up Faith as well as Morality?\nS. Perhaps it may [be] this, that as the good Physician suits his Physick to the Disease he finds in the Patient, so Mr. H. may possibly think, that though Faith in Christ be properly first preach\u2019d to Heathens and such as are ignorant of the Gospel, yet since he knows that we have been baptized in the Name of Christ, and educated in his Religion, and call\u2019d after his Name, it may not be so immediately necessary to preach Faith to us who abound in it, as Morality in which we are evidently deficient: For our late Want of Charity to each other, our Heart-burnings and Bickerings are notorious. St. James says, Where Envying and Strife is, there is Confusion and every evil Work: and where Confusion and every evil Work is, Morality and Good-will to Men, can, I think, be no unsuitable Doctrine. But surely Morality can do us no harm. Upon a Supposition that we all have Faith in Christ already, as I think we have, where can be the Damage of being exhorted to Good Works? Is Virtue Heresy; and Universal Benevolence False Doctrine, that any of us should keep away from Meeting because it is preached there?\nT. Well, I do not like it, and I hope we shall not long be troubled with it. A Commission of the Synod will sit in a short Time, and try this Sort of Preaching.\nS. I am glad to hear that the Synod are to take it into Consideration. There are Men of unquestionable Good Sense as well as Piety among them, and I doubt not but they will, by their Decision, deliver our Profession from the satyrical Reflection, which a few uneasy People of our Congregation have of late given Occasion for, to wit, That the Presbyterians are going to persecute, silence and condemn a good Preacher, for exhorting them to be honest and charitable to one another and the rest of Mankind.\nT. If Mr. H. is a Presbyterian Teacher, he ought to preach as Presbyterians use to preach; or else he may justly be condemn\u2019d and silenc\u2019d by our Church Authority. We ought to abide by the Westminster Confession of Faith; and he that does not, ought not to preach in our Meetings.\nS. The Apostacy of the Church from the primitive Simplicity of the Gospel, came on by Degrees; and do you think that the Reformation was of a sudden perfect, and that the first Reformers knew at once all that was right or wrong in Religion? Did not Luther at first preach only against selling of Pardons, allowing all the other Practices of the Romish Church for good? He afterwards went further, and Calvin, some think, yet further. The Church of England made a Stop, and fix\u2019d her Faith and Doctrine by 39 Articles; with which the Presbyterians not satisfied, went yet farther; but being too self-confident to think, that as their Fathers were mistaken in some Things, they also might be in some others; and fancying themselves infallible in their Interpretations, they also ty\u2019d themselves down by the Westminster Confession. But has not a Synod that meets in King George the Second\u2019s Reign, as much Right to interpret Scripture, as one that met in Oliver\u2019s Time? And if any Doctrine then maintain\u2019d is, or shall hereafter be found not altogether orthodox, why must we be for ever confin\u2019d to that, or to any, Confession?\nT. But if the Majority of the Synod be against any Innovation, they may justly hinder the Innovator from Preaching.\nS. That is as much as to say, if the Majority of the Preachers be in the wrong, they may justly hinder any Man from setting the People right; for a Majority may be in the wrong as well as the Minority, and frequently are. In the beginning of the Reformation, the Majority was vastly against the Reformers, and continues so to this Day; and, if, according to your Opinion, they had a Right to silence the Minority, I am sure the Minority ought to have been silent. But tell me, if the Presbyterians in this Country, being charitably enclin\u2019d, should send a Missionary into Turky, to propagate the Gospel, would it not be unreasonable in the Turks to prohibit his Preaching?\nT. It would, to be sure, because he comes to them for their good.\nS. And if the Turks, believing us in the wrong, as we think them, should out of the same charitable Disposition, send a Missionary to preach Mahometanism to us, ought we not in the same manner to give him free Liberty of preaching his Doctrine?\nT. It may be so; but what would you infer from that?\nS. I would only infer, that if it would be thought reasonable to suffer a Turk to preach among us a Doctrine diametrically opposite to Christianity, it cannot be reasonable to silence one of our own Preachers, for preaching a Doctrine exactly agreeable to Christianity, only because he does not perhaps zealously propagate all the Doctrines of an old Confession. And upon the whole, though the Majority of the Synod should not in all respects approve of Mr. H.\u2019s Doctrine, I do not however think they will find it proper to condemn him. We have justly deny\u2019d the Infallibility of the Pope and his Councils and Synods in their Interpretations of Scripture, and can we modestly claim Infallibility for our selves or our Synods in our way of Interpreting? Peace, Unity and Virtue in any Church are more to be regarded than Orthodoxy. In the present weak State of humane Nature, surrounded as we are on all sides with Ignorance and Error, it little becomes poor fallible Man to be positive and dogmatical in his Opinions. No Point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty, for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian: for there is no such Thing as voluntary Error. Therefore, since \u2019tis an Uncertainty till we get to Heaven what true Orthodoxy in all points is, and since our Congregation is rather too small to be divided, I hope this Misunderstanding will soon be got over, and that we shall as heretofore unite again in mutual Christian Charity.\nT. I wish we may. I\u2019ll consider of what you\u2019ve said, and wish you well.\nS. Farewell.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "07-07-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0008", "content": "Title: To Benjamin Franklin from Joseph Morgan, 7 July 1735\nFrom: Morgan, Joseph\nTo: Franklin, Benjamin\nMr. Franklin\nMaidenhead 7. July 1735.\nSir, I have long expected to See the new Edition of The Temp. Inter. If it Sell like that which you last printed of mine, you may print many; for they are all gone and people enquire for more, and none to be had. I Sent, as you desired, the places marked in the Margin, where the Additions Should be Set. Have you the Manuscript of Additions, It refers to the Same places: and you have nothing to puzzel you, except to that against Usury, add yet\n[The Second Councel at Lateran under Lotharius the Emperour increased to near a thousand Bishops, in the year 1131 deprived Userers of Christian Burial, and cursed them to Hell. See Prideux\u2019s Synopsis of Councels, Pag. 23.\nOf this I writ to you Several Times.\nAnd to the End of all you may add\n[If an Act were made that no Debt Should be recovered by Law in the Space of three years (except from Persons moving out of the Province) I think in that Time most Debts would be paid, and people in a way to Live: but as it now goes it will be worse and worse; people more and more in Debt, and never better till the country is quite undone.\nThis I think highly necessary. If you will print it I will Serve you much in Selling and put the Books into better hands. Yet I have first and last paid you Six pounds for Books of the 2 former Sold: and more I expect from men afar off. I remain Your Friend and Servant\nJoseph Morgan\nThe \u00a37 is long paid to Mr. Peace as you ordered.\n Addressed: To Mr Benjamin Franklin at the New Printing Office near the Market in Philadelphia These", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "09-25-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0010", "content": "Title: A Letter to a Friend in the Country, [25 September 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nThe Pennsylvania Gazette advertised September 18 that this sermon in the form of a letter would be published on the following Monday. The next week it was reported as being \u201cjust published.\u201d The Preface is probably Franklin\u2019s, though it is by no means certain that he wrote the body of the pamphlet. He may, however, have revised it.\nThe Publisher to his Lay-Readers.\nIt is sufficiently known to all the thinking Part of Mankind, how difficult it is to alter Opinions long and universally receiv\u2019d. The Prejudices of Education, Custom and Example, are generally very strong; it may therefore seem, in a manner, needless to publish any Thing contrary to such long imbib\u2019d and generally receiv\u2019d Opinions. It were, however, much to be wish\u2019d, that Men would consider how glorious a Conquest they make, when they shake off all manner of Prejudice, and bring themselves to think freely, fairly, and honestly.\nThis is to think and act like Men; \u2019tis a Privilege common to Mankind; \u2019tis the only way to promote the Interests of Truth and Liberty in the World; and surely, none but Slaves and Lovers of Dominion and Darkness can be out of humour at it; nor would any Man, or any Set of Men, pretend to hinder others from a free impartial Enquiry into Matters of Religion especially, if they had not some sinister Designs in so doing.\nMy Brethren of the Laity, as it is to you that this Letter is address\u2019d, and chiefly for your Sakes that I take the Liberty of Publishing it, it is hop\u2019d you\u2019ll seriously consider the Contents of it. The Generality of the Clergy were always too fond of Power to quit their Pretensions to it, by any thing that was ever yet said by particular Persons; but my Brethren, how soon should we humble their Pride, did we all heartily and unanimously join in asserting our own natural Rights and Liberties in Opposition to their unrighteous Claims. Besides, we could make use of more prevailing Arguments than any that have been yet advanc\u2019d, I mean such as oppose their temporal Interests. It is impossible they could long stand against the united Force of so powerful Antagonists. Truth manag\u2019d by the Laity in Opposition to them and their temporal Interests, would do much. Their pretending to be the Directors of Men\u2019s Consciences, and Embassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus, (\u2019twere greatly to be wish\u2019d they study\u2019d more to imitate so perfect a Model of Meekness and Humility, and pretended less to a Power that belongs not to \u2019em) and their assuming such like fine Titles, ought not to frighten us out of a good Cause, The glorious Cause of Christian Liberty. It is very probable, indeed, that according to their laudable Custom, they will make very free with the Characters of those that oppose their Schemes, and like sound, orthodox Divines, call them Hereticks, unsound in the Faith, and so on; but there is no Argument in such kind of Language, nor will it ever persuade. And we ought to value such ridiculous Epithets just as little as St. Paul did, Acts 24:14, since instead of a Reproach, they may be our greatest Glory and Honour. Such kind of Treatment was always look\u2019d upon to be a strong Argument either of a bad Cause or a weak side. That it is our Duty to make a vigorous Opposition to them, is plain from these two Considerations: First, that when and wherever Men blindly submitted themselves to the Impositions of Priests, whether Popish, Presbyterian or Episcopal, &c. Ignorance and Error, Bigotry, Enthusiasm and Superstition, more or less, and in Proportion to such Submission, most certainly ensu\u2019d, And Secondly, That all the Persecutions, Cruelties, Mischiefs and Disturbances, that ever yet happen\u2019d in the Church, took their rise from the usurp\u2019d Power and Authority of her lawless Sons. Let us then to the utmost of our Power endeavour to preserve and maintain Truth, Common Sense, universal Charity, and brotherly Love, Peace and Tranquility, as recommended in the Gospel of Jesus, in this our infant and growing Nation, by steadily opposing those, whose Measures tend to nothing less than utterly to subvert and destroy all. Nothing, in all Probability, can prevent our being a very flourishing and happy People, but our suffering the Clergy to get upon our Backs, and ride us, as they do their Horses, where they please.\nI shall make no other Apology to the Author, or any one else, who may think it unfair to publish what was only a private Letter to my self, than this, viz. that I believ\u2019d it might be useful.\nYour affectionate Brother, and hearty Well-wisher,\nA Layman\n  A Letter, &c.\nSir,\nIt is somewhat surprizing, that a Sermon, which you tell me in yours is said to be preach\u2019d here by a Stranger, (whom you believe to be your humble Servant) should make so great a Noise already, as you speak of, especially at the Distance you live from Philadelphia. As I have no Reason to induce me to conceal it, I own I did give a Discourse, in the sermonizing way, upon the Subject you mention.\nYou say, the Representation made of it in your Part of the Country, has given Occasion to much Speculation, not only among some of the Clergy of the Presbyterian Denomination, but many of the Priest-ridden Laity, who, it seems are put into a Pannick, and much alarm\u2019d at the suppos\u2019d Tendency of it. I would not willingly offend any; but some People\u2019s being offended at important Truths, ought not to hinder their being urg\u2019d and inculcated. All I have to say about the Load of hard Names which you tell me they begin already to heap upon me, is, that their Reproaches, however inveterate, cannot at all hurt me; nor can they affect me any farther than to excite Pity and Compassion towards the Authors of them. I am not much surpriz\u2019d at the Conduct of a certain Set of Clergy, especially since Calumny and Reproach, where they could not command the civil Sword, were (for want of Argument) always the Weapons with which they fought, whenever their exorbitant Claims to Power and Authority were oppos\u2019d. I most heartily wish them a better temper. Christianity teaches us to bless them that curse us, to pray for them that despitefully use and persecute us. And I think indeed, the Names of the aforesaid Persons ought to be given in, to all well-dispos\u2019d Christian Congregations in the Province, to be publickly pray\u2019d for every Sabbath.\nAs I was always a Lover of Truth and Christian Liberty, my only Design in the Discourse was to promote the Interests of both.\nI had almost forgot to tell you, that (if we may believe Report) a Gentleman of this City, in a Sermon which he preached here not long ago, out of his great and abundant Zeal for Orthodoxy and the Safety of the Church, suggested to his Audience, that there were some Preachers lately come into this Country, who might be Jesuits, (a most surprizing Discovery!) and whose Credentials, for that Reason, ought to be enquir\u2019d into. Some of those that heard him, say it was very easy, by the Tenor and Strain of his Discourse, to apprehend who were pointed at in the Insinuation; and think the Probability of their Conjecture greatly strengthen\u2019d, by the vast Care, godly Pains, and pious Industry made use of by this wonderfully charitable Son of the Church, to hinder Mr. H--p--ll, whose Story you know, from getting a Place to preach in.\nHow well founded the Charge of Jesuitism is, where this Reverend and worthy Gentleman (if Report be true) would fix it, is not difficult to apprehend: Some are ill-natur\u2019d enough to suggest, the Charge may much more justly, be laid elsewhere, and that the Occasion of his Clamours is his Fear of losing some of his Parishioners. How strangely censorious the World is grown!\nYour Advice to print the Sermon in my own Defence, as you call it, is what I do not at all relish, nor can I comply with for very obvious Reasons. Yet upon the Supposition which you make of my refusing this; since you insist upon it as the only Evidence I can give of that Esteem and Regard which I always profess\u2019d for you, I so far comply with your Desire, as to send you some loose Hints of what was advanc\u2019d in that Sermon. And as I only write this Letter for the Perusal of a Friend, so I hope you will excuse Want of Method and Exactness in it, which I really resolve to be no way sollicitous about, nor shall I strictly confine myself to the Method, or Manner of Expression made use of in the Sermon, lest we turn too grave upon it. Without any farther Preamble, then, let us come to the Point. After the Formalities of an Introduction and Textual Explication, which I shan\u2019t trouble you with, the Question propos\u2019d to be consider\u2019d was,\nWhether it be lawful to impose any other Term of Communion, Christian or Ministerial, than the Belief of the Holy Scriptures? Or, Whether a Man that professes to believe the Holy Scriptures, and the Christian Scheme of Religion as contain\u2019d in them, ought not to be admitted to Christian and Ministerial Communion, if no Reason can be alledg\u2019d against him in other respects, why he should not?\nThe general Method in which it was propos\u2019d to manage this Point, was to consider the principal Arguments offer\u2019d by those who contend for other Terms of Communion than the Belief of the holy Scriptures, &c. and to endeavour to shew their Weakness.\nThe first Argument examin\u2019d was this:\nA Thing agreed on by almost all Christian Churches, of all Denominations: A Thing universally practic\u2019d in the early Times of  Christianity, &c. ought not to be abolish\u2019d without the strongest Reasons. For tho\u2019 it be acknowledg\u2019d that even the greatest Unanimity of the Christian Church in general, does not amount to a full Proof of the Truth of any Position, or the Reasonableness of any Custom or Practice, yet it must be confess\u2019d, that the said Unanimity forms at least a very strong Presumption in Behalf of the Position asserted, or the Practice establish\u2019d. Now for the Point in question, we have Antiquity, Unanimity, and the Practice of the Church Time out of mind.\n  Answer.\nAs there is no great Stress laid upon this Argument, since it is confess\u2019d that Antiquity, Unanimity, &c. cannot amount to a full Proof, and do at best but form a strong Presumption, so I might without much Prejudice to that Cause that I here contend for, The Cause of Liberty, leave said Argument wholly unanswer\u2019d; but to evince that the Cause of Liberty in this Case, seems to have the Advantage on all sides, let it be observ\u2019d that the Custom contended for is not Apostolical. We see nothing of it in the Holy Scriptures; nay the very contrary may most probably be deduc\u2019d from several Passages. When the Eunuch, when Cornelius, when Three Thousand Souls at once, were converted, there is not the least Hint, that any of the Articles of Faith now stiffly maintain\u2019d by some Sects of Christians as essential ones, and esteem\u2019d by others not necessary, and altogether rejected by others as erroneous, were impos\u2019d as Terms of Communion, or even mention\u2019d at all. It rather appears, that nothing more was required of these new Converts, but that they should acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Messiah promised by the Prophets, the Son of God; and that they should to the best of their Power, act agreeable to his Precepts, and obey his Laws. And really there was hardly a Possibility, that one Discourse should inform them of all the metaphysical Notions, nice Distinctions, which are now brought into our Confessions of Faith as necessary Articles. Had infinite Wisdom thought it any way necessary, or useful, to frame long Confessions of Faith, or to establish numerous Tests of Orthodoxy, as is now done in most Christian Churches, is it to be suppos\u2019d, that neither our Saviour nor his Apostles would have left any such thing in their Writings; especially if it be consider\u2019d that many Things are wrote, which in point of Importance are not to be compar\u2019d to the Necessity or Usefulness of Creeds contended for by the Imposers of them?