' :

C4-II
)ftr€&

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE SPEECH

OF

Mr. JOHN CHECKLEY.

THE SPEECH

OF

Mr. JOHN CHECKLEY,

UPON HIS TRIAL AT BOSTON.

in 1724.

With an Introduction by Rev. E. H. Giixett, D.D
of Harlem, N. Y.

MORRISANIA, N. Y.
1868.

ADVERTISEMENT.

This is a careful reprint of the very rare tract published
by J. Applebee, in London, in 1738, and contains tbe verdict
of the jury, Mr. Checkley's Plea in Arrest of Judgment, and
the Sentence pronounced by the Court,
We are indebted to Mr. A. Lloyd, the antiquarian book
seller, 115 Nassau-street, New York, for the privilege of
republishing it, and to our untiring friend, Rev. B. H. Gil-
lett, D.D., of Harlem, N. Y., for the very carefully-prepared
Introductory Note from his own pen, which precedes it.
A few copies, exclusively for private circulation, have
been printed in this form. Hentiy B. Dawson.
MOBEIBANIA, N. Y.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Few pieces in ecclesiastical or theological controversy ever
published in this country, are, in themselves and their re
sults, so memorable, historically, as that which appeared in
Boston in 1723, under the title of A Short and Easie Method
with the Deists, &c. It was the reprint, with slight altera
tions, of the noted work by Charles Leslie, but at the close
of this, which extended only to forty-one octavo pages,
wasintroduced A Discourse concerning Episcopacy, which
extended from the forty-first to the one hundred and twen
ty-seventh page, the whole closing with The Epistle of Ig
natius to th* Trattia^s.
The work was published at London, by J*. Applebee ; but
was " sold by John Checkley, at the sign of the Crown and
" Blue Gate, over-against the West-Ena of the Town-House
" in Boston." John Checkley therefore might be considered
the Boston Publisher ; and the Discourse Concerning Epis
copacy was drawn up by him, who was compelled doubtless
to send to England to procure its printing.
Checkley was born in Boston, in 1680, but his parents were
from England ; and throughout his life he was most untir
ingly devoted to the interests of the English Church. His
feelings, or perhaps we might say prejudices, were very
strong, and he waB as violent an Anti-Calvinist and Non
juror, as he was Episcopalian. His education was well
cared for. He was placed at an early age under the care of
Ezekiel Cheever, and subsequently went to England, and
finished his studies at the University of Oxford, although he
seems never to have received a degree.
Abounding in wit and humor, he must have been a genial
companion. After his return to this country, he fell in with
one who was several years his junior, but in many respects
was fully his equal ; while on the leading theological ques
tions of the day, the two young men held positions perfectly
antagonistic.

