and also having had full and Satisfactory proof of the Said Mr Woodbridge Odlins Life Conversation and Doctrine

5thly We Humbly Conceive that the Prayer of the Petition. if Granted Will Tend Greatly to the Prejudice not only of this church but also of all the other churches of this Government and will be a manifest breach of the Law of this Province and Contrary to the Constitution of the churches in the Country for any small number of Persons who through unreasonable Prejudice shall desire this Hon Court to Exempt themselves, their Familys and Estates from paying toward the support of the Present settled ministers or those that succeed them when the Law of this Province in that case already made & provided obliges them so to do, unless the Petitioners should so change their Principles in Religion that the Act of Parliament would Free them from the same which we apprehend is not the Case of the Present Petitioners- Neither have the Petitioners, Either before the Council Present at the ordination, or the Council Lately call'd by this church supported their Objections against the calling & ordaining of Mr Woodbridge Odlin. And the offence Taken at the settlement of the Rev. Mr: Woodbridge Odlin under the Notion of his being an opposer of the work of God- the said Last Council in their Result say that therein they tho they (meaning the withdrawing brethren, some of the Petitioners) had cast an undue Reflection upon him- And as to the Validity and Regularity of his Settlement, they found it was agreeable to the majority both of Town and Church and approv'd and ratified by a Venerable Council of Churches call'd by this church and the said Councill Further adjudg'd that the agriev'd brethrens calling a Council at the Time and in the manner they did, was an uncommon Step of Proceedure, and that this church have been in the way of their Duty and have Done no more than they had a right to do in calling them as a Councill without the agrieved brethren, They being Desir'd to joyn in calling them

6 We Humbly Conceive that the conclusion of the Prayer of the Petitioners is absurd unreasonable and unjust in Desiring to have some allowance made them for the money they have already paid towards the settlement and support of the said Gentleman, meaning (as we suppose) our Present Ministers- as to the settlement of the Rev Mr John Odlin very few if any of the Petitioners paid any thing towards it, and as to the settlement and support of the Rev Mr Woodbridge Odlin, Several of the Petitioners having Lately come into the Town have paid Little or Nothing towards it and some of them not in the Rates untill this year

Lastly- We Humbly Crave Leave to Observe to your Ex

cellency and honours That the Principal motives (as we con ceive) that the Petitioners have used in their Petition in order to Induce this honble Court to grant the Prayer of their Petition are these two (viz) "First that they have Supported a Gospel Minister to preach to them upward of a year" and 2dly that they "have at their own Cost Erected a meeting house".

And as to the first we humbly conceive that they will be under Some Difficulty to prove that they have Supported a Gospel Minister and we conceive that their Separating from the Established Ministry of The Town without Just cause was Evil in itself and the Evil Example thereof has Drawn Many belonging to the Neighbouring Towns & Parishes away to their Separate house and to Leave their own Ministers which thing if Countenanced by this Hon'ble Court will be a Leading Example to Others, and be a means of bringing this Province into the utmost Confusion both by Dividing Familys and Separating friends and Christian Societies

And 2ly as to their Erecting a meeting house (as they say in their Petition) at their own cost, We humbly Conceive that any number of Gentlemen may build an house at their own Cost if they please: But for this Honble Court who have the Religious as well as Civil Interests of this Province under their wise Care, to set it apart for the Publick worship of God, to the Disturbance and breaking up of the Neighbouring Churches and the Publick peace of the Government, we humbly Conceive would be a Great Grief and burden to the people in General and bring the Province into Such confusion as will Render the Inhabitants unable to Support the Charge of the Government.

For These reasons with what others we shall crave Leave to Lay before your Excellency and Honours, We Humbly hope This Honble Court will be Induced not to Grant the Prayer of the said Petition but to Dismiss the same

NICH. PERRYMAN
JAMES GILMAN
ZEBULON GIDDINGE

Replication to the foregoing.

To His Excellency Benning Wentworth Esq. Gov & Comand in Chief in & Over his Majesty's Province of New Hampshire the Honble his Majesty's Council & House of Represen in Gener Assembly Conven'd

The Reply of the Freeholders & other Inhabitants of ye Town of Exeter who have Petitioned to be Exempted from

paying towards the support of the ministry in said Town &c. to the answer of the Agents of s Town to their Petition

May it please your Excellency & the other the Honble Branches of the Legislature The fav' granted your Petition's with regard to an opportunity of making a written Reply to the answers made to their Petition in behalf of the Town gives them Encouragem to hope for success in the matter under Debate as the merit & Weight of w' Shall be offer can in this way be much better Consider'd