\nIn the two or three first Centuries of Christianity, those acquainted with the History of those Times, tell us, they can find no Signs, no Footsteps of such Confessions of Faith, or Tests of Orthodoxy. The Creed commonly called the Apostles\u2019 Creed, is on all hands allow\u2019d to be an ancient Piece; it is suppos\u2019d by some, to be compos\u2019d in the Beginning of the third Century; and this is the utmost Antiquity that the Learn\u2019d will allow it. This Creed, however, is rather for than against the Principle here contended for: And indeed it is very observable, that it is couch\u2019d in so loose a Manner, with respect to the Points chiefly controverted among Christians, that it is highly probable it was fram\u2019d on purpose with that remarkable Latitude, in order to let into the Church all such as in general sincerely believe the Holy Scriptures, tho\u2019 with respect to many metaphysical Speculations, they should widely differ from other Christians, or, if you will, from the far greatest Number of the Members of the Catholick Church. This having in all Probability been the prudent Practice of the two first Centuries, the Framers of this Creed thought it proper not to recede much from that discreet Proceeding, whatever it was that induc\u2019d them to make the said Creed, and engag\u2019d afterwards the Church to receive and impose it. Upon the whole, The Practice of the Apostles, and of the purest Ages of Christianity, with respect to the Matter in Debate, seeming to be on the Side of Liberty in this Case, a good deal of Advantage might be taken from it; but having Arguments to offer which I think of much greater Weight, I will infer nothing from the aforesaid Observations, but that they are more than sufficient to remove the first Difficulty alledg\u2019d. What has been done since those primitive Times, may be look\u2019d upon as a general Corruption, and the Authority of the Church in this Case is of no greater Force, than it was in respect to the many Abuses which our Reformers have successfully oppos\u2019d: Nor indeed can our happy Reformation from Popery and religious Slavery be defended upon any other Principle than what is here asserted.\nAnother Argument consider\u2019d was this;\nEvery Society, say Creed-Imposers, has a Right to make such Laws as seem necessary for its Support and Welfare: The very Nature of a Society requires, nay supposes this; else it would lie open to all kinds of Enemies; there would be no Provision, no Remedy against the Intrusion of Adversaries, that might destroy its very Vitals; in a Word, no Means to keep them off, or turn them out. And why of all imaginable Societies, a Christian one alone should be depriv\u2019d of such a Right, is not to be accounted for. It is acknowledg\u2019d, say they, that in a christian Civil Society, penal Laws may be justly made, to punish even to Death notorious Transgressors of the Rules of Morality; now, either you must suppose that all speculative Matters of Religion are indifferent, or, in other Words, that there are no Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation; or else you must own, that such Persons as obstinately refuse to believe such necessary Articles, may lawfully, nay ought to be excluded that christian Society, wherein the said Articles are receiv\u2019d as essential to Christianity.\n  Answer.\nThe Parallel that is so frequently drawn between a Society consider\u2019d meerly as civil, or as concern\u2019d only in Temporals, is very lame, or rather, it is no Parallel at all. A civil Society may lawfully indeed make what Laws it pleases for its Defence, Preservation and Welfare; It is not accountable for such Laws to any superior earthly Power; it has no other Master here besides the Consent of the Plurality, or the Will of one or more whom the Plurality has appointed to act for the Good of the whole Body. But a christian Society has no manner of Right to make any Laws that may any how infringe upon the Laws already made by our common King Jesus; or that may in any Measure encroach upon the Rights and Privileges of his Subjects. Our King is absent, he has left us a System of Laws which is on all Hands own\u2019d to be perfect and compleat (and for that Reason, no Occasion for new Laws) and they that acknowledge him for their King and Head, and believe that System to contain his Will in full, and seem resolv\u2019d to act accordingly, are upon that very Account to be admitted Members of the Christian Society or Church. For this our spiritual King has not deputed any one to be here on Earth his Vicegerent, or to interpret that Will as he pleases, and impose that Interpretation on any. Every Subject is equal to any other Subject; their Concerns have nothing to do with this World; every one is accountable for his Belief to Christ alone. Let no Man then presume to judge of another Master\u2019s Servant. One Man\u2019s Salvation does not interfere with the Salvation of another Man, and therefore every Man is to be left at Liberty to work it out by what Method he thinks best.\nSpeculative Points are not indifferent, but then their Necessity or Importance varies; it increases or diminishes according to the various Circumstances and Capacities of those to whom they are proposed. Those Articles of Faith which the Society is pleas\u2019d to declare to be essential, or necessary to Salvation, may not appear so to this or t\u2019other Man, altho\u2019 he acknowledge Jesus Christ to be his Redeemer or spiritual Monarch: Now the Society\u2019s insisting upon the Essentiality or Necessity of such Articles, does not add to them one Grain of Importance with respect to this or t\u2019other Man\u2019s spiritual Welfare.\nIf Jesus Christ has not most distinctly and positively pronounc\u2019d that such and such a speculative Point, understood so and so and not otherwise, is necessary to Salvation; then the Society\u2019s peremptorily pronouncing and imposing the Belief of it, according to its own Interpretation, as a Term of Christian or Ministerial Communion, seems plainly to be an unjustifiable assuming of a Power that belongs to Christ alone, a Tyrannical Treating as a Rebel, a Man whom perhaps Jesus Christ himself loves as one of his most faithful Subjects, and a manifest Infringement upon the most sacred Laws of christian Charity.\nThe Words obstinate, obstinately, and the like, are of no Force here; God alone knows whether a Man that refuses to believe such or such a speculative Point, be guilty of Obstinacy or no. What seems to Men to be the Effect of Obstinacy, may in reality be the noble Result of a steady Sincerity, and a real Love of Truth.\nHere perhaps it will be said, that by this Scheme all manner of Power and Authority is taken away from the Church, even with respect to Matters of Indifferency, as suppose Settling the outward Modes and Circumstances of Worship. And it is very true, indeed; I know no proper Legislative Authority she is invested with, no Power to make Laws which Christ has not already made, and impose those Laws as Terms of Communion.\nThe Church, according to the very Notion of our Antagonists, must be resolv\u2019d into the Majority. By the by it may happen, that a Blockhead, or a wicked Man may have the Casting Vote, for establishing this or that Rite or Ceremony, or this or that Doctrine. A very comfortable Thing indeed, that Terms of Communion should be impos\u2019d by the Decision of such a Man! A mistaken, I had almost said a ridiculous Notion of Unity, is the Spring of all those tyrannical Pretences which occasion the Dispute before us. Some of our Adversaries seem to think it essential, or at least highly useful to the Interests of Christianity; that there should be not only an Unity of Opinion, but an outward Uniformity in Worship, (and indeed, as to Worship, as well as Opinion, an outward Uniformity is all that the most absolute Church Authority can effect; for as to the secret Thoughts and Sentiments it cannot reach them) whereas in reality such an Uniformity is neither the One nor the Other. And if it be of some Advantage, I cannot help thinking, that allowing Christians as much Liberty as is here contended for, is the likeliest Means to produce that very Unity, or Uniformity, so much recommended. The Reason is plain; many a Man who justly and with Indignation rejects an erroneous Opinion, or an insignificant Rite, which the Church or Religious Society would impose upon him as a Term of Christian Communion, that is, as a Thing essential to the Being or at least to the Purity of Christianity, would let People quietly go on in such an Opinion if it were not of an evil Tendency, and join with them in the insignificant Rite if it were left to his Choice.\nIn abundance of Things in Life, but most peculiarly in Religion, a rational Creature may easily be led, but will not be driven. And tho\u2019 a Thing be in itself of little Consequence, yet the Making or Declaring it essential, renders it highly prejudicial to Religion; and therefore out of a discreet Zeal, not any Obstinacy, a good Man may reject and oppose it, because enforc\u2019d as material: Whereas if look\u2019d upon and left as what it really is, he would scarcely mind it, much less would he scruple to comply.\nBut suppose that an outward Uniformity could be introduc\u2019d into the Catholick Church, yet at least an inward Unity, a Unity of Affection, which is infinitely preferable, would in all Probability soon spring from Liberty. Truth having then full Room to play, would soon diffuse it self, and settle in almost every Man\u2019s Breast, at least with respect to Matters of Importance in Religion.\nOn the other Hand, that same Liberty would probably soon lead People to lay aside all impertinent Practices, and cause them perfectly to forget, or at least hardly to think it worth while Disputing about a Number of metaphysical useless Points, which the Spirit of Pride and a Love of Power and Authority on one side, and Impatience of spiritual Servitude on the other, turn into so many Engines of Contention and War.\nHere it may be farther ask\u2019d; Must there not be some Form of Worship? Must not that be agreed on? Must it not be carried by the Majority either of the whole Church, or of those who are appointed to preside in it, and settle such Matters? Yes. Well what then? Why if there be in the Church some refractory Person, who not liking the Form of Worship, or, if you will, the Confession of Faith agreed on, What must be done with him? Why truly, just nothing.\nIf a Man thinks your Worship inconsistent with the Purity of Christianity, or your Confession of Faith subversive of some fundamental Tenets, and that you (i.e. the Church in general, or the acknowledg\u2019d Rulers of it) on the other Hand, be convinc\u2019d that all your Tenets or Rites, or some of them, which are rejected by that Man, are either necessary, or so highly useful, that the Salvation of others would be endanger\u2019d, or that their Instruction and Edification cannot so well be carried on without them; then indeed (and not perhaps in any other Case; for it were better to erase out of your Creed twenty uncertain Tenets, which, if true, have little or no Influence on the Conduct of Men; and abolish twenty trivial Formalities in publick Worship, than to offend one single weak Brother, and move him to separate from you) then indeed, I say, you may retain such Tenets, and keep up the Practice of such external Acts of Devotion: For surely you, i.e. a Number of Men, have the same Liberty to think and act in Religion as that one Man has.\nBut then, what will authorize you, or the Church to impose these your Tenets and Forms upon him as Terms of Communion? You cannot say he is not a Christian, for he solemnly professes to believe the holy Scriptures. Let him alone as to his Belief. Nay, hear him patiently if he be willing to preach to you; for he may be in the right; and as to publick Worship, why should you hinder him from joining with you if he pleases? He certainly is or may be (and that May be is equivalent to a Certainty with respect to our Duty to him) I say, he is, or may be, a true Christian, and as such I think one may defie all the World to show from Scripture or Reason, that Jesus Christ, the sole King and Governor of the Christian Church, allows any Man, or any Set of Men, or any Nation, to refuse him Admittance to all the Advantages and Comforts of Christian, and consequently Ministerial Communion.\nTo make Judging of a Man\u2019s Soundness in the Faith, who professes himself a Christian, to make that, I say, a Matter of Prudence, and to invest any Set of Men with a Power of thus Judging, and Censuring and Excommunicating according to their Determinations, is prodigiously odd among Protestants. It seems the Assertors of such Maxims do not consider that they make such Judges just so many Popes.\nAs to those Texts of Scripture which are sometimes adduc\u2019d to prove such an Authority in the Church, they are, in my humble Opinion, just nothing to the purpose. That we ought to pay a certain Respect and Civility to such Persons as are appointed to teach others, to preside in the Church, and to take Care that Things be done decently and in order, is not, I believe, deny\u2019d by any body; and that is all that can be fairly infer\u2019d from some of those Passages of Scripture. And it appears too, that the rest of the said Passages are applicable only to the Apostles, or to those Pastors who in the Apostolical Times were endued with the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. And really, common Observation shews us, that your stiff Maintainers of Church-Authority, are as far, if not farther, than any other Men, from being bless\u2019d with those heavenly Qualifications.\nAnother Argument consider\u2019d was this;\nPrivate Judgment in Matters of Religion, will surely be allow\u2019d of by Creed-Opposers; Now, if every Man may judge for himself, then he may join with such other Men as think as he does. They may form a Society, and separate themselves from all others, who in their Way of Thinking maintain pernicious Errors. They may reject any Teacher that entertains erroneous Notions in Points which they look upon as  essential. It were very, hard truly, say Creed-Imposers, that Men should not have the Liberty of chusing their Teachers. If a Man that offers to be a Minister or Teacher, refuse to subscribe the Confesson of Faith receiv\u2019d in that Society into which he would be introduc\u2019d as a Teacher, that Society has reason to think that that Man entertains and might broach Heretical Doctrines; and if they have a Right to reject him, \u2019twould be very imprudent to admit him. And those Proceedings, say they, can by no Means be stiled Persecution, or any thing like it. The Man thus excluded Christian or Ministerial Communion, does not thereby suffer in his Person, Interest or Reputation; far be it from us, say they, to make use of Gibbets, Tortures, &c. nay to do a Man any Harm for Heretical Principles, that have no Tendency to subvert the civil Society. Nor do we imagine, that a Man\u2019s being excluded Communion with this or that Christian Society, can affect his spiritual Concerns. We do not judge of the State of his Conscience, much less do we pronounce Damnation, &c. Therefore there is here no placing our selves in the Judgment-Seat of Christ, there is no usurping an Authority that belongs to him alone, &c.\n  Answer.\nHow from the Right of private Judgment (and as to that Right, we had as good give up at once, our Reason, our Religion and all, as part with it) how from that Right, I say, it is infer\u2019d, that you may refuse a Man Christian or Ministerial Communion, upon Account of his differing from you in Matters disputable, I confess I am utterly at a Loss to see. Before I proceed, I must observe, that by Matters disputable amongst Christians, I mean all such as are or may be controverted. Perhaps it will be said, that a Man may dispute even the Truth of Christianity itself, reject Christ, look upon him as an Impostor, &c. Well, what then? Why, say they, must even that Man be admitted into Christian Communion with us? The Answer is obvious: That Man does not at all pretend to Communion, for he declares himself no Christian; he denies the Truth of Christianity in general. We don\u2019t exclude him, he excludes himself. But this is altogether out of the Question: For the Person here suppos\u2019d, is one that professes to believe the Holy Scriptures, or who declares himself a Christian. But to return.\nThe Right of private Judgment seems to me most fairly and evidently to lead us to a Consequence directly opposite to the one that was deduc\u2019d. If I allow my self the Privilege of private Judgment, surely I cannot without Injustice deny it to another. I happen to differ widely from this or that Man, concerning this or that Speculative Point; I should certainly think it very rash in him to declare I am no Christian; since I am conscious I believe in Christ, and exert my best Endeavours to understand his Will aright, and strictly to follow it. By that grand Law of Christianity, whatsoever ye would that Men should do unto you, do ye likewise unto them, I ought not to pass on him that Judgment, which I should think very presumptuous as well as uncharitable in him. Now, the Case between a whole Society and one Man, is exactly the same as between Man and Man; the Number of Persons on one side, and their Fewness on the other, does not make any Alteration in it.\nShall WE refuse that Man Communion with us Christians, who perhaps is deem\u2019d by the Almighty himself a good Christian? What Authority have we for doing so? Infinite Wisdom has not thought it proper to appoint any infallible Interpreters of his Reveal\u2019d Will, and to impose this Interpretation of theirs as a Term of Communion. And if he has not, how come any Set of Men to pretend to a Power of determining the Sense of the Holy Scriptures for others? Why should I pretend to impose my Sense of the Scriptures, or of any part of them, upon you, any more than you yours upon me? and since a Pretence to Infallibility is absurd, these Interpretations may in many Instances be wrong, and when this is the Case (as it is much to be fear\u2019d, it but too often happens) Error and Falshood is impos\u2019d instead of Truth.\nBut suppose nothing but Truths be impos\u2019d, it can never answer the End intended. The Man on whom they are impos\u2019d is either convinc\u2019d of, and consequently believes them, or he is not, and consequently does not believe them. If he be convinc\u2019d, there is no Occasion for such Imposition at all, it is altogether unnecessary and foolish. If he be not, this Method will never clear up his Understanding; will never set the Evidences, by which those suppos\u2019d Truths are supported, in a Light which shall convince him. He may play the Hypocrite indeed, \u2018dissemble and speak a Language foreign to his Heart\u2019 (I wish there was less Ground for suspecting it to be too often the Case) nor, can I conceive any other End that can be answer\u2019d by the Imposition of Creeds and Confessions. At best, if a Man pretends to believe the Truth of such and such Propositions or Articles, the Evidences of which he does not see, but meerly upon the Authority of other Men like himself, or because they tell him they are true, his Faith can be no other than human, not divine, or rather indeed it is altogether a blind implicit Faith. The only Way to convince a Man of his Errors, is to address his Understanding. One solid Argument will do more than all the human Creeds and Confessions in the Universe; and if a Man once clearly sees the Truth of any Proposition or Article, his assent necessarily follows, and in all Cases of this Nature his Assent will be in Proportion to Evidence perceiv\u2019d.\nAnd as to Ministerial Communion, does it not at first View appear extreamly odd, not to say whimsical, to deny it to a Man of Piety and Virtue, Learning and good Sense. These are the only Qualifications, that I know of, necessary to entitle him to it.\nSuppose he differs much from the Sentiments of the Church, or Society to whom he offers his Ministry, if these Differences in Opinion do not affect his Christianity, what Reason can be assign\u2019d for rejecting him? Why, he may, say you, preach dangerous Doctrines; that is, Doctrines which you now think dangerous; but those very Doctrines, for what you know at present, may prove vastly conducive to the Interests of Religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Take Care that you do not obstruct the Propagation of Truth, by rejecting a Man, who is perhaps a very wise and good Man. What are you afraid of? Let him be heard; and if he cannot convince you that you are in the Wrong, retain your present Notions. If you have the Truth on your Side, his unsuccessful Attacks upon it, will rather root it deeper in your Mind, than shake it. Trust your self to Reason and to God\u2019s kind Providence; but never do any Thing that may hinder the Discovery of any useful and important Truth. You say, you may be led into Error, but if you be sincerely persuaded an erroneous Opinion is a true one, do you imagine our good and just God will punish you for it? No, surely; or else what would become of all Mankind. Sincerity is the Touchstone. \u2019Tis that will decide our future Condition. The Justness of our Reasonings, in all Instances, we cannot absolutely answer for; but we can know whether we be sincere in our Enquiries and Searches after, or Love for any Truth, whereby we suppose God\u2019s Glory, and the Good of our Fellow-Creatures may be promoted. Nor can I think it too bold to say, that it were better for a Man to fall into many Errors, by earnestly and sincerely endeavouring to find out Truth, than accidentally to stumble upon it.