Thomas Walter, the son of Nehemiah Walter, the Minis
ter of Eoxbury, was graduated at Harvard College, in 1713 ;
and it was during his college course that John Checkley be
came his intimate associate. Eond of company, the learning
and wit of Checkley attracted him ; and he yielded to it, to
the grief of his father, and in spite of the admonitions of
his uncle, Cotton Mather, who warned him to beware of the
The intercourse between the two young men led to theo
logical discussion, and at length to public dispntation.
Walter could appreciate learning and genius : but indolent as
he might have been in study, he was strongly attached to
the doctrines and order of the New England Churches.
Checkley published in 1715, two years after Walter left col
lege, and while he was probably studying theology with his
father at Eoxbury, Choice Dialogues about Predestination,
in which he indulged his sarcasm at the expense of the Cal
vinistic doctrines of the New England churches. These dia
logues Walter answered ; and, m 1720, the "Answer by a
" Stripling " was republished.
Walter's reply may have been the occasion of enkindling
Checkley's zeal for more extended controversy. But just at
this time, from a variety of causes which it is not necessary
to detail, a very extended movement in behalf of Episcopa
cy took place both in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Hitherto the progress of the Episcopal Church in New Eng
land had been very unpromising. The violent wresting of
one of the Congregational Churches of Boston from the
hands of the congregation for the use of Episcopalians.
which occurred just before the Revolution of 1688, had not
been forgotten ; and EpiBcopacy found but little sympathy
or encouragement in Massachusetts. In 1716, Benjamin
Colman, writing from Boston, says, " We have but one single
¦' Congregation among us of the worship of the Church of
" England, who are treated by ns with all that Christian re-
" spect and brotherly esteem and regard they can reasonably
" expect and desire." (Colman'b Life, 84.) Three or four
years before, he had written to Doctor Kenuett, Dean of Pe
terborough, explaining the local zeal for Episcopacy which
prevailed in some of the towns : " There happen," he says,
" a discontented person or two in the place ; or some differ-
"ence about placing a new house for Public Worship, or
" about paying their little rate to the Ministry, or the like ;
" Immediately they are advised, or of their own mind they
"propose to themselves, 'Let us send over to the Lord
" * Bishop of London, or to the Honourable Society for Pro-
" ' pagating the Gospel, for a Minister of the Church of Eng-
" 'land.' " He then cites instances to illustrate the truth of
his statements — as Braintree, the application in behalf of
which, Rev. Mr. Miles of Boston refused to countenance —
Newbury, where a number, dissatisfied about the location of
the meeting-house, had gone off " only in a Pett, and to
" save their rate " — and Jamaica, on Long Island, where
" Mr. Hubbard and the people there, were unrighteously

"dispossessed of the Church and Ministry House and
"Lands." But in Connecticut, the prospects of the Episcopal Church
suddenly brightened. The reaction against the disorders of
the ecclesiastical condition of the Churches while left to
themselves and cx-parte Councils, had been signalized by
the adoption of the Saybrook Platform, in 1708, and was evi
dently favorable to Episcopal enterprise. The donation of
Bishop Berkeley to Yale College, and the perusal on the part
of the students of the works of Episcopal divines procured
by him for the library, were not without effect. The result
was that eventually a very serious defection, helped forward
by influences from New York Colony, with its Royal Gover
nor, became imminent. In 1722, on the day following the
Commencement, a paper was presented to the Clergy and
others assembled in the College Library, signed by several
prominent Clergymen in Connecticut, expressing doubts in
regard to the validity of Presbyterian Ordination. A discus
sion ensued some weeks after, as the result of which some
of the signers declared their scruples removed, while others
did not hesitate to avow their full Episcopal Convictions.
The apprehensions excited by their defection from the
faith and order of the New England Churches, extended
not only to Massachusetts, but to Scotland. Wodrow wrote
to Cotton Mather, on the eighteenth of March, 1723,
" We were very much alarmed and grieved when, by the Lon-
" don prints, we found eight or ten of the Ministers of New
" England (as they were pleased to magnify the numbers)
" were conformed to the Church of England. It pleases
"me to hear that only the treacherous rector is gone to
"England. Those offences and defections must be ; and I
" persuade myself Holy Providence has great end to accom-
" plish by them. You'll please to continue your accounts of
" these apostates."
The expectations of many were disappointed in the
meagre results that followed the movement. " Most of
"the few apostates," says Mather, " have reconciled them-
" selves to their offended Churches." But for a time the ap
prehensions felt by the friends of New England Church-
order were extreme. In 1723, Timothy Cutler, the former
Rector of Yale College, returned from England, where he
had been invested with holy orders— not alone as Wodrow
supposed — and became tbe first Rector of the North, or
Christ, Church in Boston. The comer stone of the house
was laid by Rev. Mr. Myles on the fifteenth of April, and
the edifice was opened for public worship on the twenty-
ninth of December, 1723.
Two years had wrought a great change iu the relative as
pects of Congregationalism and Episcopacy in New Eng
land. The friends of the former were full of fears, while
the latter were jubilant in their anticipations.
Perhaps there was neither in New England nor out of it,
a more sagacious observer of the signs of the times than
John Checkley. Probably at the very time when arrange-
2