Your Petition would beg leave Humbly to Observe in General, that in this affair as they are not Influenced by sinister views, corrupt or vicious Principles nor any but Consciencious motives their Case claims the closer attention & greater tenderness— and as they are Sincere in their Principles which relate to this matter so they would be just in their Reasonings upon it: & should therefore have been glad to have avoided entering into the consideration of several points & matters of fact moved in the said answer because they will be a Diversion & a Digression from the Main Question- but could not prevail with the Agents to wave them. To come then to the s answer & Reply in as brief & clear a manner as we can by following the Several Articles thereof. We must Observe their first begins with charging the Petition with a mistake in Representing that the Town in Setting Mr Woodbridge Odlin proceeded in a hasty & Resolute manner, & then they go on to give an accot of y' affair, the Substance of wch is that it was carried on wth great deliberation & every step Maturely Considered: That every Person Concern'd acted their part from y fullest Evidence & Strongest Conviction of the Expediency of the thing & the Legality of the means, & the LikeBut in this acc' there is nothing said of the Art used first to prepare matters by prevailing on near Seventy Persons to sign a Petition to the Select men praying a proper Clause might be Inserted in the warrant for the Annual meeting 1743 & so working up the minds of the Petitioners to favour the thing before it came to be considered in Public- They also have omitted to Observe that when the Town was met & about to proceed on this affair: the Non-Petitioners or most of them made the strongest Remonstrances ag desiring it might be suspended for some time at least offering to supply the Desk if necessary by Subscription as they had done y year before hoping that a little time as it would have given greater Opportunity to have advised & proposed so it would have produced a greater unanimity of Opinion, if not terms of union & peace They dont say a word of the Contempt wwch this was Rejected. & how Resolutely they proceederie as well to Vote the Raising money as chusing a Committe. aro Effect & carry

these designs into Execution which had been Contrived before, nor how their proposals at the second meeting were Rejected -nor that a church Comte was chosen to call assistance for the Ordination before the agreement made wth the Gentleman to be Ordain'd wch with many other transactions too tedious to Recite, prove the thing to be Contrived & determined before it came to be Voted, and that those who asserted their freedom & Liberty had Reason to be dissatisfied, the whole being done before the Deacons & Standing Church committee had any notice of it only as Inhabitants of the Town, and after the Town had determined the matter & a comtee chosen to agree the Terms a Proclamation was Issued under the ministers hand, appointing a Day of fasting & prayer in the Town to seek Direction, now these proceedings & much more of the like nature were Just Causes of Dissatisfaction with this Settlement, & that we might well say it was Resolute if not hasty Especially if we Consider that the Towns Committee (men chosen no Doubt with good Policy) was Impower'd to compleat this agreement without making a report to the Town for their Confirmation or Approbation which is the usual way, for we think a precedent like this cant be found w th° by virtue of a Particular Law may be barely called Legal can by no propriety be term'd prudent & wh if ever it was done before was only done, as we Conceive it was here to serve a Sinister End

But as to what is objected to us, that we had a hand in Calling or Inviting the Gentleman to preach in Town we Conceive there is no weight in it, for such Invitation is always understood to be in order to chusing, weh necessarily Imply's Refusing- When a Congregation Invite several Candidates, they are often call'd from other places, where they are upon probation But it was never suppos'd that such Invitation carried in it an obligation to chuse the Person Invited for where more than one Preaches before the choice, all cant be chosen, and if but one Preaches, where can be the choice- unless it be that which we have all heard of

But we pass onThe second article of the answer we conceive is of no Consequence in this Debate, if admitted to be true, for it only proves that some of the Petitioners are not of the same mind now wch they once were of in this Particular affair

Nor is the third more to the point; for it only shows the Respondents have assum'd a power of Judging the hearts of those they there speak of- And as to the 4th we would only observe, that if this settlement was Legal, it will be very Difficult, if not possible to prove it to be agreeable to the usage of the churs in this Government.

In their 5th Article we conceive the Responds proceed on fallacious principles & take for granted propositions which cant be proved as that if this Petition is granted, not only this church, but all the churches in the Goverm will be greatly prejudiced- Now where is the prejudice to the church as such if these Petitioners were dismissed there will be a church still left, of a competent Number, Invested with the same powers & enjoying the same Privileges as they now enjoy and if the Number desiring to be Dismissed be so small as is Represented the objection is still of Less wightand as to Churches in General how are they like to be affected by it- no other ways than they always are by gathering a new church, when the members belong'd to any other before; and if this is of any weight it will always be an Objection, in that case as well as in this: & so there must never be but one church in a Town tho ever so Large- and the same argum may be always made ag erecting new Parishes, for the old must be hurt by the Loss of any of its Parishoners by an increase of charge on those that Remain Again when tis said the granting this Petition would be a manifest breach of the Laws of the Province the Objection Implies that this court are to proceed only on Laws already in force that they are Restrain'd by them, & are only to put such Laws in Executionwhich is not the case, the petitioners ask for a new Law, & apply to those who can make it- the doing of we will no more be a breach of the old, than the making any other new Law & the same argum lies with Equal Reasoning ag making any new Law, for every Instance of that Kind in some sense alters those before in force- The Question therefore ought not to be whether the Law ask'd for will be a breach upon other Laws. But whether the End propos'd by it be good, whether it is R & Reasonable to be done, & in order to discover that we beg leave to observe that we take it for undoubted Truth in we all Christians are agreed That the end of all Public worship is the Hon of God & the Edification of the Worshipers, that is, the Improvem' of their minds in all christian Graces & virtues that these two are never separated, & therefore the edification of the worshipers always implies the former; That assemblies worship & care only means to attain the End. Viz the Edification of those who attend them. That this cant be done where the worship is not voluntary, for it must be in Spirit and in truth, free & sincere- That there is a great variety in the fitness of means arising from many circumstances particularly the diferent Capacities & tempers of Persons we may make means very fit & useful to one Person, not so to another, and that in these cases the right of Private Judgment is to be maintained more than in any, for here every