\nIt were hard, say they, that we should not have the Liberty of chusing our Teachers; and what if we will not receive any but such as do in the Main believe as we do, what Injury or Wrong is done to them? Are we in Duty bound to receive any one that desires it?\nIn answer to this, let it be observ\u2019d, that I do assert our own spiritual Liberty, and that of our Fellow-Creatures, by allowing every Man qualified according to the Scripture Rules, to teach, and we our selves to mind and consider what he takes to be Truth. No Man ought to resign his Liberty: Let him make Choice of his Minister as his Judgment and Conscience direct him. The Circumstances of the World require that some Men be establish\u2019d among us constantly to do the Functions of a Minister, and they are maintain\u2019d for that purpose. Now as a Maintenance can be afforded only to a certain Number of such constant Ministers, so People are necessitated to single out some Persons among those that pretend to that Office. It is very proper to prefer a Man of Learning and good Sense, to one that is known to be an ignorant Person. Discretion, Good Nature, and an exemplary Life, are chiefly to be minded: But to reject a Man in other Respects preferable, to reject him, I say, because he does not in the Whole believe as we do, is to declare we will not upon any Account, or for any Reason, alter our Opinions whatever they be. It is to declare that we are infallibly in the right: It is to profess we will not be taught any material Truth but what we know and are persuaded of already. How absurd would it not be to say to a Man, Sir, we acknowledge you to be a very learned and diligent Person, we believe you know a vast deal more than the Generality of Christians; upon these Accounts we pitch upon you to be our Teacher or Minister, with this one little Proviso, that you will teach us nothing but such and such Truths which we perfectly know and are fully convinc\u2019d of. As ridiculous as this appears to be, \u2019tis exactly the Case before us.\nBut, say they, that learn\u2019d Person whom we make choice of, and who submits himself to the Laws of our Society, may adorn, illustrate, and set those Truths in a clearer Light, &c. But yet the Absurdity still remains as to the most material Points; and in a Word, I cannot see how a fix\u2019d Resolution to remain invariably in the Belief of such and such Articles, can be freed from the heavy Imputation of either a Pretence to Infallibility, or a wilful Blindness. Neither can I see what great Occasion there is for a Teacher at all, except it be to save Parents and Masters the Trouble of Instructing their Children and Servants. It looks prodigiously odd that any should think That an Act of Christian Liberty which in reality appears the very contrary. To confine our selves to listen only to such Teachers as are sworn to tell us nothing but what we do sufficiently know and believe, is actually to forsake our Liberty, to fetter our Understandings, and limit ourselves to a poor, slavish, narrow Circle of Thought.\nAllow me here to observe by the by, that it were greatly to be wish\u2019d that we had Teachers among us, who could live independently of the Gratuities and Voluntary Contributions of the People, who upon Occasion would give us the Fruits of their studious Piety. Any Man in easy Circumstances, that had a competent Share of Learning, and a fair Character in the World, should at first Request be with Gratitude admitted into the Number of our Teachers. It is easy to see what Advantages might probably flow from his Instructions. But to proceed.\nAs to the Wrong done to a Man who is deny\u2019d Communion with a Society of Christians, tho\u2019 he declares his Belief of the Holy Scriptures, it is obvious that the Thing is not so harmless as our Creed-Imposers alledge. How afflicting must it not be to a Man who is conscious of his sincere Affection to Christianity, and consequently for all those that profess it, to be look\u2019d upon by his Brethren as a Heretick and Infidel, &c. Thus in the first Place he suffers in his Reputation. \u2019Tis well known how the Generality of Men, shun, dread, and even hate a Person branded with Heresy by the Rulers of a Church or spiritual Society. No Advantages, no Places of publick Trust and Honour or Profit, no temporal Favours to be expected for him wherever they can prevent it. Thus he suffers in his Worldly Circumstances. Poverty, Contempt, Aspersion often pursue him, and destroy his Health and Constitution: Thus our suppos\u2019d Heretic suffers in his very Person. Now you may call this what you will; but if it be not Persecution, it is something so very like it, that for my own Part I confess, it shocks all my Notions, Sentiments and Affections of Humanity and Christian Charity to a very high Degree. So also as to a Teacher; a Man may have spent his Substance and Youth to fit himself for the Ministry, if he be rejected when there is nothing against him but his refusing to subscribe Creeds which perhaps he does not well understand, or in the Belief whereof he cannot rest entirely satisfied, or if he refuses it for some other Reason, it is or may be a very great Disappointment. Then follows the general Odium that constantly pursues a poor Soul once call\u2019d a Heretick. The Case is yet worse with a Man that has been a Minister for some Time, and who in his Search after Truth having dropt into an Opinion deem\u2019d erroneous, is so ingenuous and fond of doing what he thinks advantageous to Mankind, as to confess or declare the Alteration of his Sentiments. The Case is worse indeed, for he is immediately depriv\u2019d of Office and Benefice, and may, for ought I know, he and his Family, go and starve on a Dunghill with his fine Discoveries. And is this then their Separating themselves from such a Man, (as they mildly express it) is their Refusing him Christian or Ministerial Communion, so inconsiderable, so easy, so harmless a Thing? Who is it that does not see how inconsistent it is with Christian Charity? And tho\u2019 these Men tell us, they would not be for making use of Racks, Tortures, Gibbets, Death, &c. yet it is plain that if they have a Right to make Use of the lowest Degrees of Persecution, or to lay a Man under any Restraints for religious Speculations; they have a Right to proceed to higher degrees, if the lowest don\u2019t answer the End, and so to go on to the highest that even a Spanish Inquisition cou\u2019d invent, if nothing less will do. O rare Protestants! It is well observ\u2019d by an ingenious Gentleman, that whoever would convince by Stripes and Terror, proclaims open War against Christianity and Common Sense, against the Peace of Society and the Happiness of Mankind. Persecution, says he, for any Opinion whatsoever, justifies Persecution for any Opinion in the World; and every Persecutor is liable to be persecuted, upon his own Principles, by every Man upon Earth of a different Opinion and more Strength. What dismal Butcheries would such a cruel Spirit raise! But to proceed.\nTo alledge that a Person truly heretical can by no means deserve the Name of a true Christian, would not be to the Purpose; for the very Point in question is, Whether a Person that believes the Holy Scriptures, and that differs from the Generality of Christians only in Points determined and interpreted by Creed-makers and not by Christ, be undoubtedly a Heretick or no. Or even, Whether real Errors in Matters not most distinctly and evidently declar\u2019d essential by Christ and his Apostles, but afterwards denominated such by Creed-Makers, do constitute a Man a Heretick, or blot out of him the noble Character of a sincere and real Christian. Now in this Case to declare against that Man what Christ or his Apostles have not declar\u2019d, is demonstrably, as was observ\u2019d before, to usurp his Authority, and venture to act in direct Opposition to his Design and Will. Who can deny, that to say as the Romanists do, We are certainly in the Right, and Heretics cannot plead the same, is grossly to beg the Question? And in a Word, to deny Christian or Ministerial Communion with a Man only because he does not think as we do, is evidently to make a moral Impossibility a Term of such Communion. How injurious this to the Spirit and Design of the Christian Scheme of Religion, which breathes forth nothing but Concord and Harmony: How injurious to the great and benevolent Author of it, who is all Love, Truth, Meekness and Charity! It is, I say, to make a moral Impossibility a Term of Christian or Ministerial Communion. For as long as Men are made by God himself, of different Constitutions, Capacities, Genius\u2019s, &c. and since in his all-wise Providence he affords them very different, very various Opportunities of Education, Instruction and Example, a Difference in Opinion is inevitable. Besides a Man\u2019s Sentiments are not in his own Power; Conviction is the necessary Result or Effect of Proof and Evidence; and where the Proof does not appear sufficient, a Man cannot believe or assent to the suppos\u2019d Truth of any Proposition if he would. But to proceed to the Consideration of another Argument offer\u2019d by our Creed-Imposers.\nThe strange Mixture of various and jarring Opinions, the Confusion which it is imagined would inevitably, upon the Principles here asserted, rush into the Church of Christ, is the grand Difficulty often objected and insisted upon.\n  Answer.\nIndeed if Creeds were a sure Means to form and preserve the Unity of the Church; if they could prevent that Confusion, that Anarchy which it is suppos\u2019d would be introduc\u2019d upon the Scheme of Liberty in this Case, then truly our Creed-Imposers would have an Advantage much to be regarded: But it seems, indeed, that Creeds and Confessions are so far from bringing into or keeping up in the Catholick Church, that Unity, that Concord and Harmony which we ought all most earnestly to wish and pray for, that they have been one of the chief Causes of the cruel Divisions whereby the Church has been as it were rent and torn into so many Parties or Sects, and do still as much or more than any Thing else, contribute to perpetuate and heighten Feuds, Animosities and Dissensions; so that as long as such a Use of them as is here oppos\u2019d, remains in Force, there will be little or no Hopes of a Coalition or Re-Union of the Christian Sects into one Body.\nIn fact, the Catholick Church of Christ (and this must be granted, except you confine the Catholicism of the Church to this or that particular Sect, and will not allow any other Sect to belong to the Church Universal, which I believe no thinking Person will do) the Catholick Church of Christ, I say, actually groans under all those mighty Inconveniences aforesaid; and in fact, all the Creeds and Confessions now extant do not in the least mend the Matter. Things, with respect to a strange Mixture of Opinions, Confusion, Anarchy, &c. cannot be worse than they are. Even in this City we have half a Dozen, for aught I know half a Score, different Sects; and were the Hearts of Men to be at once opened to our View, we should perhaps see a thousand Diversities more. Many a Man who in Appearance is of this or that Profession, entertains many Notions quite opposite to it, or to the Notions of others of the same Denomination. Creeds or Confessions may perhaps bring upon some small Christian Societies, an external Show, an outside Appearance of Unanimity in religious Sentiments. And this is the very best Effect they can produce. A poor, an inconsiderable, a bad one indeed! so that the Scheme here contended for can do no Harm but what by the opposite one is sufficiently done already, and remains utterly unremedy\u2019d. Fact is against the Advocates for Creeds and Confessions, but they have nothing against the other Party in the present Argument but Conjecture. Besides do we not plainly see that the greatest Absurdities and Falshoods are supported by this goodly Method of imposing Creeds and Confessions: Such as Cringings, Bowings, Mortifications, Penances, Transubstantiations, praying to Saints and Angels, Indulgences, Persecution or playing the Devil for God\u2019s Sake, &c. and if the Church has a Power of imposing at all, she has a Power of imposing every thing she looks upon to be Truth, and consequently the aforesaid Impertinences, if she in her great Wisdom thinks proper to do so. And can any Man in his Senses imagine that to be a proper Method of promoting the Interests of Truth in the World, which will as certainly propagate Falshood, Superstition, Absurdity, Cruelty, &c?\nIt is readily granted, that according to the common Proverb, As many Men as many Minds, so in all probability, very great would still be the Diversity of Opinion, should Creeds and Confessions be abolish\u2019d. But then first, there would be among Christians a full Liberty of declaring their Minds or Opinions to one another both in publick and private. And secondly Heresy, that huge Bugbear would no more frighten People, would no more kindle among us the hellish Fires of furious Zeal and Party Bigotry. We might peaceably, and without the least Breach upon Brotherly Love, differ in our religious Speculations as we do in Astronomy or any other Part of natural Philosophy. Those two invaluable Blessings, full Liberty and universal Peace would in all likelyhood make the Ways of Truth so easy, that the greater Number of Christians would even come to think alike in many Cases in which they now widely differ. And, in a Word, that mighty Diversity of Opinions look\u2019d upon as such a horrid and monstrous Thing, (and such indeed it is, when it carries along with it the Venom and Claws of religious Animosity, Tyranny and Persecution) that mighty Diversity of Opinions, I say, would be look\u2019d upon as a harmless, innocent Thing, if Men would bring it under the amiable Power of mutual Love and Forbearance. Let the Church but enjoy Unity in Point of reciprocal Benevolence, make all the various Members of it one Body by the Bonds of Charity and mutual Forbearance, and then let them differ as much as you will in their Speculations, it will not occasion any thing like Confusion or Anarchy. Whereas imposing this or that System of Articles, this or that Rite or Ceremony, enslaving People\u2019s Minds, excluding them from Christian or Ministerial Communion, in short, unjustly vexing them will hardly ever change their Sentiments; but it will surely tend to turn their Hearts against such Imposers, Enslavers, &c. and Animosities will soon greatly encrease the speculative Differences.\nThus, Sir, you have a random Account of the principal Things advanc\u2019d in that frightful and monstrous Sermon; and a longer one than I at first intended. There are several Things in it, which would require farther Illustration: But I thought it needless, since I write to you, Verbum Sapienti satis; besides, I was afraid of tiring you overmuch; and indeed if the Reading of this Scroll tires you as much as the Writing of it has me, you\u2019ll be provok\u2019d to commit it to the Flames. I am, Sir, Your most Humble Servant.\nPhiladel. Aug. 30. 1735.\n  Postscript.\nAllow me here, however, to subjoin, by way of Postscript, some Observations of a very worthy and ingenious Gentleman, concerning the Argument drawn by Creed-Imposers from the Rights of Private Judgment. This I add, because in our last Conversation you seem\u2019d not to be altogether satisfied with any Thing I could offer upon this particular Argument. What follows, will, I hope, thoroughly convince you; wherein the Author shews that the Principle of the opposite Party, pursu\u2019d thro\u2019 its just and natural Consequences, gives all manner of Encouragement to the Popish Usurpation.\nThe Principle (of Creed-Imposers) says he, is this, That even where the religious Rights of others are affected by our private Judgments, we must judge for our selves, and are in so doing only maintaining our own just Rights, that are concern\u2019d in these Judgments. The opposite Principle is, That where the religious Rights of others are affected, we ought to rest in the express Decisions of Scripture. I believe this, says the candid Author, is a very fair State of the Controversy. If it be not so, \u2019tis owing to Mistake and not Design.\nNow if we are to pursue our private Judgments, even in those Cases in which the religious Rights of others are affected, where shall we stop? Are we not to go as far as our private Judgments direct us, and are not all Men right in doing so? To this Argument, it is no matter, whether the particular Judgments Men form, are just and according to Truth, or not; for Truth consider\u2019d as abstracted from the Discerning of the Mind, is no Rule of Action to any Man, nor can any Thing be Truth to us but as we apprehend it to be so, and see the Agreement between the Ideas compar\u2019d in our Minds. So that in receiving the Truth ourselves, or imposing it upon others it must be the Apprehension or Perception of our Minds that must be our Rule. And this Rule must equally direct Men, whether they are really in the Right, or only think themselves so, seeing Truth not known or perceiv\u2019d by the Mind, can be no Rule at all. And so even supposing Men are wrong in their Particular Decisions, yet they are right in following their Judgment, while they continue of it; which is only saying that they are right in not contradicting the Light of their own Minds; and this, I suppose, no body will dispute. Now if all Men are right in following their private Judgments, even where the religious Rights of others are affected, will not this justifie any Encroachments upon our religious Rights, that any Man or body of Men shall judge necessary and just? To apply this to the Popish Usurpations, (which I do to shew the Tendency of the Principle, without intending a Reflection upon any Protestant, as if he approv\u2019d what I know in his Heart he abhors) Pray what has the Popish Church been doing all this while, but pursuing this very Principle? Has she not judg\u2019d for herself in all the Creeds she has ever published? Has not she judg\u2019d for herself that she is infallible? Has she not as the natural Consequence of this, judg\u2019d that all Men ought to submit to her? has she not judg\u2019d for herself that she ought to use Force? and that Hereticks ought not to live at all? Has she not judg\u2019d for her self that the Magistrate ought to execute her Sentences? and that the Civil Power should wait upon the Ecclesiastick? These are very wrong Judgments, I own; but yet they are the Judgments of that Church. They own no Conviction that they are in the Wrong, and no doubt Thousands thro\u2019 strong Prejudice believe they are in the right. Well then, they must not contradict the Light of their own Minds, but are right in going on according to it. And here is no Stop. Let a Man or Body of Men be never so far wrong, let him never so much injure the civil or religious Rights of his Fellow-Creatures in following his private Judgment; yet according to this Scheme, while he is of that Judgment he is in the right to follow it. So that no Protestant whatsoever can condemn a Papist, for doing what he does, while he judges he ought to do so. This is so obvious, that I cannot make it more so. Now it is not possible that a Principle should be a good and just one, in Pursuance of which such odious Things can be and have been done. \u2014\u2014 And this may be applied to all Imposition that ever was in the World, and to all that ever shall be in it. Let Men be never so far in the Wrong, let their Impositions be never so unscriptural, while they have that way of Thinking, they do right in imposing their Errors; there never can be any Security for Truth from such Impositions, and every Church that ever was or shall be, is right in fixing such Terms of Communion, and such Doctrines and Usages, as shall be agreeable to the Sentiments of such Men as have the greatest Numbers or Interest on their Side, when the Constitution is fram\u2019d, and the publick Confessions compos\u2019d. So that here we can never have any fix\u2019d Rule or Standard, either for Faith or the Terms of Christian Communion; and a Man that\u2019s accepted as a good Christian in one Place, may stand excommunicated in another; while \u2019tis certain, he is equally the Object of Divine Favour in every Place. In a Word, Private Judgment in this Scheme, is just another Name for Arbitrary Power, and no Man can set a Limit to it.\nThe other Way of Thinking furnishes a very clear Answer to Papists, and all others that are guilty of Imposition, if it be but a just one, viz. that their whole Scheme is wrong, for they are wrong in forming Judgments so as to affect the religious Rights of others, other than the express Decisions of Scripture: This cuts the very Nerves of all Anti-Christian Authority, and leaves us a fix\u2019d Point to rest at.