ments were making for laying the corner stone of the new
Episcopal Church in Boston, his orders were being executed
in England for a new edition of a work, entitled A Modest
Proof of the Order and Government settled by Christ and
his Apostles in the Church. He determined to circulate the
edition in the interest of Episcopacy in this country.
By some, the Modest Proof has been ascribed to Check-
ley himself. (See Allen's Biographical Dictionary. Ar
ticle J. Cheokley.) It is possible mdeed that it was really
his production, but it is pretty evident that he or his friends
ascribed it to a Scotchman, P. Barclay, who in 1713, publish
ed in London, his Persuasion to the People of Scotland in
order to remove their prejudice to the Booh of Common,
Prayer, with answer to the dialogues between a Curate and
a Countryman." Professor Wigglesworth, who wrote in
reply to the Modest Proof, his Sober Remarks on a work
lately Reprinted at Boston, entitled "A Modest Proof,
" etc.," felt naturally some curiosity to know its origin. His
Scotch correspondent, Wodrow, was unable to inform him.
He could only say, " Mr. P. Barclay's Persuasion, as far
" as I know, was not published in Scotland. We have many
" of those people that publish their virulent pamphlets in
"England and Ireland. Had it been going in Scotland
" these twenty-five years, I imagine it would not altogether
"have escaped me,'- (Wodeow Correspondence, iii, 183.)
Whether by Barclay, or by Checkley who published it, the
Modest Proof, dc, provoked immediate controversy. Pro
fessor Wigglesworth was perhaps first in the field, but if so,
Checkley's former associate and antagonist, Thomas Walter,
was not far behind. In September (1723) he preached at the
Lecture in Boston, on " The Scriptures the only Rule of
" Faith and Practice " ; and we shall not probably go far
astray in identifying him with the Son of Martin Mar Pre
late, who was one of those who came forward to meet and
refute the Modest Proof.
Still other answers were forthcoming. " The great Jona-
" than Dickinson," of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, appeared
with A Defence of Presbyterian Ordination ; In Answer
to a pamphlet entitled, " A Modest Proof, etc. ; " while to
Thomas Foxcroft has been ascribed, The Ruling and Or
daining Presbytery of Congregational Bishops or Presby
ters ; Being some Remarks on Mr. P. Barclay's Per
suasion, lately distributed in New England, By an Impar
tial Hand.
Both of these, as well as Thomas Walter's Essay upon
that Paradox — Infallibility may sometimes mistake, were
not published till 1724, and evidently drew some of their in
spiration from the provocation ottered in Checkley's next
* A Mr. Barclay had been laboring as an Episcopal Minis
ter at Braintree in the early part of the century, and soon
left. Regretful mention is made of his departure. Could
this have been the P. Barclay, author of the Dook ?

publication, issued In the same year [1728] with the Modest
Proof, and only a few months, or possibly weeks after it.
His republication of Leslie alone, although Leslie was a con
firmed Non Juror, and really obnoxious on a civil account —
would have probably produced no effect and hardly have
commanded attention ; but his Discourse concerning Episco
pacy was a ".Tract for the Times," and wa ipecullarly adapt
ed to affect scrupulous consciences as well'as exasperate all
whom it classified as Dissenters.
He begins with the assumption, based upon Leslie's trea
tise, that it was " absolutely necessary, that a lineal and un-
" interrupted succession of the Ministers of Jesus Christ
" should be preserved." Without this. Christianity would
be stripped of an important part of its evidences. The late
Mr. Pemberton, in his Sermon at the Ordination of Joseph
Sewall, (published after his death,) is cited to sustain his
positions. Christ received his Commission from the Fa
ther ; the Apostles theirs from Christ, and the " succession
" from the Apostles is preserved and derived only in the
" Bishops." The Presbyterian Argument for the parity of the Ministry
is next taken up and historically exammed. The Episcopal
Succession in England is vindicated. The Cambridge Plat
form is cited to show that the New England Churches "al-
" low Laymen to ordain ; " so that their Ordination must be
invalid, and " our Korahites of several sizes " are bidden to
" take a view of the Heinousness of their Schism ; and not
" think their crime to be nothing because they have been
"taught with their mother's milk, to have the utmost Ab-
" horrence to the very name of Bishop : tho' they could not
" tell why."
Church government is next argued from its necessity.
The faultiness of rulers does not necessarily vacate then-
authority ; and some of the foreign churches claimed that
when they withdrew from Rome ber ordination was still
valid. The "Dissenters" also are reminded that they are
few in number. The great mass of the Christian world is
Episcopal. A citation of authorities in behalf of Episcopa
cy, for the period of four hundred and fifty years after
Christ, is also presented, embracing the language of the
Fathers and the decrees of Councils. Calvin, Beza, and
" the rest of the learned Reformers of their part," are as
serted to have given their testimony for Episcopacy " as
" much as any." Indeed, " our modern Presbyterians," it is
said, " have departed from Calvin, as well as from Luther,
"in their abhorrence of Episcopacy ; from all the Christian
" world in all ages. Calvin would have anathematized all of
" them, had he lived in our days." "Our Dissenters of all
" denominations, imitate the hardness of the Jews, who
"built the Sepulchres of those prophets, whom their fathers
" slew ; while at tbe same time, they adhered to and outdid
"the wickedness of their Fathers, in persecuting the Suc-
"cessors of those prophets."
Checkley next argues in behalf of Episcopacy on the

ground that no date of its original can be fixed short of the
times of the Apostles. The change to Episcopacy would, he
claims, have been noticed and recorded. Hence, the ordina
tions of Dissenters " in opposition to Episcopacy, are not
" only invalid, but Sacrilege, and Rebellion against Christ
" who did institute this Society and gave them their Char-
" ter, and if their Ordinations are null, then their Baptisms
" are so too, and all their Ordinances. They are out of the
" Visible Church, and have no Right to any of the Pro-
" mises in the Gospel, which are all made to the Church,
" and to none other."
" Our misled Dissenters" are then told " that when they re-
' ceive (what they call) the Sacraments of Baptism and
"tbe Lord's Supper in their Congregations, they receive no
" Sacraments, nor are their children baptized any more lhan
"if a miawite had. done it."
The argument against Episcopacy, drawn from the inter
changeable nse of the terms Bishop and Presbyter, is next
considered. Checkley attempts to illustrate it by the use of
the Roman word Impcrator, sometimes rendered General
and sometimes Emperor. He endeavors also to meet the
objection that Episcopacy was gradually introduced. He
then proceeds to apply his conclusions with a force and
vehemence already foreshadowed in some of his preceding
pages. He insists that "never was a cause so exposed, and
"stripped so naked," as the cause of the Dissenters. He
assumes that their Ordinations are usurpations, and their
Sacraments impositions. By setting Episcopacy aside they
revolt and rebel against Divine authority. He appeals to
their fears, their scruples, their affections for their children,
their regard for their own souls.
"What Compassion," he asks, [page 110,] " can they have
" for their tender infants, to carry them to disputed baptism,
" when they may have that which is clear, and undisputed
" offered to them 1 will they present the provocation of
" their offerings, and pawn their souls upon the greatest un-
" certainty ? Will they dare to say, that it is au uncertain-
" ty at best, when they will not because they cannot answer
" for themselves ? Is not this to be self-condemned f To
"put the stumbling block, of their iniquity before their
"faceSj and then come to enquire of the Lord ?
" This I should tbink were enough to rouse the conscience
" of any dissenter that is not hardened to a stone. I'm
*" sure if I was a dissenter, it would prick me to the heart.
"And till I could give an answer to what has been said in
" these papers, I would never go to a meeting, lest I perish-
" ed in their sin : I would not receive their sacraments,
" lest I offered their provocations : and should think myself
" guil'.y of the blood of my child, if I brought it to their
" baptism : at least my own blood would lie upon my
" HEAD, if I did it with a doubting mind, while I could
" have that baptism which was undisputed to make my
" child a member of the church. And how can he who has
"thrust himself out of the Church, admit another to be a