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "10-30-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0011", "content": "Title: A Defense of Mr. Hemphill\u2019s Observations, [30 October 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nFranklin\u2019s Observations on the Proceedings against the Rev. Mr. Hemphill (see above, pp. 37\u201365) was answered by A Vindication of the Reverend Commission of the Synod: In Answer to Some Observations on their Proceedings Against the Reverend Mr. Hemphill, advertised as \u201cThis Day is Published,\u201d in the American Weekly Mercury, September 4. Ascribed to Jonathan Dickinson, the Vindication defended the Synod against Hemphill\u2019s charges that it had violated the standard of fair conduct and infringed his rights; and it examined again, this time with a fuller display of the evidence, the articles against Hemphill. That person, asserted the author, had the right to \u201cdeclare non-communion with us, if he sees Reason for it,\u201d just as the Synod has the right to judge the qualifications of its own members.\nFranklin\u2019s rejoinder to the Vindication was this Defence of Mr. Hemphill\u2019s Observations. Before it appeared, however, not only was Hemphill\u2019s case losing in interest, but his cause was irretrievably lost. During the summer, one of the clerical party discovered that Hemphill\u2019s sermons were not his own, but those of notorious Arians. Putting on the best face he could, Franklin stoutly affirmed he would rather hear Hemphill deliver \u201cgood sermons composed by others than bad ones of his own Manufacture\u201d; but the \u201cdetection gave many of our party disgust\u201d and cost Hemphill many supporters. Refusing to defend himself before the Synod, declaring that the pamphlet then in the press contained his defense, he defiantly challenged them to excommunicate him. The Synod ignored the challenge, but, September 22, unanimously made his suspension permanent and his destruction complete.\nHemphill left Philadelphia, and no more is known of him. As for Franklin, he \u201cquitted the congregation, never joining it after,\u201d though he continued to give its ministers financial support for many years.\n  A Defence, &C.\nWhen I first read the Rev. Commission\u2019s Vindication, I was in doubt with my self, whether I should take any publick Notice of it. I had reason to believe this Part of the World was troubled with Impertinence enough already, and that a Reply would be only affording our Authors a new Occasion for more of it by another Publication. Besides, I had little Reason to hope, that the most obvious Refutation of what our Reverend Authors have said to flatter and deceive their unthinking Readers into an Opinion of their honest Zeal and inflexible Justice, should ever gain one Proselyte from the Dominion of Bigotry and Prejudice.\nAs for the discerning Part of Men in this Place, especially those who were immediate Witnesses of the Proceedings which gave Rise to this Controversy, they must be own\u2019d to be the most impartial Judges of this Affair; And those who were not present at the Tryal, if they are at all concern\u2019d about the Merits of the Cause, will depend rather upon the Relation of those who attended it, as they are respectively influenc\u2019d by an Opinion of the Veracity and Judgment of the Relater, than upon any Vindication of the Parties themselves.\nFor these Reasons then, tho\u2019 Occasion be taken to address this Part of the World once more about this Affair, yet I shan\u2019t undertake a formal Answer to every trifling Impertinence in the Vindication. It were but an ill Complement paid to the intelligent Reader, to pretend helping him to see Absurdities in such Meridian Lustre, as our Authors elegantly phrase it. There is good Reason to believe the Opinion of thinking Men, who know the Affair, is not much chang\u2019d by it, and that they entertain much the same Sentiments of the Rev. Commission which they did before. Perhaps the more Pains they have taken, by invented Surmises, wrested Constructions of Hemphill\u2019s Words and Actions, and sinister and palpable Prostitutions of Scripture-Phrase, to hang him up, as a Scare-crow to the People, and represent him as a dangerous Innovator; the more Occasion they have given to many to call in question their slavish and arbitrary Principles; and the more they have convinc\u2019d them, even in these remote Parts of the Earth, (where they thought themselves secure) of their Inconsistency to every Thing that is real Virtue, Religion and Christian Liberty. Actions, and the Principles from whence they flow, do mutually illustrate each other; at least we can have no other Way in judging of either, but by comparing them respectively: However it must be own\u2019d, that here the most curious Observers of Men, their various Affections and Desires, in many Instances make erroneous Conclusions; but \u2019tis evident, that nothing can render such Error or Mistake excusable, but a fair and candid Enquiry, free from all Humour and Interest, and a Consciousness of Honesty in Searching after Truth. Now whether the Authors of the Vindication had this latter more in view, than an Impatience to justify themselves by any Methods they could contrive, not to be too obviously reprehended by the Bulk of their Readers; and to raise a religious Pannick among the People, by pointing out one as professedly disclaiming the most important Doctrines in the Christian Scheme, I would even leave to their own Consciences upon a serious Self-Examination.\nBut this is not the first Time, that such pretended Defenders of the Faith once delivered to the Saints, have us\u2019d the same Artifice, and let loose the popular Rage upon their Adversaries.\nA Defender of the Faith, must be own\u2019d a truly great and venerable Character; But I can\u2019t forbear quoting the Advice of a great Author, and applying it to the Gentlemen, Members of the Commission, \u201cThat since they have of late been so elated by some seeming Advantages which they are ill-suited to bear; they would at least beware of accumulating too hastily, those high Characters, Appellations, and Titles, which may be Tokens perhaps of what they expect hereafter, but which as yet don\u2019t answer the real Power and Authority bestowed on them.\u201d\nIf Truth stands in no need of false and deceitful Arts to support it, as our Rev. Authors themselves own; I wonder that they should in the very next Paragraph, use so much Flourish, either to palliate what they were asham\u2019d to own, or to publish a palpable Falsehood. Certainly had they been more honest to have told the Truth, or more ingenious in the Texture of their Inventions, they would not have expos\u2019d themselves so much; I speak with Reference to the Sermons preach\u2019d by Messrs. Cross and Pemberton during the Tryal; which were mention\u2019d by Hemphill, as an Evidence of their having prejudg\u2019d his Cause; Here they say, \u201cthey thought they could recommend the great Doctrines of the Gospel to their Hearers, and warn them against destructive Errors, and the prevailing Errors of the Day, without being charg\u2019d with reflecting upon Mr. Hemphill, or accusing him as a guilty Person, and that Mr. Hemphill was neither accus\u2019d nor condemn\u2019d in them.\u201d But if these Discourses were not calculated against Hemphill, against whom then? who besides himself had at that time stirr\u2019d up their watchful Zeal? None surely. For they say themselves in the second Page of their Performance, \u201cthat they had no Suspicion of being call\u2019d into the Field of Battle, and oblig\u2019d to defend the great Doctrines of the Christian Religion, \u2019till Complaints were deliver\u2019d in against Mr. Samuel Hemphill, a Minister who arriv\u2019d at Philadelphia the last September.\u201d Now if they had been enclin\u2019d to have spoke Truth, they would have said, That Mr. Andrews\u2019s long establish\u2019d Character for Virtue and Integrity, was sufficient Evidence of the Truth of any Charge they might have received against Hemphill from him, and that it was high Time to bestir themselves, and exorcise the Demon out of Philadelphia.\nWhat occasion\u2019d, say our Authors, Hemphill\u2019s Removal from his native Country, we know not, &c. What it was that occasion\u2019d his Removal is not material to enquire. He may return to his native Country, when he will, which is more than a certain Person (and a principal one too) among them dare do. But I forbear \u2014\nPage the 5th our Authors say, \u201cNow let the World judge, whether our declaring our selves of an Opinion different from Mr. Hemphill, and refusing to own him as one of our Members, while his Principles were so contrary to ours, gave him any Ground to load us with so many hard Reflections, and represent us as Men fir\u2019d with a persecuting Spirit, and fill\u2019d with Malice and Prejudice against him. Have not we an undoubted Right to judge for our selves, and to declare what our Opinions are?\u201d\nTho\u2019 I believe no body will deny their undoubted Right to declare their Opinions, yet \u2019tis certain that to go farther, and deprive him as far as they can of Liberty to declare his; to deprive him of the Exercise of his Ministerial Function, and of a Livelihood as far as it depends on it, because his Principles were thought contrary to theirs, gave him a just Occasion to represent them as Men fir\u2019d with a persecuting Spirit, since this was Persecution, as far as they could carry it. They farther add \u201cHas not the Commission that Liberty which is common to all Societies, of Judging of the Qualifications of their own Members? Mr. Hemphill is possess\u2019d with the same Right, and may declare Non-Communion with us, if he sees Reason for it.\u201d If, by judging of their Members Qualifications, they mean, that they have a Right to censure them, as they have done him, and expel \u2019em their Society; I think it is clear they have no such Right; for, according to this way of Reasoning, the Spanish Inquisitors may say to a Person they imagine heretical, You, \u2019tis true, have a Right to judge for your self, to quit our Communion, and declare yourself Protestant; but we have likewise the common and natural Right of Societies, to expel you our civil and ecclesiastical Society, destroy your Reputation, deprive you of your Estate, nay your Life, or in other Words do you all the Mischief we please, notwithstanding your Right of declaring Non-Communion with us. How so? Because we have the Power, and Inclination to do it. Are not these Reasons by which they vindicate themselves every whit as good to justify the Practice of the Inquisition? Neither do, nor can the Synod or Commission give any better, for expelling a Man their Society, branding him with the Name of Heretick, and depriving him of a Livelyhood, as much as lies in their Power, for a meer Difference in Opinion: And after all, out of their great Goodness, declare, they neither gagg his Mouth nor cut off his Hands; or in other Words, allow him Liberty to declare Non-communion with them. A great Favour this! A most extraordinary Act of Grace indeed! But how long he would enjoy it, if \u2019twas in their Power to dispossess him of it, is not difficult to guess, if we may judge of what Men would do by what they have already done. How then were they injur\u2019d by a Comparison with the Inquisition, when thus they justify themselves by the same Reasons, and copy them as far as they can, or dare do?\nHow then must we act, say they; have we no Power to suppress Error and advance Truth? Yes, all the Power that any Set of calm, reasonable, just Men can wish for. They may consider his Assertions and Doctrines expose their evil Tendency, if such they have, and combat the Falshood they find in them with Truth, which will ever be the most effectual Way to suppress them and to attempt any other Method of doing it, is much more likely to propagate such suppos\u2019d Errors or false Doctrines, than suppress them: In this free Country where the Understandings of Men are under no civil Restraint, and their Liberties sound and untouch\u2019d, there is nothing more easy than to shew that a Doctrine is false, and of ill Consequence, if it really be so; but if not, no Man, or Set of Men can make it so, by peremptorily declaring it unsound or dangerous, without vouchsafing to shew how or where, as the Commission did at the Beginning of this Affair, and indeed have yet done no better.\nUpon the whole, if the controverted Points be false and of ill Consequence, let them be expos\u2019d to the World, if not, the Sentence which the Commission hath pronounc\u2019d against them, will prove their own Condemnation; for, to alledge they may treat any Doctrines they please to call false, and the Believers of them, as they have done Hemphill and his Doctrines, is to give them an unbounded Latitude, an unlimited Power of discouraging and oppressing Truth it self, when it happens to clash with their private Judgment and mercenary selfish Views, as I dare say it will often do. See this Argument farther discuss\u2019d in a late Pamphlet entitled, A Letter to a Friend in the Country, containing the Substance of a Sermon, &c.\nPage 6. Our Rev. Authors observe, that \u201cin the greatness of his (Hemphill\u2019s) Modesty, he takes Care to inform us, how universally his Sermons were applauded, to what large Audiences he preach\u2019d, and how much (upon their being read in the Synod) they were approv\u2019d by People of all Perswasions, for the Strain of Christian Charity that runs thro\u2019 them, &c.\u201d\nThis aukward, ill-tim\u2019d, and unjust Raillery is level\u2019d against Hemphill for his being, as they elegantly phrase it, the Trumpeter of  his own Praises; \u2019Tis true, he says, his Sermons were applauded, &c. but this they shou\u2019d have omitted [for] their own sakes, for if it be Matter of Fact that they were so approv\u2019d (on being read in the Synod) as they neither do nor can deny, \u2019tis a very fair and weighty Argument against them, and plainly shews they proceeded against and censur\u2019d what was the avowed Common Sense of all unbias\u2019d and disinterested Judges at the time; and surely we may suppose, he inserted it from some other Motive than meer Vanity, when it was so much to his purpose in helping to strengthen his Argument, and set their candid Proceedings in a fair Light.\nHere they also endeavour to lessen Hemphill, by representing him as a Plagiary, and say, They are apt to think, that if he had honestly given Credit to the several Authors from whom he borrowed much of what he deliver\u2019d, it wou\u2019d have made a considerable Abatement of the Reputation he supposes he gain\u2019d, &c.\nBut which of these Gentlemen, or their Brethren, is it, that does give due Credit for what he borrows? Are they beholden to no Author, ancient or modern, for what they know, or what they preach; Why then must we be told, that Ministers ought to have a good Salary, because they are at great Expence in Learning, and in purchasing Books? If they preach from their own natural Fund or by immediate Inspiration, what need have they either of Learning or Books? Yet Books they have, and must have, and by the help of them are their Sermons compos\u2019d: But why then, you will ask, are we entertain\u2019d with such dull, such horrid Stuff, for the most part? \u2019Tis the want of the Bongo\u00fbt [good Taste] that spoils all. Their Taste is corrupted, and like a bad Stomach will corrupt the best Food in digesting it. They chuse the dullest Authors to read and study, and retail the dullest Parts of those Authors to the Publick. It seems as if they search\u2019d only for Stupidity and Nonsense. If there be in a Book a weak Piece of Reasoning on any Point of Religion, That they remark, and keep it safely to be adopted upon Occasion. If an Author otherwise good has chanc\u2019d to write one Impertinency, \u2019tis all they retain of him. But when Hemphill had Occasion to borrow, he gave us the best Parts of the best Writers of the Age. Thus the Difference between him and most of his Brethren, in this part of the World, is the same with that between the Bee and the Fly in a Garden. The one wanders from Flower to Flower, and for the use of others collects from the whole the most delightful Honey; while the other (of a quite different Taste) places her Happiness entirely in Filth, Corruption, and Ordure.\nPage 6 and 7. We have a lively Instance of their boasted Candor, Truth and Probity, both in their Proceedings at the Trial, and in their Writing of the Vindication. They acknowledge the Charge against \u2019em for admitting Thompson and Gillespie as Hemphill\u2019s Judges, (who, it was alledg\u2019d had condemn\u2019d him already, having declar\u2019d their Sentiments that he was guilty of preaching great Errors) wou\u2019d have some Weight in it, were it true; But these Men have the Confidence to say, No Evidence appear\u2019d to the Commission, that these Gentlemen had prejudg\u2019d his Cause, or declar\u2019d him guilty. \u2019Tis true, the Letters written by Thompson cou\u2019d not be produc\u2019d; They were burnt; by whose Instance I know not; But was there therefore (as these Authors are hardy enough to say) No Evidence? Were there not three Gentlemen of undoubted Credit, that declar\u2019d they had seen those Letters? Men of unquestionable Understanding, and therefore capable of giving an Account of what they had read? Did they not evidence, that the whole Tenor of these Letters discover\u2019d a manifest Prejudice in Thompson towards Hemphill? and did they not repeat one Sentence that made it evident to the whole Congregation? If this was not Evidence, I wou\u2019d fain know what Evidence is. But it cou\u2019d not be admitted by our wise Commission as Evidence; and the Case must have been the same with regard to the Words spoken against Hemphill by Gillespie. That Thompson had written in Prejudice of Hemphill, was prov\u2019d; But That Proof, it seems, must pass for nothing, unless the Writing appear\u2019d to the Commission; By the same Rule, if Evidence had been brought of Gillespie\u2019s Speaking against Hemphill, it wou\u2019d have signify\u2019d nothing with these righteous Judges, unless Gillespie had been pleas\u2019d to repeat the Words before them. Senseless therefore is the Introduction of their Latin Scrap, De non entibus et non apparentibus, idem est Judicium. A Maxim, which if it prov\u2019d what they wou\u2019d have it, wou\u2019d prove that no Fact, how atrocious soever, and witness\u2019d by ever so many credible Persons, shou\u2019d be punish\u2019d unless done in open Court, that the Judges themselves might see it. Extraordinary Doctrine truly! and worthy none but it\u2019s reverend Authors; who have giv\u2019n us this Sample that they are able to outdo the Jesuits themselves, in Subterfuge, Distinction and Evasion.\nAnd therefore topical Evasions\nOf subtil Turns and Shifts of Sense\nServe best with th\u2019 Wicked for Pretence,\nSuch as the learned Jesuits use,\nAnd Presbyterians, for Excuse. Hud.\nBut when Hemphill had with so much Justice excepted against these Gentlemen, how mean, how ungentlemanlike, how scandalous, was their earnest Insisting to be continued his Judges! A strong Evidence of that Partiality and Enmity which they deny\u2019d and labour\u2019d to conceal!\nI dare venture to say, that, except themselves, there was not a Man so mean in that Congregation, who being call\u2019d upon a Jury, in a common Court, if he had been excepted against by the Prisoner, tho\u2019 without cause, but wou\u2019d have thrown up the ungrateful Office with Pleasure, and scorn\u2019d to open his Mouth, or say the least Syllable tending to continue himself in the Place. But the Zeal of having a hand in the Condemnation of a Heretick carried them beyond all other Considerations. The Synod upon the whole unanimously voted them proper Judges; which Unanimity, in the Extract of their Minutes, they ascribe to God as the Work of divine Providence. To make God the Author of a palpable Piece of Injustice, is little better than Blasphemy, and I charge it on \u2019em as such. And their saying, in the case of Thompson, that there was no Evidence; I charge upon \u2019em, as a downright Falsehood. Of these two Burthens, I leave them to disengage their Shoulders as well as they can. But\nTis the Temptation of the Devil,\nThat makes all human Actions evil,\nFor Saints may do the same thing by\nThe Spirit in Sincerity\nWhich other Men are tempted to,\nAnd at the Devil\u2019s Instance do. Hud.\nPage 8. of the Vindication, it is said, Nor was it any Breach of Charity in the Commission, to suppose, that his Persisting in the Refusal, (of his giving up his Notes) look\u2019d too much like a Consciousness of his own Guilt, when the first Reason he gave for this his Refusal, was, that no man was oblig\u2019d to furnish Matter of Accusation against himself. What was this but a tacit Acknowledgment of his Guilt, otherwise his producing his Notes wou\u2019d have been his best and noblest Defence, and no Accusation against him.