** member of It ? Can I make another free of any corpora-
" tion, who am not free myself ? No. If I nm bsmtized by
" a schismatic, I am baptized into this schism, ana made a
" member of it, and not of the church against which he is
"in rebellion and open defiance, to it. The children of
" Korah, Dathan and AUram, were swallowed up with
"them. 'If we will hazard ourselves, let us have some com-
"pavsion for our innocent children /
" The charge upon them is very, very heavy : I must con
fess it is exceeding heavy, but it is as true, as it is great, I
"know it wil! raise the indignation of many of them, and
" I shall hear it from all hands. What ! say they, would he
" un-church us, and annul our sacraments? — would he
" make the ordinary ministrations of our ministers as lit-
"tle valid, and more guilty, than if performed by amid-
"wife in case of necessity ? Where, where is the modcra-
" tion of this man ? Where is his charity f He makes all
"our meetings to be assemblies of Korah, in rebellion
" against God ! We are not able to bear it — we will not
"bear it— Itis not fit that such a man should live upon the
"earth. All this I expect to hear. And now I desire them
" to hear my defence. I hope they are not all provoked be-
" yond the bounds of reason,"
His anticipations indeed proved only too true, as he found
to his cost. But he proceeas again in the following strain.
{Page 120.] " Now I beseech the Dissenters, as they would
"avoid the fierce anger of God, to look upon their own sin,
"in the example given of it in Korah, and which St. Jude
" says is an example to those who separate themselves in the
" Christian church.
" Now let the Dissenters see if there be one circumstance
" of difference betwixt their case and that of Korah ? And
" their pretences are the very same ; even at this day, they
"have not departed from the very words of Korah, for do
" they not say to their bishops, Ye take too much upon ye t
" And do they not give the same reason, the holiness of the
"people who are God's heritage, and that the bishops do lift
" up themselves and lord it over the heritage of Christ ?
" Are not these then their very words ? And the same pre
sences and the words of Korah against Aaron ? and
"have they not made it apparent, that their design was the
" same with that of Korah, to seize upon the priesthood for
"themselves? And have they not lorded it over thepeople
" with tenfold the rigor that ever was shewed by the bish-
" ops f The little finger of Presbyter?/ was thicker than the
" loins of Episcopacy ! [as I can fully, and will, make ap
pear if it be deny'd.]" * * * * *
\_Page 124.] " Ana who can appoint an ambassador but the
" King who sends him ? Who else can give him his autho-
" ritym t How otherwise is the King obliged to ratify what
" is signed by his ambassadors in his name pursuant to his
" instructions t As it is treason for any subject to presume
" to send an ambassador in the name of his King, it is real-
*' ly taking upon himself to be King. So it Is the greatest

" blaspTtemy for any man or men to take upon them to ap-
1 ' point priests for God, that is, in plain consequence, usurp-
" ing the prerogative of God, and, as much as in our power,
" to dethrone him and set up ourselves in his place.
"The Apostles call themselves ambassadors of Christ.
" And now I speak not, (God forbid I should) of any of those
" learned and truly pious gentlemen who are teachers either
"here or in other parts of the world; but it is well
" known and confessed by all who know anything of the
" matter, that the Christian priesthood was never so shame-
" fully debased, as it has been this hundred years last past,
" since Christianity has been in the world. I say, the Apos-
" ties called themselves ambassadors of Christ Aud now,
" every Tag, Rag, and Long-tail call themselves his ambassa-
" dors too, by a call from the people ! Good God, how has
" the priesthood been vilified of late ! Was it a glory to
" Christ to be made a priest 1 and now from this vile prosti-
' l tution of it, it is come to be thought (among some men)
" the meanest of employments and hardly befitting a gentle-
* ' man / "
It was in this style that John Checkley saw fit to express
himself at the very moment when the community was most
intensely excited by fears and apprehensions ofthe spread
of Episcopacy. His offeuce was really the insult which he
offered to the religious convictions and long-established aud
warmly-cherished belief of his fellow-citizens. But it was
not politic to persecute him for his High-Church views alone,
or his attack upon the " Established order " in the country.
He denied, indeed, that they were established, and arrogantly
termed them Dissenters ; and this position he adhered to,
also, in his defence. But in the view of public opinion, this
could only have aggravated the offence.
Doctor Colman probably reflected tbe common sentiment
of the country on this subject when he said {Life of Colman,
138) in his letter to Bishop Kennett: " By our present Char-
"ter, granted by King William and Queen Mary, our
" Churches are bere tbe Legal Establishment, and our Minis-
" ters, both in respect of their Induction and Maintenance,
" are the King's Ministers, as much as even the Church of
" England Ministers are in any of the other Provinces. . .
" But when I say that our Churches and Ministers here are
" established by the King's Laws, I would pray your Lord-
*' ship not to understand me, in opposition to the Church of
" England, for so they are not : but if any town will choose
" a gentleman of the Church, of England for their Pastor
" or Rector, they are at their liberty, and he is their Min-
" ister by the laws of our Province, as much as any Con-
" gregational Minister among us is so. So far is our Estab-
" lishment from excluding others from the common Rights
" of Men and Christians, and I hope ever will remain so."
Checkley, of course, took a very different view of the case,
and one which must have tempted many to wish that the
question might be brought to a legal arbitrament. Moreo-

ver, the people of Massachusetts had never before had such
a specimen of ecclesiastical defiance thrown at them. " Dis-
"sent" was bearded iu its own chosen domain ; and the
children of the Puritans were confronted with a H gh Church-
ism, worthy the palmiest days of Archbishop Laud.
But how could the offeuder he reached? It was impolitic
to commence any action against him, simply for his religious
or ecclesiastical views, even if that were possible. The
Ministers who were ready to fall upon the Modest Proof, etc.,
as soon as it appeared, would not deign to notice the Dis
course Concerning Episcopacy.
It is true that the Congregational Clergy paid no attention
generally in a controversial way to the Discourse on Episco
pacy, appended to Leslie's Short Method. They must have
knowu that its virulent style would render it comparatively
harmless, and that the Nonjuror principles which it set
forth, ai_a especially its views on the subject of Baptism,
were offensive to many Episcopalians. Indeed, the next year
after the book was published, the Bishop of London wrote
over to Miles, one of the Episcopal Clergymen in Boston, a
letter which indicated his sympathies strongly enough to sat
isfy a man like Doctor Colman.* The Congregational Min
isters may very reasonably have preferred, on other grounds
than relieving themselves from controversy, to take no notice
of Checkley's publication.
But among them there was one exception. Thomas Wal
ter, Checkley's old friend and companion, as well as antago
nist in controversy, now came into tbe field — em uttered
somewhat perhaps— with his Essay on that Paradox, Infalli
bility may sometimes Mistake, or a Reply to a Discourse con
cerning Episcopacy, said in a late Pamphlet to be beyond the
Possibility of Reply. To which is prefixed Some Remarks
upon said Pamphlet, Entitled A Discourse shewing who is a
True Pastor of the Church of Christ, as also Remarks upon
St. Ignatius7 Epistle to the Trallians. By a Son of Martin
Mar Prelate.
In this duodecimo of one hundred and twenty pages,
(1724) Walter goes far toward paying back Checkley in his
own coin. He says, for instance, " The Discourse of Episco-
"pacy, to which I am about to make a reply, is Lesly's,

* Wells says, in page 19 of his Real Advantages, that tbe
Bishop of London, on the third of September, 1724, about a
year after Checkley's book was published and sold in Boston,
wrote to the Rev. Mr. Miles concerning the dispute on the
validity of Baptism by persons not episcopally ordained :
" Considering the views with which this doctrine has been
" lately advanced here by the Non-jurors, if any Missionary
" shall renew this controversy, and advance the same, I shall
" esteem him an enemy to the Church of England and the
"Protestant Succession, and shall deal with him accord-
" ingly."