\nBut however they censure Hemphill for refusing to give up his Notes, it appears from all their Proceedings, that he was in the right to do so, since the worthy, candid and impartial Commission was determin\u2019d to find Heresy enough in them, to condemn him; nor cou\u2019d any thing annex\u2019d to the Paragraphs objected against, (which explain\u2019d or obviated their suppos\u2019d heretical meaning) have any weight at all with them; for elsewhere in their Performance, when they allow that Hemphill in his Sermons and Prayers gave several Proofs of his Orthodoxy; yet, to invalidate this, they charitably insinuate at the same time, that he cloaks his real Sentiments, in order to have the more ample Occasion of doing secret Mischief to the Cause he publickly professes to espouse. A Suspicion truly replete with christian Charity, and in every Respect worthy it\u2019s Authors.\nBut say they, they cou\u2019d not allow some Gentlemen to contradict the Evidence against Hemphill, by affirming that they heard no such Words in his Sermon, as their Evidences said they had heard, because they were a negative Evidence, or cou\u2019d only swear they did not hear such Words; But that was not the case; and here as in other places, their pious Fraud, their sanctify\u2019d Prevarication stands them in great Stead; for at the same time, that those illiterate Evidences were sworn against Hemphill, there were Gentlemen of undoubted Probity and good Sense ready to affirm to the particular Expressions, as they really were deliver\u2019d by Hemphill, the meaning of which widely differ\u2019d from that of those sworn to, by his Accuser\u2019s Witness which when Mr. Moderator saw, he stifled the Motion by crying out, He wou\u2019d have no clashing of Evidences so that tho\u2019 the Evidence in Hemphill\u2019s Favour was beyond Comparison, the least likely to mistake the Expression, (and as much a positive Evidence as the other or any Evidence cou\u2019d be in such a case) yet their appearing for him was Cause sufficient to make the impartial Commission disregard or suppress their Testimony. What was this, but chusing to credit the Evidence against Hemphill at all hazards; to encourage his Accusers, and stifle every Truth that seem\u2019d to make in his Favour?\nThese Reverend Gentlemen have always made a mighty Noise about a pretended Promise of Hemphill\u2019s to produce his Sermons to the Commission; and now they tell us, that three Gentlemen of undoubted Veracity solemnly declar\u2019d that they heard Hemphill say, he wou\u2019d give up his Notes to the Commission of the Synod, if requir\u2019d. Two of these Gentlemen of undoubted Veracity, were the Rev. Mr. Tenant, and one of his Sons, of whose Evidence having taken particular Notice, I shall beg leave to set it in its true Light.\nMr. Tenant the Father was ask\u2019d What he knew of the Affair? (the Clerk being ready to write down what he shou\u2019d say) and he answer\u2019d thus, Being with Mr. Hemphill, I ask\u2019d him, if he thought he shou\u2019d be willing, when the Commission met, to shew them his Notes, if requir\u2019d; and he answer\u2019d, Yes. The Clerk minuted it thus, I ask\u2019d him, if when the Commission met, he wou\u2019d shew them his Notes, if requir\u2019d; and he answer\u2019d, he wou\u2019d.\nThus by a Hocus Pocus slight of hand in the management of this Evidence, they converted an Opinion of Hemphill\u2019s of what he might be willing to do some Months afterwards, into an absolute Promise of what he really wou\u2019d do. And thus alter\u2019d and wrapt up, the Rev. Witnesses took their solemn Affirmation to the Truth of what the Clerk had written.\nFor if the Devil to serve his turn\nCan tell truth, why the Saints shou\u2019d scorn,\nWhen it serves theirs to swear or lye,\nI think there\u2019s little reason why. Hud.\nBut, as they pretend, It was the glorious Cause of Christ and his Church, and in behalf of the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and who can doubt, after what one of the Commission has said concerning innocent Wiles, but that in such a Cause, \u2019tis lawful to say or swear any thing.\nHowever, since the Vindicators declare their Abhorrence of the Principles of that unknown Member of theirs, who thinks any Method of promoting a good Cause, innocent and lawful; I imagine it not improper to inform them who he is, if it were only to see how far their Abhorrence will carry them in their Dealings with him, and whether their Zeal against Impiety be equal to their Zeal for Orthodoxy. The Rev. Gentleman\u2019s Name therefore is Nath. Hubbel.\nI pass by, and leave to the Observation of every Reader, what sad Work the Vindicators, Page 10, make on\u2019t, when they wou\u2019d justify Andrews upon the Charge of adducing a false Evidence. Vain is their Endeavour to wipe out the indelible Stain he has fix\u2019d upon his Character by his Conduct in that Affair. They flounder and wallow in his Quagmire, and cover themselves with that Dirt, which before belong\u2019d to him alone; bringing as a Proof of his Innocence, That, which in the strongest Manner confirms his Guilt; Since it shews that he knew the Truth at the same time, that he procur\u2019d a Witness to swear the direct contrary. But to proceed,\nIn this Page, They put the Trial on the Credit of Hemphill\u2019s Notes, and yet out of their usual Good-nature and Charity, suppose that Evidence true, which is utterly falsify\u2019d by his Notes, and rather believe he had delivered some Heresy from the Pulpit omitted in his Notes, than mistrust the Memory or Integrity of a crazy, weak, furious and partial Evidence. Behold the Men and their Impartiality! Lo the Desire they profess to have of seeing him vindicated from every Article of Accusation!\nThey farther insinuate that Hemphill had no right to expect their particular Objections to the Extracts, and for this reason, because they were there, not as his Accusers, but Judges; and tell us, that their sincere Design was to give him full Opportunity of explaining his Sense, defending his Doctrines, &c.\nI shall not now dispute what was their sincere Design, which, I believe, is by this time very evident to every impartial and discerning Man, nor whether they came there with an Intent to judge or condemn him, tho\u2019 the latter plainly appear\u2019d to all By-standers. But they ask, how they cou\u2019d point out his Errors to him, before they found him guilty of any; how they cou\u2019d acquaint him with the Censures they thought him worthy of, before they had concluded him censurable, &c.\nI wou\u2019d gladly have seen these Gentlemen, when they were writing this; they must certainly have been in great pain to keep Countenance, with all their saint-like Assurance, when they assert a thing so ridiculous, false and absurd; for, Who mark\u2019d out the several Passages objected against in Hemphill\u2019s Sermons? I suppose the Commission. What did they mark \u2019em out for? They thought them not Orthodox; or did they mark \u2019em at random without understanding their Meaning, or without meaning any thing themselves. I believe they\u2019ll hardly allow this to be the Case, tho\u2019 one wou\u2019d almost think it was, from reading their Minutes and the Extracts. I take it then for granted that the Extracts were made by the Commission, because they were thought Heterodox: Now with what Face can they say that they cou\u2019d not shew him his Error because they had not discover\u2019d it, when they themselves had cull\u2019d out those Passages from his Sermons, as containing the most flagrant Heterodoxy and Error. Is not this then a vile, canting, false, prevaricating Excuse? For who were they that ought to have shewn the Errors and Falsehoods of the Doctrines contain\u2019d in the Extracts? Certainly those Men who had made the Extracts, and thought \u2019em unsound and erroneous. And did not they, by making them, shew themselves the Supporters of Andrews\u2019s Charge, and the Abettors of the Accusation? For to prove the Charge on Hemphill was properly the Business of his Accuser, (Andrews) but lest the Accuser shou\u2019d not be able sufficiently to support and make out the Impeachment, the merciful and impartial Judges took it upon themselves. Behold that Spirit that wou\u2019d have rejoic\u2019d to see Hemphill vindicate himself; and brought them there, as merciful Judges, not Supporters of the Accuser!\nNor can they by any Means extricate themselves out of this Difficulty, by alledging they gave him an Opportunity of vindicating himself from the Charge, and explaining what he meant in the Extracts; For, was it to be suppos\u2019d that Hemphill, who did not think them faulty, shou\u2019d happen to pitch upon every particular Article in the Extracts, which they consider\u2019d as objectionable? And to put him upon a general Explanation was to impose a tedious, and indeed a useless Task; for he who had an Opinion of the Extracts, and their Tendency, quite different from the Commission, was very likely in such a Number of them to expatiate sometimes, where They wou\u2019d think it needless, or entirely omit what they thought most heterodox. For, as he neither meant to preach, nor thought he had preach\u2019d any dangerous Error, he cou\u2019d not of himself find out where it lay, to explain it, or defend himself upon it, till they who were convinc\u2019d he had done it, wou\u2019d shew him where and how he had done so, and in what Sense they understood him; and this was absolutely the Business of the Commission.\nTheir Endeavours to justify Cross, p. 39, for changing his Sentiments, and condemning for Heresy, what but a day or two before he acquitted, need not be much insisted on. I shall only say, \u2019tis strange a Gentleman of his acute Penetration cou\u2019d not \u2019till after much Consideration discover Heresy in a Paragraph, that shock\u2019d an illiterate Evidence at the first Hearing, and oblig\u2019d him to run out of the Church in the midst of it. But they have, methinks, giv\u2019n up the Point entirely, in blaming the Philadelphia Gentleman for publishing what was spoken in private Conversation, since this is a tacit Acknowledgment that Cross then spoke his true Sentiments in Confidence, however he intended to act in Publick. But who, \u2019till now, cou\u2019d have imagin\u2019d, that the Sentiments of a Minister of the Gospel, deliver\u2019d to one of the Laity upon a Matter of Religion, ought by all Means to have been kept a Secret?\nLet us now consider a little their Remarks on Hemphill\u2019s Observations upon the Articles of Accusation exhibited against him in their Minutes.\nIt is a very melancholy and affecting Consideration to find any, who pretend they are set for the Defence of the Gospel, taking so much Pains (tho\u2019 perhaps ignorantly) to propagate Doctrines tending to promote Enthusiasm, Demonism, and Immorality in the World. This may be look\u2019d upon to be a very heavy Charge upon the Authors of the Pamphlet now before me; yet the Charge is so easily made good, that it looks like an Affront to the Reason and a distrusting the Common Sense of Men to be at any trouble in doing it. But before I come to a particular Examination of the Accusations, &c. it is necessary to consider briefly the main End and Design of the christian Scheme of Religion, which our Authors seem, by their Performance, not at all to understand.\nIt is well observ\u2019d by an ingenious Writer, \u201cThat the common Mistake to which the Folly and Superstition of Men, in all Ages, has led them, is to over-value things of lesser Importance in Religion in comparison with greater; to substitute the Means in Place of the End; or rest on these as in themselves sufficient. Now if in any case the Worth and Excellency of Means lies in their Subserviency to the End, whence they derive their Value, there can hardly be a grosser Blunder in Practice, than to substitute the Means in place of the End; or to use them otherwise than with Regard, and in Subserviency to it. But if we once justly fix the main End of the christian Institution; a due Regard to that will lead us to a right understanding of the comparative Worth and Excellency of the several things contain\u2019d in it; will direct us what we ought chiefly to be concern\u2019d about, and shou\u2019d have in view, in our use of all the Means Christianity points out to us.\u201d\nNow the surest way to find out the End and Design of the Christian Revelation, or what View the Author of it had in coming into the World, is, to consult the Revelation itself. And he himself (the great and glorious Author) tells us, he came to call Sinners to Repentance; that is, not only to a hearty Concern for Sin, but to an actual Amendment and Reformation of what was amiss in their Conduct. And Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of Mankind, elsewhere gives us a full and comprehensive View of the Whole of our Religion, and of the main End and Design of the christian Scheme, when he says, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy Mind, and thy Neighbour, as thyself, and he plainly tells us, that these are the most necessary and essential parts of God\u2019s Law, when he adds, on these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. \u201cThese are what Nature and eternal Reason teach us; and these are the two great moral Precepts, which the Revelations the Almighty has made to Mankind, are design\u2019d to explain and enforce.\u201d Moreover St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy expressly tells us, that the End of the Commandment, (i.e. of the christian Institution) is Charity, or Love, (as the original word might as well, or better, be translated here, and in several other Places) i.e. Love to God, and Love to Mankind.\nIt wou\u2019d be needless to quote any more Texts of Scripture to this Purpose; they are to be found in almost every Page of the New Testament. So that upon the whole, it may justly be concluded, that the main Design and ultimate End of the christian Revelation, or of Christ\u2019s coming into the World, was to promote the Practice of Piety, Goodness, Virtue, and Universal Righteousness among Mankind, or the Practice of the moral Duties both with Respect to God and Man, and by these Means to make us happy here and hereafter. All the Precepts, Promises, Threatnings, positive Institutions, Faith in Jesus Christ, and all the Peculiarities and Discoveries in this Revelation tend to this End; and if God gives a Revelation to Mankind at all, it is this, and this only that can make it worthy of him.\nNow that natural Religion, or that the Laws of our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our Fellow-creatures: That the Laws of our Nature, I say, oblige us to these things, even the Rev. Vindicators themselves, will hardly be altogether so absurd as to deny, since they acknowledge, p. 20, of their learn\u2019d Performance, the christian Revelation to be agreeable to our Nature. By what Accident such an Acknowledgment slipt from their Pen is not easy to guess; I imagine it to be a Mistake of the Printer; if not, how consistent it is with other parts of their wise Scheme is obvious to the lowest Capacity.\nWhat Hemphill means by the first Revelation which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it\u2019s natural Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine Tendencies of them.\nNow, that to promote the Practice of the great Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been already prov\u2019d from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person, that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing. But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill\u2019s asserting,\n  Article I.\nThat Christianity, [as to it\u2019s most essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a second Revelation of God\u2019s Will founded upon the first Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature. Let it not be pretended, that these Words, [as to it\u2019s most essential and necessary parts,] are here added to get over a Difficulty; for, it is plain even from the Extracts themselves, mangl\u2019d as they are, that this is his Meaning; Nor can any Mortals upon Earth be suppos\u2019d stupid enough, (our Authors, and the Rev. Commission excepted) to understand what he says otherwise. Where lies the Absurdity of his saying, that this second Revelation of God\u2019s Will is agreeable to the first, and is an Illustration and Improvement of the Law of Nature, with the Addition of some positive Things, such as two Sacraments, and going to God and making our Approaches to him, in the Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ; and so of the rest of the Propositions under this Article. These Gentlemen surely, wou\u2019dn\u2019t take upon them to say that the contrary Propositions are true and orthodox; for Instance, That this second Revelation of God\u2019s Will, is not agreeable to the first, nor is it an Illustration and Improvement of the Law of Nature, &c. If what Hemphill has asserted be false, this must be true. But, whether they look upon what he has advanc\u2019d, to be true or false, they do not directly say, only in general find Fault with it.\nWhat they say, is this, p. 16, What farther serves to illustrate the meaning of all this, [of what Hemphill has said] (I wish they had plainly told us how they understand him) is his consideration of these things, which are properly christian, wherein Christianity, as being an Improvement of natural Religion, carries our Duty higher than Men generally thought themselves oblig\u2019d to by the Light of Nature. Among all which Peculiars of Christianity, say they, wherein (if in any thing) it is distinguish\u2019d from the Law of Nature, we hear not one word of Faith in Jesus Christ, of the Necessity of our Interest in the Benefits of his Redemption, of Justification by his Righteousness, or of Sanctification by his holy Spirit; nor one Word of any thing but what we find urg\u2019d by the Heathen Moralists from the same Sort of Arguments.\nSurely these Gentlemen must have a strong Itch for wrangling, and be greatly inclin\u2019d to Suspicion and evil Surmises. Does it follow from Hemphill\u2019s not mentioning Faith in Jesus Christ among the Instances which he gave of the Peculiarities of Christianity, that therefore he does not look upon Faith in Jesus Christ to be a Peculiar of it? Besides does he not expressly mention (as in the Extracts themselves) our going to God, and making our Approaches to him in the Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ, as an Addition [i. e. a Peculiar] of this Second Revelation of God\u2019s Will [i.e. of Christianity?] Now can any one imagine that Hemphill, or any one else, that is a Christian, wou\u2019d thus make his Approaches to God without believing in Jesus Christ? But to proceed,\nHas Hemphill any where deny\u2019d the Benefits of our Redemption by Christ, or the Assistances of the holy Spirit to all good Men in the Work of their Sanctification? \u2019Tis possible indeed he may not understand these things, as these Gentlemen do; and since they have not explain\u2019d what they mean by them, nothing more need be here said about \u2019em, but that it is certain, they were intended, as Means, to promote the great End and Design of the christian Revelation, viz. The Practice of Piety and Virtue; and if this End be not answer\u2019d by the Peculiarities of the christian Revelation, they can be of no Advantage to us with Respect to our Acceptance with God. But again,\nWhat do these mysterious Authors mean here, by these Words, Justification by his (Christ\u2019s) Righteousness, or as they elsewhere call it his imputed Righteousness to justify us in the Sight of God? Do they mean, that the Almighty transfers the personal and perfect Righteousness of Christ to Men, or that he infuses it into them, and looks upon it, as the same thing with their own actual Obedience to his Law, and that in him they fulfil the Law?\nSuch a Notion is abominably ridiculous and absurd in itself; and is so far from being a Peculiar of Christianity, that the holy Scripture is absolutely a Stranger to it; Nor does the Notion tend to any thing less than the utter Subversion of Religion in general, and Christianity in particular. To prove this, I shall here transcribe the Reasonings of a Pious and learn\u2019d Divine, the late Rev. Mr. Boyse of Dublin in Ireland.\n\u201cFirst,\u201d says he, \u201cThis Scheme [of imputed Righteousness] renders Christ\u2019s Satisfaction to the Justice of God, by offering up himself as our expiatory Sacrifice, needless and superfluous.\n\u201cThe divine Law never subjects any to Punishment, who are regarded and accepted by God any Way as perfect Fulfillers of it. They may have transgress\u2019d it in their natural Persons; but if another by God\u2019s own Appointment, is constituted their legal Proxy, and his sinless Obedience to the Law be in God\u2019s Account, and by an Act of strict Imputation made their personal Obedience, then after such an Act of Imputation, no Sins commited by them in their natural Persons, can be any longer charg\u2019d upon them as theirs; and as a noted Writer (tho\u2019 no profess\u2019d Antinomian) speaks, as to the Elect, there was never any Guilt upon them in the Judgment of God. And this shews the Confusion that those run into, who supposing Christ to be in the strictest sense our Surety, assert him to have both discharg\u2019d our Debt of perfect Obedience, and our Debt of Punishment too. Whereas he that has fully discharg\u2019d the Debt of Obedience by another, as a legal Surety, can never be liable to the Debt of Punishment. For the Penalty of a Law never extends to any that are justify\u2019d as perfect Fulfillers of it by one that God himself has constituted their legal Proxy, made his sinless Obedience to become theirs by his own Act of Imputation. We need indeed both the Merit of Christ\u2019s sinless Obedience and Satisfaction too to obtain for us that Act of Grace, by which we are pardon\u2019d and entitl\u2019d to Life upon our Compliance with the gracious, and indeed necessary Terms of it. But if his sinless Obedience be made by a strict Imputation, our Personal Obedience, we need no Satisfaction to attone for the past Disobedience of our natural Persons.\n\u201c2dly. This Scheme of theirs is subversive of the Gospel Doctrine of Forgiveness.\n\u201cFor, he that is accounted and accepted as a sinless Observer of the Law, by one that by God\u2019s Allowance and Estimation was the same Person with himself, stands in no need of Forgiveness for what he may have done in his natural Person, and is only dealt with according to the sinless Obedience of his legal Proxy, whose Obedience was perfect and sinless from his Birth to his Death, and whose Performance of it is suppos\u2019d by God\u2019s Act of Imputation, to be made theirs, whose strict Representative he was. And therefore as far as I can see the Antinomian Writers very justly infer from this rigid Notion of Imputation, that God sees no Sin in Believers, that there never was any Guilt upon them in God\u2019s Judgment, that they have no Occasion or Need to pray for the Pardon of it. And how this can be reconcil\u2019d with that perfect Pattern of Prayer which our Lord has taught, that directs us as much to pray for the daily Forgiveness of our Trespasses, as, for our daily Bread, the Favourers of this unscriptural Scheme, wou\u2019d do well to consider. And how this can be consistent with the constant Practice of all christian Churches, as well as private Christians, who are wont in their publick Assemblies, their Families, and their secret Devotions to implore divine Forgiveness, needs to be resolv\u2019d by the Patrons of this Scheme. For sure the Meaning of those Prayers, is not barely that God wou\u2019d manifest our Pardon to our own Consciences. For Desert of Punishment inseparably attends all Sin. For Sins of Ignorance, meer inadvertency, &c. God\u2019s Act of Grace provides for their Pardon, upon a general Repentance. For Sins that are wilful, a particular Pardon, upon a particular Repentance; and as to both we need to sue for Pardon, and this is God\u2019s appointed Means of our obtaining it.\n\u201c3dly. This Scheme weakens the Force of those powerful Motives which the Gospel sets before us to persuade us to Holiness of Heart and Life.\n\u201cThe Gospel manifestly supposes us to be reasonable and free Agents plac\u2019d in a State of Trial, and Probation for the Rewards and Punishments of a future State. And accordingly makes Use of a great Variety of Arguments to disswade us from all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to perswade us to live righteously, and soberly, and godly in this present world. And those Arguments are suited to those various Passions of human Nature, that are the usual Springs of our moral Actions. Sometimes it uses Arguments to work upon our Fears; and such are all Threatnings of eternal Punishment it denounces against all unbelieving, impenitent and finally disobedient Sinners, against all that refuse to believe this Gospel, or to obey it when publish\u2019d to them. Sometimes it makes Use of Arguments proper to work upon our Hopes; and such all those exceeding great, and precious Promises furnish us with, which assure us of God\u2019s gracious Acceptance, and liberal Reward of our sincere and persevering Obedience. Sometimes it makes use of Arguments proper to work upon our Ingenuity and Gratitude; and such are those that are drawn from the manifold Blessings of common Providence, but especially from the Consideration of the unexampled and astonishing Love of our heavenly Father, and of our Redemption and Salvation.\n\u201cNow whatever persuasive Force the Defenders of this Scheme may suppose to be in the Arguments proper to work upon our Ingenuity and Gratitude, yet their Scheme enervates the Force of all those that are proper to work upon our Fears and Hopes, those two powerful Springs of our moral Actions. For he that has already satisfy\u2019d divine Justice, by One consider\u2019d and allow\u2019d to be his legal Surety, is fully secure from all Danger of Punishment for Sins committed in his natural Person, and he that has perform\u2019d Sinless Obedience by the same Legal Surety, whose Performance of it is by Imputation made and accepted as his, has an immediate Right to the Reward, and has nothing to do as any appointed Means to obtain the actual Possession of it. And therefore not only do the Antinomian Writers make these their favourite Maxims, that Sin can do a Believer no Hurt, and that God is not displeas\u2019d with him on Account of it. He must work from Life, and not for Life, (i.e. must not yield sincere Obedience as an appointed Means to obtain it) that the Holiness of his Life, is not one Jot of the Way to his Salvation: But even other Writers that disclaim the Title of Antinomians, yet thro\u2019 this mistaken Sense of the Imputation of Christ\u2019s Righteousness, adopt the same false Maxims.\u201d Thus far our judicious Author. Now let any unprejudic\u2019d Person judge of the Tendency of this Enthusiastick Doctrine; Whether it does not tend to destroy all Religion, and to introduce all Immorality and Wickedness into the World. Is it not then the Duty of every body to disapprove and discourage the Propagation of such a Notion, that not only tends to subvert the Doctrines of the Gospel, but the Happiness and Welfare of human Society? Even heathen Moralists themselves, how inferiour soever these Theological Wits may suppose \u2019em to be to them, wou\u2019d blush to teach such a palpable Absurdity. It is easy then to apprehend who they are that endeavour to render the Cross of Christ of none Effect, to frustrate the Grace of God, and render Christ\u2019s Death in vain, how strongly soever, they may boast themselves to be set for the Defence of the Gospel. Noble and Worthy Defenders undoubtedly! and if this be the Way to defend it, Know all men by these Presents, That, according to our Rev. Authors, the Way to defend the Gospel, is to promote Immorality and Wickedness among Mankind.\nBut they next proceed to observe, that He (Hemphill) tells us, that allowing freely, that he deliver\u2019d such a Description of Christianity as this, he nevertheless denies the Assertion of these Gentlemen, that it is inconsistent with their Confession of Faith, and more especially he denies, that it is subversive of the Gospel of Christ.\nWhether Hemphill\u2019s Notions of Christianity be or be not inconsistent with the darling Confession of Faith, he is not at all concern\u2019d to enquire; whatever Notions he might have formerly entertain\u2019d of this Idol Confession, he now declares it to be no more his Confession, &c. That his Description of Christianity is not inconsistent with, or subversive of the Gospel of Christ, is already prov\u2019d. But our Authors attempt to prove the contrary; and indeed in such a manner as every Man of Common Sense laughs at. Hemphill has said in his Observations, \u201cThat what he means in his Account of Christianity, is, that our Saviour\u2019s Design in coming into the World, was to restore Mankind to that State of Perfection, in which Adam was at first created; and that all those Laws that he has given us, are agreeable to that original Law, as having such a natural Tendency to our own Ease and Quiet, that they carry their own Reward, &c.\u201d That is, that our Saviour\u2019s Design in Coming into the World, was to publish such a System of Laws, as have a natural Tendency to restore Mankind to that State of Perfection, in which Adam was at first created, &c. Hemphill\u2019s Meaning being thus in a few Words explain\u2019d, it is altogether needless to say any thing about the Observations of these incomprehensible Writers upon this part of Hemphill\u2019s Doctrine. The Scriptures they have adduc\u2019d to prove it false, and every thing they say about it are altogether impertinent and foreign to the Purpose, as every common Reader (our Authors excepted) will easily apprehend. And indeed if they (our Authors) had purposely endeavour\u2019d to give the World an Idea of their impenetrable Stupidity they cou\u2019d hardly have fallen upon more effectual Methods to do it, than they have (I\u2019ll not say in this Part of their Performance only, but) thro\u2019 the whole of it.\nBut before we proceed to the Consideration of the next Article, let us observe (en passant) how grosly these orthodox Writers, page 20, mistake the Question between them and Hemphill. The true State of the Question is, Whether Christianity [as to its most essential and necessary Parts] be not a second Revelation of God\u2019s Will founded upon the first Revelation (the Law of Nature)? Or, Whether Christianity, [as to its most essential and necessary Parts] be not a Reinforcement of the Religion of Nature? And, Whether our Redemption by the Blood of Christ, and all the Peculiarities of the Christian Revelation, were not ultimately intended to promote the Practice of Piety, Virtue and universal Righteousness among Mankind? Nothing need be further said upon the Question thus fairly stated, than what has been already said, \u2019till these Men please to put Pen to Paper again, and let us know their Sentiments about it; and the World may undoubtedly expect a wise Scheme from this quadruple Alliance. Let us then proceed to the Consideration of their Remarks upon\n  Article II.\nWhich is, That Mr. Hemphill denies the Necessity of Conversion to those born in the Church, and not degenerated into wicked Practices. This our Reverend Authors think is sufficiently justified by the Extracts mentioned in their Performance. Let us then see how sufficiently they have made their Charge good. Hemphill in his Discourse upon these Words, For in Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor Uncircumcision, but a new Creature, attempted among other Things to explain this Phrase, a new Creature; and he observ\u2019d that this metaphorical Expression is sometimes made use of in Scripture, to denote that Change or Alteration made by the Grace of God in a Man, when he passes from the State or Character of a Heathen or a Jew to the happy State or Condition of a true and sincere Christian; and that it is sometimes made use of to denote in general the Change and Alteration made by the same Grace of God in wicked and immoral Persons, tho\u2019 profess\u2019d Christians, when they sincerely endeavour to practise the Laws of the Gospel: And Hemphill in his Enlargement took Notice, that this Change is most visible in the Conversion of Heathens to Christianity; and of wicked Professors of Christianity to a Conversation becoming the Gospel of Christ, and that it may be truly affirm\u2019d of such, that they are new Creatures, different from what they were, and scarce to be known for the same Persons; and that, tho\u2019 this be so, yet (as in the Extract) the Effect of Christianity truly believ\u2019d and duly practis\u2019d, is the same upon those who were neither Heathens, nor wicked Christians, but were born of christian Parents, and brought up in a christian Country,  and had the happiness of a virtuous Education, and were never engag\u2019d in vicious Courses. Such as these, he says, tho\u2019 they can\u2019t properly be call\u2019d new Creatures, (that is, in the same Sense and so properly as Heathens or Jews converted to Christianity, or wicked, immoral Persons, tho\u2019 profess\u2019d Christians, brought to a Sense of their Crimes, and a virtuous Course of Action, may be said to be New Creatures) when compar\u2019d with themselves, because they were always what they are, (i.e. Christians) except the Progress which they daily make in Virtue.\nHow the Charge of Hemphill\u2019s denying the Necessity of Conversion, i.e. in one Sense of every Man\u2019s believing the Truth of Christianity, that has a fair Opportunity of being convinced of it, and of practising every Thing that Christianity recommends, or the Necessity of Conversion with Respect to wicked, immoral Christians, i.e. the Necessity of forsaking their evil Courses, and sincerely endeavouring to practise all Holiness, and Virtue; how, I say, this Charge is founded upon this Extract, and the others mention\u2019d in the Vindication, I confess, I am utterly at a Loss to see; and I believe, every Man of common Sense will be as much at a Loss.\nHemphill indeed supposes that Persons, who have all along had the Happiness of a christian and virtuous Education, and who have sincerely endeavour\u2019d to practise the Laws of the Gospel, cannot so properly in the Scripture Sense be stil\u2019d new Creatures; therefore say his wise Adversaries, he denies the Necessity of a Sinner\u2019s Conversion to God: Admirable Reasoning! \u2014\u2014 To which I answer, that\nAsses are grave and dull Animals,\nOur Authors are grave and dull Animals; therefore\nOur Authors are grave, dull, or if you will, Rev. Asses.\nThis Reasoning is every Whit as conclusive, and as infallibly just as theirs.\nIt wou\u2019d be a needless spending of Time to make any farther Remarks upon what they say under this Article, or to take Notice of what little Use the Texts of Scripture, they mention, are to prove the Necessity of inward Pangs and Convulsions to all truly sincere Christians; they are only different Expressions signifying the same Thing; viz. pointing to us the Necessity of Holiness and Virtue, in order to be entitl\u2019d to the glorious Denomination of Christ\u2019s real Disciples, or true Christians.\nBut lest they shou\u2019d imagine that one of their strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly overlook\u2019d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone State by Nature, as it is commonly call\u2019d, proceeding undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam\u2019s first Guilt. To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. \u2019Tis a Notion invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators. \u2019Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father\u2019d upon the Christian Religion as deliver\u2019d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things be transferr\u2019d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to punish him for it, is unjust and cruel.\nOur Adversaries will perhaps alledge some Passages of the sacred Scriptures to prove this their Opinion; What! will they pretend to prove from Scripture a Notion that is absurd in itself, and has no Foundation in Nature? And if there was such a Text of Scripture, for my own Part, I should not in the least hesitate to say, that it could not be genuine, being so evidently contrary to Reason and the Nature of Things. But is it alledg\u2019d, that there are some Passages in Scripture, which do, at least, insinuate the Notion here contradicted? In answer to this, I observe, that these Passages are intricate and obscure. And granting that I could not explain them after a manner more agreeable to the Nature of God and Reason, than the Maintainers of this monstrous System do, yet I could not help thinking that they must be understood in a Sense consistent with them, tho\u2019 I could not find it out; and I would ingeniously confess I did not understand them, sooner than admit of a Sense contrary to Reason and to the Nature and Perfections of the Almighty God, and which Sense has no other Tendency than to represent the great Father of Mercy, the beneficent Creator and Preserver of universal Nature, as arbitrary, unjust and cruel; which is contrary to a thousand other Declarations of the same holy Scriptures. If the teaching of this Notion, pursued in its natural Consequences, be not teaching of Demonism, I know not what is.\nAll that Hemphill has to say about the Mistake of citing Words for Scripture Expressions, which he owns are not, is, that such a Mistake is not so bad, nor of so dangerous Consequence, as perverting the holy Scriptures, which these Authors are most miserably guilty of; and he thinks his Opinions still just, and agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, for any thing they have said to the contrary. Now for\n  Article III.\nWhich is, that Hemphill has declaim\u2019d against the Doctrine of Christ\u2019s Merit and Satisfaction. A heavy Charge indeed; and to support it they produce several Extracts from his Sermons. Now, if what is advanc\u2019d in these Extracts be false and heterodox, the contrary Propositions must be true and orthodox. Let us then compare Hemphill\u2019s Sentiments and the opposite together in the subsequent Manner. After Hemphill had observ\u2019d that to preach Christ is universally allow\u2019d to be the Duty of every Gospel Minister; he asks, What does this mean? and observes that \u201cIt is not to use his Name as a Charm, to work up the Hearers to a warm Pitch of Enthusiasm, without any Foundation of Reason to support it. \u2019Tis not to make his Person and Offices incomprehensible. \u2019Tis not to exalt his Glory, as a kind condescending Saviour, to the dishonouring of the supreme and unlimited Goodness of the Creator and Father of the Universe, who is represented as stern and inexorable, as expressing no Indulgence to his guilty Creatures, but demanding full and rigorous Satisfaction for their Offences.\u201d\nThe opposite and orthodox Principles of the Presbyterian Ministers of Pensylvania are, that to preach Christ is to use his Name as a Charm, to work up the Hearers to a warm Pitch of Enthusiasm, without any Foundation of Reason to support it. \u2019Tis to make his Person and Offices incomprehensible. \u2019Tis to exalt his Glory as a kind, condescending Saviour, to the dishonouring of the supreme and unlimited Goodness of the Creator and Father of the Universe, who is really a stern and inexorable Being, expressing no Indulgence to his guilty Creatures but demanding full and rigorous Satisfaction for their Offences. Well, these are glorious Principles, and a most excellent Method of preaching Christ.\nThese gloomy Writers after a Story of a Cock and a Bull, observe that Hemphill can\u2019t pretend to instance in any Preachers of Christ, that ever directly or in Terms applied these Epithets, stern, rigorous, &c. to the glorious God. Suppose this granted; yet it is easy to mention some who pretend to preach Christ, that maintain Doctrines, which, if pursued thro\u2019 their just and natural Consequences, would lead any unprejudic\u2019d Mind to entertain such unworthy Conceptions of our glorious, good and beneficent God.\nBut Hemphill is charg\u2019d with denying the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, and that too for preaching the Laws of Christ. Let us then consider what the Scripture Doctrine of this Affair is, and in a Word it is this: Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas\u2019d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos\u2019d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance: By his Death and Sufferings, he has assur\u2019d us of God\u2019s being ready and willing to accept of our sincere, tho\u2019 imperfect Obedience to his reveal\u2019d Will; By his Death and Sufferings he has atton\u2019d for all Sins forsaken and amended, but surely not for such as are wilfully and obstinately persisted in. This is Hemphill\u2019s Notion of this Affair, and this he has always preach\u2019d; and he believes, \u2019tis what no wise Man will contradict.\nThat the ultimate End and Design of Christ\u2019s Death, of our Redemption by his Blood, &c. was to lead us to the Practice of all Holiness, Piety and Virtue, and by these Means to deliver us from future Pain and Punishment, and lead us to the Happiness of Heaven, may, (besides what has been already suggested) be prov\u2019d from innumerable Passages of the holy Scriptures. If St. Paul\u2019s Authority be of any Weight with these Rev. and Ghostly Fathers, he distinctly tells us that the Design of Christ\u2019s giving himself for us, was, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar People, zealous of good Works. And he elsewhere tells us, that Christ dyed for all, that they which live, should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him, (i.e. in Obedience to his Laws) which died for them, and rose again. And St. Peter expresly tells us the same thing, when he says, that Jesus Christ bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, that we being dead unto Sin should live unto Righteousness. Our Saviour himself, as was before observ\u2019d, tells us, that he came to call Sinners to Repentance. But what need I trouble the Reader with quoting any more Passages to this Purpose? To proceed then,\nIt is most astonishing to find those who pretend to be christian Ministers finding Fault with Hemphill, p. 40, for teaching, that to preach Christ is not to encourage undue and presumptuous Reliances on his Merits and Satisfaction, to the Contempt of Virtue and good Works? This, say they, is a most dangerous Doctrine.