" which he wrote in answer to the Quakers." " This Sneak-
" ing Plagiary, by foisting in a few of his crude notions, and
" impudent railleries against our Clergy and Country, sup-
" poses to secure to himself the honor (tho' I profess but a
"very small one) of being the author of the whole book."
(Page 26.)
The most plausible ground of Proceeding was to arraign
Checkley for his Non Jurism, or at least to place this in the
foreground, and make it a cover for the real offence. He
would thus be deprived of sympathy from the friends of the
Bnglish Government, or at least of the Royal family, and
could entertain no hope of relief by appeal to the King or
Parliament. .
In Checkley's Speech which follows, the facts of the trial
are brought to view. He was first arraigned before an infe
rior Court, but was allowed to bring his case to the higher
Court and have a Jury trial. His own defence is able and
ingenious, while it reveals a man who would not shrink
from maintaining the most obnoxious positions. He was
fined fifty pounds to the King, and required to enter into re
cognizance in the sum of one hundred pounds, with two
sureties in the sum of fifty pounds each, for his good beha
vior for six months, and also pay costs oi prosecution.
Three years after the close of his trial, he visited England
(1727) with a view of obtaining Holy orders in the English
Church. He was then forty-seven years old. But a letter,
signed by two Congregational Ministers, John Barnard and
Edward Holyoke, of Marblehead, was sent to Doctor Gibson,
Bishop of London, stating that Checkley "was a bitter ene-
" my to other denominations, a Non Juror, and that he had
" not a liberal education." The Bishop read the letter to
Governor Shute, then in England, who confirmed its state
ments, and in consequence, Checkley was refused ordination,
and returned to this country still a layman.
On a second application, in 1739, Checkley was more suc
cessful. At the ripe age of fifty-nine years he was ordained
by the Bishop of Exeter. He returned to this country, and
was sent as a Missionary to Providence, Rhode Island. There
he ministered, officiating at intervals, at Warwick and Attle-
borough, for fourteen years. He died on the fifteenth of
February, 1753.
It may not be amiss to notice here the later results of
Checkley's publication.
Nothing ever was published in New England probably, on
the Episcopal side of the question, so exasperating as this
volume. The circulation of it was revived (" secretly " says
Wells) in Connecticut, in the heat of the controversy be
tween Hobart and Wells on one side, and Wetmore, Beach,
and Johnson on the other. But it proved somewhat unfor
tunate, by provoking Wells of Stamford, to publish (anony
mously) a pamphlet, which for popular effect was doubtless-
more than an offset to any Discourse on Episcopacy, and
which none would have relished better than "A Son of
" Maktin Mae Peelate. "