\nAnd wou\u2019d they really have Hemphill preach the contrary Doctrine? Wou\u2019d they have him encourage impenitent Sinners with the Hopes of Salvation, by teaching them an undue and presumptuous Reliance on Christ\u2019s Merits and Satisfaction? And was it for this that God sent his Son into the World? If then Christ has shed his Blood to save such as wilfully continue in their Sins, and obstinately persist in a vicious Course of Action, then in Order to evidence our Trust and Reliance upon the Merits and Satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must continue quietly in a State of Impenitence and Wickedness, and promise ourselves Favour and Acceptance with God, notwithstanding all our Sins.\nIf this be not Antinomianism, if it be not to preach the Doctrine of Devils, instead of the Gospel of Jesus, I know not what is. How great and valuable soever the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ may be (as undoubtedly they are great and valuable beyond Conception) yet, they are no more with Respect to us, than what God in his Word has declar\u2019d them to be. They will be of no Use to us, without sincerely endeavouring to conform to his Will. And when Christians sincerely endeavour to obey God\u2019s Commands, and perform their Duty really and affectionately, tho\u2019 very imperfectly; to rely then and depend upon the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ for our final Acceptance with God, is undoubtedly not only the Duty, but the Comfort of all Christians. This is a Trust and Reliance founded upon the Gospel. But when Men continue in a vicious Course of Action, and imagine that God, notwithstanding their Impenitence, will save them at last, and that because of the Merits and Satisfaction of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, provided they at particular Times, when they happen to fall into a Paroxysm of Devotion, confidently declare their Trust and Dependence thereupon, and apply them to themselves, as our unmeaning Authors sometimes talk; when Sinners, I say, trust and rely upon this; it is a foolish, presumptuous and extravagantly unreasonable Reliance, and it is obvious to the meanest Capacity (our Authors still excepted) that such a Dependance is no way founded upon the Gospel. Besides, such a Trust and Reliance as this, is to injure and affront the great Redeemer of Mankind in the most extravagant manner imaginable; as if he came from Heaven, as if he suffer\u2019d so much, not to lead Sinners to Repentance, but to encourage them in their Impenitence. But enough of this; every unbias\u2019d Reader will easily see how ill-grounded the Charge of Hemphill\u2019s denying the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ is, and also the ridiculous Impertinence of the Whole of what our Reverend Authors have said upon the Affair; and they will easily apprehend too, the Truth of this Position of Hemphill\u2019s, found so much Fault with by our Authors, viz. That God hath no Regard to any thing but Men\u2019s inward Merits and Deserts; that is, no Regard to any thing in Men but their inward Merits; What else can the Almighty regard in them?\n\u2019Twould be a needless Trouble (and the Reader would hardly forgive the doing it) to follow these dark Authors Step by Step, thro\u2019 all their incoherent Starts and Hints. I shall therefore only take Notice of one Thing more under this Article. Hemphill is condemn\u2019d for advancing this Piece of Heresy, viz. They who have no other Knowledge of God and their Duty, but what the Light of Nature teaches them; no Law for the Government of their Actions, but the Law of Reason and Conscience; will be accepted, if they live up to the Light which they have, and govern their Actions accordingly. To this our stern Authors answer, Will the Heathen be accepted of God, by living up to the Light which they have, and governing their Actions accordingly? then, say they, there is no need of Christ\u2019s Merits and Satisfaction, in order to our Acceptance with God. Well concluded! Pray, how came these Rev. Gentlemen to know that the Heathen, living up to the Light of Nature, may not have an Interest in the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, or that they may not be accepted of God upon account thereof. The Merits of Christ\u2019s Death and Sufferings may be so great as to extend to the Heathen World, they may reap the Advantages of it, tho\u2019 they never had an Opportunity of hearing of him, provided they make a good Use of their Reason, and other Principles of Action within them. And to say otherwise is actually to lessen and diminish the Merits of the Redeemer of Mankind: The Holy Scriptures represent his Mission as a general Benefit, a Benefit which Regards all Men, and in Fact, tell us that Christ dyed for all. And can any imagine that our good God, as is here suppos\u2019d, will eternally damn the Heathen World for not obeying a Law they never heard of; that is, damn them for not doing an Impossibility. Surely none can imagine such a thing; except such as form their Ideas of the great Governor of the Universe, by reflecting upon their own cruel, unjust and barbarous Tempers, as our Authors seem to do. If God requir\u2019d Obedience to an unknown Law, Obedience to the Gospel from those that never heard of it, or who never were in a Capacity or Circumstances of being reasonably convinc\u2019d of it, it would be in the first Place manifest Injustice; for surely, Promulgation or Publishing of a Law must be allow\u2019d necessary, before Disobedience to it can be accounted criminal. It is utterly impossible to reconcile the contrary Notion with the Idea of a good and just God; and is a most dreadful and shocking Reflection upon the Almighty. In the next Place, we should find the Mission of our Saviour so far from being a general Benefit, as the Scripture teaches, that on the contrary it would be but a particular one, distributed only to the smallest Part of Mankind: But, which is more, this Mission of our Saviour wou\u2019d be a very great Misfortune and Unhappiness to the greatest Part (three Fourths) of Mankind. For it is probable, that without this Necessity of Obedience to an unknown Law, many would be able to save themselves by a good Use of their Reason and the Light of Nature; whereas by the Mission of our Redeemer, and the Imposition of an unknown Law, a Law which they could not observe (I mean what is peculiar to Christianity) they are reduc\u2019d to an utter Impossibility of being sav\u2019d. I do not think that these Observations can be contradicted without saying Things very injurious to the Deity, and therefore erroneous. Agreable to the general Notion here advanc\u2019d are the Sentiments of St. Paul in Rom. 4:15 where he says, For where no Law is there is no Transgression. And Rom. 5:13 Sin is not imputed when there is no Law. See also Rom. 2:14, 15.\nI know that some Passages of Scripture are adduc\u2019d by the Maintainers of this Notion to prove the Truth of it. But some of the Observations made in page 32 [above, p. 114], are applicable here, which I need not repeat. And give me leave to remark here by the by, that if after all requisite Care and Pains, Reason clearly teaches the Truth of such or such a Proposition, and that we find in the holy Scriptures some Passage that seems to contradict the clear Decisions of Reason, we ought not, for we really cannot, admit that Sense of the Passage that does so, altho\u2019 it shou\u2019d be receiv\u2019d by all the Divines, that call themselves orthodox, upon Earth; So that any Man must be altogether in the right to look out for another Sense of the Passage in Question, which will not contradict the clear Decisions of Reason.\nThis Principle is to be extended only to Propositions, which evidently contradict the clear and manifestly well-founded Decisions of Reason in general (as in the Case before us;) and I say that such Propositions, such Doctrines cannot be contain\u2019d in divine Revelation; so that we must look for another Sense of the Passages, by which they wou\u2019d pretend to establish these Propositions or Doctrines; we must, I say, look for a Sense agreeable to Reason and the known Perfections of God; and it is absolutely impossible to reconcile the Opinion here contradicted to either; and if this Notion be not to represent the Almighty, as stern, arbitrary, inexorable, &c. pray what is?\nAs for those Passages of Scripture, which are often adduc\u2019d to prove the absolute Necessity of all Men\u2019s believing in Jesus Christ without Distinction, in order to Salvation; Reason, common Sense, Equity and Goodness oblige us to understand and apply them only to those to whom infinite Wisdom has thought proper to send the Gospel.\nThese Gentlemen can hardly take it amiss to be advis\u2019d to take the utmost Care of saying any thing, or interpreting Scripture after a Manner injurious to the infinite Justice, Goodness and Mercy of God, and contradictory to Reason. If the christian Scheme of Religion be not a reasonable one, they wou\u2019d make but a dull Piece of Work on\u2019t in attempting to vindicate the Truth of it.\nBut they ask, What are the Benefits and Advantages of the christian Revelation, if the Heathen World living up to the Light of Nature and Reason may be sav\u2019d? For Answer to this, I refer them to that excellent Defence of Christianity by Mr. Foster, Chap. 1. But not to insist any more upon this Point, their remaining Objections against Hemphill, under this Article are easily obviated from what has been already said.\n  Article IV.\nThe next Article of Accusation exhibited against Hemphill, is that he describ\u2019d saving Faith, but an Assent to, or Perswasion of the Gospel upon rational Grounds; as they word it. Which Article, say they, is supported by this Extract; viz. That by saving Faith is always intended such a firm Perswasion of Mind of the Truths of the Gospel, as is founded on reasonable and good Grounds, and produces suitable Effects. \u201cThe Commission,\u201d say the Vindicators, \u201ccomplain that this Description is too general, as not explicitly mentioning our receiving of Christ upon the Terms of the Gospel.\u201d\nPray, what do the Commission or their learn\u2019d Advocates mean by this Enthusiastick Cant, more than what is included in Hemphill\u2019s Definition? What is it to receive Christ upon the Terms of the Gospel? I should be apt to suspect some Charm in this, and the Authors of Sorcery and Witchcraft, had they not given so many Instances of a contemptible Stupidity; and among the rest is the following, viz. their concluding that Hemphill\u2019s Description of Saving Faith may be apt dangerously to mislead Persons, and encourage them to trust to a naked Assent to the Gospel Revelation, when the very contrary is included in the Definition itself. Saving Faith, in Hemphill\u2019s Sense, is always attended with suitable Effects; that is, with Piety and Virtue, or Love to God and Mankind; this in the Opinion of our worthy Authors and Rev. Commission, is apt dangerously to mislead People, &c. This is New-Light indeed! But How, as Hemphill has already said in his Observations, can such a Faith, in the Description of which Good Works are mention\u2019d, be a Means to lead Men from Good Works, or mislead them?\nOne would imagine these Men were jesting about this Affair, or that they really wrote with a Design to burlesque Christianity, did not a dull, phlegmatic Air of Seriousness run thro\u2019 their whole Performance; when they in the very next Page condemn him for saying, the only End of Faith is Obedience. Pray what is the End of it, if Obedience be not? Is Disobedience the End of it? He, surely, must deserve to be as heartily laught at, as our Authors themselves, that would undertake a formal Refutation of what so sufficiently refutes it self. Let\u2019s try if we can find any better Sense in the Accusation contain\u2019d in\n  Article V.\nAnd here we are told, that Hemphill has open\u2019d the Door of the Church wide enough to admit all honest Heathens as such into it. Well, these Men have the rarest Knack of Writing unintelligibly of any I ever met with! What do these Words of theirs mean? Would they be for shutting the Doors of their Churches against honest Heathens that had a mind to come in, and so deprive them of any Opportunity of being convinc\u2019d of the Truth of the Christian Religion? Wonderful Charity indeed! of a Piece with their damning them to all Eternity for an Impossibility. What Connexion there is between the Accusation, and the Extracts upon which they say it is founded, I own I am not able to see. And till they please to explain themselves, if they know what they would be at, I have nothing further to say, but Darapti Felapton Disamis Datisi Ferison Bocardo Bamarip Cameres Dimatis Festapo Fresison.\n  Article VI.\nThe next and last Article of Accusation is, that Hemphill has subverted the Doctrine of Justification by Faith. The Observations of these unlucky Writers, and their pretended Proofs of this, are every whit as impertinent and senseless as the rest.\nIn the Discourse from whence the Extracts are taken, upon which this ridiculous Censure is foolishly suppos\u2019d to be grounded, Hemphill, among other Things considered how, or in what Senses, Christians might be said to be sav\u2019d by Faith. One Sense in which he alledg\u2019d they might be said to be sav\u2019d by their Faith in Jesus Christ was, that this their Faith saves them from the Guilt of their Sins committed before their Faith; that is, when, for Instance, a Jew or a Gentile commenc\u2019d Christian, or profess\u2019d his Faith in Jesus Christ, all Sins committed while a Jew or a Gentile, were forgiven him upon Account of this his first sincerely professing to believe, &c. and this Notion seems still to be agreeable to the Christian Scheme of Religion: And he farther observ\u2019d this to be a Priviledge peculiarly belonging to the first Christians, converted at Years of Discretion from a Life of Sin and Impurity; and therefore, this first Justification, or Forgiveness of past Sins, is often inculcated by St. Paul in his Epistles, and attributed to Faith; but this doth not concern those who have been educated and instructed in the Knowledge of the Christian Religion. And it is very true indeed, that Justification, or Forgiveness of past Sins, in the Sense here mention\u2019d, is not, nor can it be applicable to such as were always Christians, or were educated and instructed in the Knowledge of the Christian Religion; except you\u2019ll suppose, that those that were always Christians, were notwithstanding Jews or Gentiles, before they were Christians, tho\u2019 they were always Christians. An Absurdity which our Rev. Authors alone are capable of.\nTho\u2019 Hemphill, upon farther Reflection, will own that Justification, in the Sense above, is not a Privilege so peculiarly belonging to the first Christians, but that it may be applicable now-a-days; yet this will not at all answer their foolish Design, because the Case is exactly the same with that of the first Christians, or those converted from Judaism or Gentilism to Christianity, at the first Propagation of it. What Hemphill means, is this; Suppose an Indian, for Instance, now converted to Christianity, Justification in the Sense above might as well be apply\u2019d to him, as to the first Christians: If the Reason of Things continue the same, God Almighty, according to the Christian Scheme of Religion, would forgive our suppos\u2019d Indian, upon his Conversion, all his past Sins, as he did the Sins of the first Christians upon their Conversion, or upon Account of their believing in Jesus Christ. Now the Question with respect to our new Convert, or new Christian, is, What are the Terms or Conditions of his final Acceptance with God? In Hemphill\u2019s Opinion, and according to his Notions of Christianity, a sincere Endeavour to conform to all the Laws of true Goodness, Piety, Virtue, and universal Righteousness, or the Laws of Morality both with respect to God and Man, are the Terms of his final Acceptance with God; and when he fails in any Instances, a sincere Repentance and a renew\u2019d Endeavour, begging divine Assistance, to practise the contrary Virtues; and when our Convert, and all other Christians, have thus endeavour\u2019d sincerely to conform to the Laws of Piety and Virtue, tho\u2019 their Obedience be attended with many Imperfections, they will, as Christians, or as Believers in Christ Jesus, be accepted of by God, according to the christian Scheme of Religion, the Imperfections of their Virtue will be forgiven upon account of the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, as was before observ\u2019d. So that what Hemphill farther says (as in the Extract) is still true, if rightly understood, viz. that all Hopes of Happiness but what are built upon Purity of Heart and a virtuous Life, are, according to the Christian Scheme, vain and delusory. That is, all Hopes of Happiness to Christians, as such, consider\u2019d separately and distinctly from the Practice of the Moral Virtues, are vain and delusory. If these Gentlemen assert the contrary, they must infallibly run into Antinomianism, how angry soever, they may appear to be at the Charge. Now, how justly the Accusation of Hemphill\u2019s denying our Justification by Faith is founded upon the Extracts before us, is obvious to every body. The first Extract has nothing to do with us at all, who were all along educated and instructed in the Christian Religion; the second has been shewn to contain in it the Terms or Conditions of our Acceptance with God, as Christians, for Christ\u2019s Sake, or upon Account of his Merits and Satisfaction. How ridiculously silly and impertinent then are all their Observations upon these Extracts!\nThese Authors in very angry Terms condemn a Remark of Hemphill\u2019s in his Observations, which yet appears to be a very just one. He (Hemphill) supposes, that all Christians (Antinomians excepted) will allow, that Faith will not be imputed for Righteousness to those Men who have been educated in the Christian Religion, and yet have never endeavour\u2019d to practise its Precepts; that such Men, says he, have no reason to expect that they shall be justify d by a bare Faith, as the primitive Christians were, who embrac\u2019d Christianity assoon as they heard it preached; that is, have no reason to expect the Forgiveness of their Sins upon account of a bare Faith, as the primitive Christians were forgiven their past Sins upon their first Conversion, or their Believing in Jesus Christ.\nTo this our very reverend Authors, with a pious and orthodox Sneer, answer, It is scarce possible for a Man to bind together a greater Bundle of Error, Ignorance and Impertinence in so few Words, than this Gentleman has done. Hah! a home Thrust! a bold Stroke! next Turn\u2019s mine. Here they suppose this Position of Hemphill\u2019s to be erroneous, &c. And yet in the next Paragraph tell us, with a sanctify\u2019d Leer, that the whole Protestant World, the Antinomians only excepted, have constantly taught, that those Men who have been educated  in the Christian Religion, are justifyed by a Faith, that from the very Nature of it is necessarily accompanied with Good Works, by a Faith that can no more exist without good Works, than the Body can live without the Spirit, &c. So then we are now justify\u2019d by a Faith, the very Life and Soul of which consists in good Works, as certainly as the Life of the Body consists in the Spirit. Such Inconsistency! Such Self-contradiction! Surely these Men\u2019s Spirits must be strangely muffled up with Phlegm, and their Brains, if they have any, encompass\u2019d with a Fence of a most impenetrable Thickness.\nThus, I think, I have examin\u2019d the principal Things in this Vindication of the Rev. Commission; and upon the whole, it appears even from a plain Narration of Matter of Fact, that they (the leading Men among them at least) came to Philadelphia with Malice, Rancour and Prejudice in their Hearts, resolv\u2019d at all Hazards to condemn the Man and his Doctrines; and their Aversion to both carry\u2019d them those shameful Lengths which we have here shewn in their true Light. For if to justify a known Perjury, to lye openly and frequently in the Face of the World; if to condemn Doctrines agreeable to the main End and Design of the Gospel, and calculated for the common Welfare of Men; if to stamp an Appearance of Sanctity upon Animosity, false Zeal, Injustice, Fraud, Oppression, by their own open Example as well as Precept; and to behave as bitter Adversaries instead of impartial Judges; if to do all this be truly christian Candour, Charity and Truth, then will I venture to say, these Rev. Gentlemen have given the most lively Instances of theirs. For all these Things have been so strongly charg\u2019d and fairly prov\u2019d upon \u2019em, that they must of Necessity confess their Guilt in Silence, or by endeavouring a Refutation of the plain Truth, plunge themselves deeper into the Dirt and Filth of Hypocrisy, Falsehood and Impiety, \u2019till at length they carry their quibbling Absurdities far enough to open the Eyes of the weakest and most unthinking Part of the Laity, from whom alone they can expect Support and Proselytes.\nI have one Thing to desire of the Vindicators, before I come to a Conclusion, viz. that they wou\u2019d, for Shame, take in the Motto they have hung out in the Title Page of their Performance, from II Tim. 3, \n   *II Tim. 3:5, 6, 7. Having a Form of Godliness, but denying the Power thereof, from such turn away. For this Sort are they which creep into Houses, and lead captive silly Women, laden with Sins, led away with divers lusts.\n since \u2019tis plainly applicable to none but themselves, and can by no means touch Hemphill; for, he contended for the Power of Godliness, denying the Form; and \u2019tis well known, that none but the Men of Sense were on his Side, and that all the silly Women of the Congregation were inveterately bent against him, being zealous Abettors of Mr. Andrews, who crept into their Houses, and led them away captive to the Commission to say and swear whatever he had prepar\u2019d for them. This Motto therefore was the most improper one they cou\u2019d possibly have pick\u2019d out of the whole Bible.\nThe Rev. Mr. David Evans, one of the Commission, in his Sermon at the Ordination of Mr. Treat, says, Page 49, That it is a Wonder to see ANY truly gracious, considerate wise Man in the Gospel Ministry. And confirms it at the End of the Paragraph, by saying, It is no Wonder to see thousands of Ignorant, inconsiderate, carnal Ministers, but a Wonder to see ANY truly understanding, considerate, gracious ones. I am really inclin\u2019d to be of his Opinion; especially, if he confines his Observations to the Presbyterian Ministers of this Part of the World. I am sure, however, that their Proceedings against Hemphill has convinc\u2019d Multitudes, that this Wonder was not to be seen in the late Commission.\nI might therefore divide the Gentlemen that were concern\u2019d in this Affair (and I trust, I should do them no Injustice), into these three Classes; first, the Men of Honesty who wanted Sense; secondly the Men of Sense, who wanted Honesty; and lastly, those who had neither Sense, nor Honesty. And I believe this Division may comprehend the whole Commission.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "10-30-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0012", "content": "Title: [Of the Usefulness of Mathematics, 30 October 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nFirst reprinted by Duane (Works, IV, 377) and later by William Temple Franklin, Sparks, and Bigelow, but not by Smyth, this essay is omitted here for lack of evidence of Franklin\u2019s authorship. See above, I, 170. Julius F. Sachse asserted, without indicating authority or evidence, that it was originally delivered by Franklin before the brethren of St. John\u2019s Masonic Lodge in response to their by-laws of 1732 (see above, I, 231), which Franklin helped draft. There is, however, no connection between the essay and the Lodge\u2019s by-laws except that both declare the importance of geometry and architecture.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "11-14-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0013", "content": "Title: Shop Book, 1735\u201339\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin,Franklin, Deborah\nTo: \nThe Shop Book is a manuscript volume and business record like the Journal (see above, I, 172). It covers the period from November 14, 1735, to August 3, 1739, with the number of entries falling off sharply after 1736. The cover bears, in addition to doodlings, the words \u201cShop Book 1738\u201d and the name of Deborah Franklin; Benjamin Franklin\u2019s name is written on the first leaf. From November 14, 1735, when the Shop Book was opened, until December 7, 1737, when the Journal was closed, the Franklins seem to have recorded sales on credit in one volume or the other without distinction, Deborah mainly using the Shop Book, her husband mainly the Journal. Franklin posted accounts from both records alphabetically in his Ledger (see above, I, 173).\nIn the pages of this narrow folio Mrs. Franklin recorded much of the daily, over-the-counter business: the sale of all kinds of printed forms and printing and writing materials\u2014bonds, bills of lading, servants\u2019 indentures, powers of attorney, bills of sale, paper by the ream or quire, blank books, ink, pencils, quills, slates, lampblack, sealing-wax, parchment, wafers, pasteboard. There was a steady sale for primers, Bibles, psalters, dictionaries, and grammars, as well as for the books Franklin printed, notably Cato\u2019s Moral Distichs (see below, p. 130) and Logan\u2019s Charge to the Grand Jury, 1736. He sold dozens of copies of John Peter Zenger\u2019s Narrative of his trial in New York, published in 1736. At year\u2019s end the New Printing-Office was selling and shipping almanacs \u2014Jerman\u2019s, Taylor\u2019s, and \u201cPoor Dicks,\u201d as Mrs. Franklin called her husband\u2019s best-seller. The Shop Book shows, for example, the sale of more than 3000 copies of the 1738 Poor Richard. \u201cSister Franklin\u201d\u2014Ann Franklin of Newport, James\u2019s widow\u2014took a thousand; John Peter Zenger ordered 18 dozen and then 200 more; two gross and a dozen went to Lewis Timothy in Charleston, and the same number to Thomas Fleet in Boston. The Franklins sold much chocolate, especially in 1737, some cloth, clothing, and even spectacles, while the Proprietor Thomas Penn bought and charged a cake of the family\u2019s famous crown soap.\nThe customers of the New Printing-Office were as varied as the goods they bought. All Franklin\u2019s Junto friends came, as did many of the local political and merchant grandees: Governor Thomas, James Logan, Isaac Norris, (\u201cfor a set of Votes\u201d), William Allen, Charles Willing, Anthony Morris, Andrew Hamilton, Lawrence Growden. Customers from out of town visited the shop: Isaac DeCow, whom Franklin had met at Burlington, Charles Read of Trenton, and others from Bristol, Salem, New Castle, and Lewes. Daniel Dulany of Maryland bought two Greek grammars and some other books; and Benjamin Lay, Conrad Weiser, Dr. John DeNormandie, Anthony Benezet, and Hesselius the limner also appear in the pages of the Shop Book. Many entries record payments or sales to \u201cMy Mother Read\u201d and to Deborah Franklin\u2019s brother-in-law John Croker. An almanac, some paper, an ounce of ink went to people whom Deborah identified only as \u201cCristefer the Fishman,\u201d \u201cMary the Papist that is at Cozen Willkisons,\u201d and \u201cthe seck stone of the Church.\u201d It seems that nothing was unaccounted for: Franklin has debited a sixpence, \u201cLent the Stranger from Boston.\u201d", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "11-20-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0014", "content": "Title: [Of True Happiness, 20 November 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nReprinted by Duane twice with minor variations (Works, IV, 350\u20132, 372\u20134), and later by William Temple Franklin, Sparks, and Bigelow but not by Smyth, this essay is omitted here for the reasons explained above, I, 170.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "11-20-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0015", "content": "Title: Advice to a Pretty Creature and Replies, 20 and 27 November 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nMr. Franklin,\nPray let the prettiest Creature in this Place know, (by publishing this) That if it was not for her Affectation, she would be absolutely irresistible.\nThe little Epistle in our last, has produced no less than six, which follow in the order we receiv\u2019d \u2019em.\nMr. Franklin,\nI cannot conceive who your Correspondent means by the prettiest Creature in this Place; but I can assure either him or her, that she who is truly so, has no Affectation at all.\nSir,\nSince your last Week\u2019s Paper I have look\u2019d in my Glass a thousand Times, I believe, in one Day; and if it was not for the Charge of Affectation I might, without Partiality, believe myself the Person meant.\nMr. Franklin,\nI must own that several have told me, I am the prettiest Creature in this Place; but I believe I should not have been tax\u2019d with Affectation if I could have thought as well of them as they do of themselves.\nSir,\nYour Sex calls me pretty; my own affected. Is it from Judgment in the one, or Envy in the other?\nMr. Franklin,\nThey that call me affected are greatly mistaken; for I don\u2019t know that I ever refus\u2019d a Kiss to any Body but a Fool.\nFriend Benjamin,\nI am not at all displeased at being charged with Affectation. Thou know\u2019st the vain People call Decency of Behaviour by that Name.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "12-11-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0016", "content": "Title: [On Human Vanity, 11 December 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \nDuane printed this essay (Works, IV, 346\u201350), but later editors have not followed his lead. Except for a completely rewritten first paragraph and minor verbal changes this piece first appeared in The Free-Thinker: or, Essays of Wit and Humour, April 24, 1719, as Alfred Owen Aldridge has shown in \u201cThe Sources of Franklin\u2019s \u2018The Ephemera,\u2019\u201d New Eng. Quar., XXVII (1954), 388\u201391. Franklin used the central idea of this essay\u2014that of the short-lived insect\u2014in the bagatelle \u201cThe Ephemera,\u201d which he addressed to Mme. Brillon, September 20, 1778.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "12-18-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0017", "content": "Title: Preface to Cato\u2019s Moral Distichs, [18 December 1735]\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \n[December 18, 1735]\nThe Printer to the Reader.\nThe Manuscript Copy of this Translation of Cato\u2019s Moral Distichs, happened into my Hands some Time since, and being my self extreamly pleased with it, I thought it might be no less acceptable to the Publick; and therefore determined to print it as soon as I should have convenient Leisure and Opportunity. It was done by a Gentleman amongst us (whose Name or Character I am strictly forbid to mention, tho\u2019 it might give some Advantage to my Edition) for the Use of his own Children; But in my Opinion, it is no unfit or unprofitable Entertainment for those of riper Years. For certainly, such excellent Precepts of Morality, contain\u2019d in such short and easily-remember\u2019d Sentences, may to Youth particularly be very serviceable in the Conduct of Life, since there can scarce happen any Affair of Importance to us, in which we may need Advice, but one or more of these Distichs suited to the Occasion, will seasonably occur to the Memory, if the Book has been read and studied with a proper Care and Attention.\nWhen I obtained Leave to make this Publication, I procured also the following Account of the Author and his Work: for I thought something of the kind necessary to be prefix\u2019d to it.\nIn most Places that I am acquainted with, so great is the present Corruption of Manners, that a Printer shall find much more Profit in such Things as flatter and encourage Vice, than in such as tend to promote its contrary. It would be thought a Piece of Hypocrisy and pharisaical Ostentation in me, if I should say, that I print these Distichs more with a View to the Good of others than my own private Advantage: And indeed I cannot say it; for I confess, I have so great Confidence in the common Virtue and Good Sense of the People of this and the neighbouring Provinces, that I expect to sell a very good Impression.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735},
{"created_timestamp": "01-02-1735", "downloaded_timestamp": "10-18-2021", "url": "https://founders.archives.gov/API/docdata/Franklin/01-02-02-0018", "content": "Title: Extracts from the Gazette, 1735\nFrom: Franklin, Benjamin\nTo: \n\t[Advertisement] Any Township or Neighbourhood in the Country, wanting a School-Master, to teach Reading, Writing, or Arithmetick, may hear of one well qualified by enquiring of the Printer hereof. [January 9]\n\t  [Advertisement] By the Indulgence of the Honourable Col. Spotswood, Post-Master General, the Printer hereof is allow\u2019d to send the Gazettes by the Post, Postage free, to all Parts of the Post-Road from Virginia to New England: So that all Gentlemen and others, living on the Post Roads, may have this Paper sent them by every Post, as usual before the late Obstruction. [January 23]\n\t  [Advertisement] A Quantity of Spanish Pistoles to be disposed of, enquire of the Printer hereof. [March 4]\n\t  Saturday Night last a House in Strawberry-Alley was broke open, and about 10 Pounds in Money, and some other odd Things taken out of a little Trunk that was lock\u2019d up in a Chest: Three Servants belonging to different Masters being missing next day, were suspected of the Theft, and being taken at Byberry and brought to Town, they confess\u2019d the Fact, and are now confin\u2019d in Goal in order to a Tryal. One of them is a Lad about 18 Years of Age. The Money belong\u2019d to some poor People, who had been some Years getting it together, in order to put themselves into some better Way of Business. [March 27]\n\t  Wednesday Night last a Fire broke out near the Prison, in a Smith\u2019s Shop, which was presently consumed; together with another Smith\u2019s Shop, and two Wheelwrights Shops, they being all of Wood. The Prison was in great Danger, as also a Row of Houses to the Westward of the Fire, one of which was considerably Damag\u2019d; but by the extraordinary Diligence and Activity of the People, the Fire was at length suppress\u2019d, with only the entire Loss of those four Shops. [April 10]\n\t  Thursday next a Commission of the Presbyterian Synod meet, to try the Reverend Mr. Hemphill, upon a Charge of Heterodoxy. [April 10]\n\t  We hear from Chester County, that last Week at a Vendue held there, a Man being unreasonably abusive to his Wife upon some trifling Occasion, the Women form\u2019d themselves into a Court, and order\u2019d him to be apprehended by their Officers and brought to Tryal: being found guilty he was condemn\u2019d to be duck\u2019d 3 times in a neighbouring Pond, and to have one half cut off, of his Hair and Beard (which it seems he wore at full length) and the Sentence was accordingly executed, to the great Diversion of the Spectators. [April 17]\n[Advertisement] The Subscribers to the Library in Philadelphia are advertised, that Monday the 5th of May ensuing, at Two in the Afternoon, is the Time appointed for the Choice of Directors and a Treasurer for the succeeding Year, and for making the third annual Payment, at the House of John Roberts in High-Street.\nJoseph Breintnal, Secr.\n[April 24]\n\t  [Advertisement] Lately lost out of a Boat, between Bristol and Philadelphia, a large Portmantua covered with blue Cloth; and having within it sundry Holland Shirts, a Plad Night-Gown lin\u2019d with blue Sattin, and other valuable Things. Whoever may have taken up the same, and shall forthwith deliver the Whole to the Printer hereof, shall receive a Reward of Five Pounds. [May 1]\n\t  Sunday last in the violent Thunder Storm about 7 in the Evening, a Boat with five Servant-Men overset about a Mile this side Gloucester, four of them held by the Boat and Masts for two Hours, till they drove against the Upper Part of this City, when their crying for Help was accidentally heard; the other a Servant belonging to Mr. Simon Edgel, was shook off by the Boat\u2019s shifting, and drowned. [May 22]\n\t  [Advertisement] All Persons who are indebted to Henry Flower, late Postmaster of Pennsylvania, for Postage or otherwise, are desired to pay the same to him at the old Coffee-House in Philadelphia. [May 29]\n\t  To BE SOLD, By the Printer hereof, very good Chocolate at 4s. per Pound by the Dozen, and 4s. 6d. by the single Pound. [May 29]\n\t  Wednesday Morning died suddenly at Germantown Meeting, of an Apoplectic fit, Isaac Norris, of Fairhill, Esq; He had been many Years one of the Council, was often chosen a Representative in Assembly, had born several other Offices of Honour and Trust, and was esteemed one of the most considerable Men in the Province. [June 5]\nSunday last one Rachel Twells of this City died suddenly and the Coroner\u2019s Inquest having sat on the Body brought in their Verdict, that by drinking too plentifully of Rum and other strong Liquors she came by her Death. \u2019Tis said she had drank sixteen Drams of Rum and two Mugs of strong Beer that Day. [June 19]\n\t  The Person that borrow\u2019d B. Franklin\u2019s Law-Book of this Province, is hereby desired to return it, he having forgot to whom he lent it. [July 24]\n\t  Sunday last the Rev. Mr. Hemphill, (who was lately suspended by the Commission of the Synod) preached twice to a very numerous Congregation, at the House where the Assembly used to meet. The first Edition of the Observations on the Proceedings against him being all sold, a Second Edition is in the Press and will speedily be published. [July 31]\n\t  [Advertisement] Very Good Coffee sold by the Printer hereof. [July 31]\n\t  Wednesday last arrived here two Frenchmen Deserters from Missisipi. They reckon they have travell\u2019d 1500 Miles thro\u2019 the Woods, subsisting only upon what they could kill by the Way. They were five in all, Soldiers, that deserted, but they parted at Albany, and some went towards Boston. They brought with them from Missisipi a Man that was half French half Indian: He had kill\u2019d a Frenchman in a Quarrel, and was condemn\u2019d to die; but they help\u2019d him to break Prison, on condition of his guiding them to these Parts. They say they deserted because they were neither paid, fed, nor cloath\u2019d; that there are but few People settled on that River, only here and there a Fort for Security of Trade; and that there are more Soldiers than other Inhabitants. [August 28]\n\t  Saturday last in the Morning, the Honourable John Penn, Esq; the eldest of our Proprietors, being attended by the principal Magistrates and Gentlemen of this City, &c. set out on his Journey for New-Castle, in order to embark on board Capt. Budden\u2019s Ship, which lay there ready to receive him. And the next Day he set sail from thence for London. [September 25]\n\t  \u2020\u2020\u2020 This Paper Numb. 355, ends the sixth Year since we undertook printing the Gazette. Those who are indebted for more than a Year, are desired to make Payment. [September 25]\n\t  Thursday last being the Anniversary of His Majesty\u2019s Birth Day, the same was solemnly observed here. An elegant Entertainment was made by our Honourable Proprietor, for the Principal Gentlemen, Merchants, &c. of this City, at which all the Loyal Healths were drank under the Discharge of Cannon, and the Day concluded with the usual Demonstrations of Joy. [November 6]\n\t  [Advertisement] On Wednesday Night the 19th Instant, Thieves broke into a House in this City, and stole some Paper Money, with a parcel of double worsted-flower\u2019d Caps: Several Drops of Blood were found about the Drawer from whence the Money was taken, whence \u2019tis probable that the Money also may be bloodied. If such Money is offered to be passed, or such Caps to be sold, by any such suspicious Person, \u2019tis desired that Information may [be] given to the Printer hereof. [November 27]\nJust Published. John Jerman\u2019s and Poor Richard\u2019s Almanacks, for the Year 1736.\nJacob Taylor\u2019s, is now in the Press, and will speedily be published and sold by the Printer hereof. [December 4]\n\t  Just Publish\u2019d. Cato\u2019s Moral Distichs newly translated into English Verse. Very proper to be put into the Hands of young Persons, Sold by the Printer hereof. Price 1s. cover\u2019d. [December 18]\nPhiladelphia: printed by B. Franklin, at the New-Printing-Office near the Market. Price 10s. a Year. Where Advertisements are taken in, and book-binding is done reasonably, in the best Manner.", "culture": "English", "source_dataset": "Pile_of_Law", "source_dataset_detailed": "Pile_of_Law_founding_docs", "source_dataset_detailed_explanation": "Letters from U.S. founders.", "creation_year": 1735}
]