Most of Wells's controversial writings are very decorous
and unexceptionable. They have indeed been warmly com
mended by persons who did not sympathize with his side of
tbe controversy. He did not hesitate to affix his name to
flwiu, nor did he forfeit respect by dolus so. But he seems to
have been provoked to retaliation by the circulation, at this
stage ofthe controversy, of Checkley's book. He most effec
tively replied to it, by tak ng only the slightest notice of it;
but presenting auother phase ofthe matter in which he con
tends more as a humorist than as a logician, and in which, of
course, he is never thrown off his guard by losing his temper.
The pamphlet of Noah Wells on tbe Real Advantages of
joining tlie Episcopal Church (Svo. po. 47, 1762,) was pub-
li.-hed anonymously, but for literary ability was worthy the
reputation of the ablest writers of the day. It is composed
in au ironical vein not unlike that of Swift's argument against
abolishing Christianity, and administers, under the guise of
"a friendly anxiety for another, the sharpest rebukes ofthe
Episcopal polity and practice in this country.
The Episcopal Church he represents as overshadowed by
no repulsive, melancholy doctrines, or such teachings as are
to be found in the writings of Doddridge, Stoddard, Willard,
or Colman. The New York College which it had established,
promised to be " a relief to polite young gentlemen who are
" sick of the severities they are obliged to suffer at other Col-
" leges." They will be able to get Degrees without over
much application to their studies.
Moreover, if a man becomes a minister in New England,
he must not only have professed "this mystical jargon of
"Calvinism" himself, but he must diligently explain and
warmly recommend " these ridiculous whims " to his people.
Otherwise, he could not receive a license. To this it is
essential that he should give " as our famous Mr. Rhind ex-
" presses it," " a long senseless story ofthe manner of God's
" dealing with the souls of the elect, etc."
Another advantage afforded is, that none need scruple sub
scription to Articles which have no determinate sense. He
need not feel himself in the least hampered thereby. The
fentle discipline of the Church is also a recommendation.
t insists on no Puritanic Sunday. In its history is embodied
the account of the Book of Sports enjoined to be read in the
Churches by James I. and endorsed by his successor, Charles
I. The Episcopal Church is not over scrupulous on such
matters. It is engaged to its policy by its inveterate preju
dice against Dissenters who murdered the " Royal Martyr."
Hence among its adherents no grave melancholy airs are put
on. "An inviolable regard to the 'Royal Martyr' teaches
" ns how to keep Sunday."
The disturbances occasioned by the Missionaries of the
Episcopal Church in provoking controversies and divisions
are exposed by transparent plausibilities. The Church itself
is commended' by the fact that having a King at its head,
makes it more polite and fashionable. A great many Deists
3

are allured to it by this means, and make very good church
men. . ...
In another respect there is a great advantage in joining
" the Church. " The prayers are ready printed. Its members
do not sit drowsily idle. They have a part to act. The his
torical character of the prayer, moreover, as that on occasion
of the Gunpowder-plot, makes us who join in them better
acquainted with history, and "more learned than the Dis-
" senters." The fact also, that the prayer-book contains no
forms for secret prayer is a great relief by which " our peo-
" pie " are delivered from an irksome task. Bowing, more
over, is a considerable partof our religion, and of consequence
renders us more expert at this genteel part of behaviour.
Those who officiate have no need to rack their invention
in prayer. This is an excellent advantage for young gentle
men who " desire to be preachers, and are conscious to
" themselves that they don't pray very often, and are but
"little gifted that way." The prayers are so repeated that
the time of service is well filled up, and the Sermon need not
be more than fifteen minutes long, no small advantage to
young clergymen who are not very well acquainted with the
Scriptures, and are less studied in Divinity.
" The Church " too has " wonderful decent ceremonies."
They tend to allure Papists far more than the bald worship of
Presbyterians. Baptism by Sponsors provides that the rite
may be performed in a polite genteel manner. Godfathers
and Godmothers may oe selected from the most respectable
families, and thus gain greater respect for the ceremony.
The sign of the cross also " waves devotion " over the whole
ordinance. The kneeling, too, is a very reverent posture.
The robes of the clergyman have the advantage of comeli
ness. " Can a man put on a black gown and not be sincerely
" devout, or a white surplice and his hands not be clean and
" his heart pure ? "
Christmas also fills our hearts so full of joy and gratitude
to Christ, whose birth we then celebrate, that "we drink
" most cheerfully in remembrance of him, and spare neither
" punch nor good Madeira."
The Music of the Church is greatly improved by organs
which " charm the ear, ravish the heart, and carry the souls
" of churchmen in raptures to heaven."
Nor does " the Church " impose any rigorous discipline,
which is a thing exceedingly distasteful to fashionable gen
tlemen. The introduction of lay Chancellors to discharge
offices for tbe Church conduces to light censures, while offi
cers can become religious, as they ought to be, by the easy
method of partaking of the Sacraments. A man who pro
poses to enter the Ministry may likewise secure a good tem
poral support by turning Missionary for " the Church." The
Honorable Society who sustain him are honorable paymas
ters.* The poor Dissenting Ministers, if they get their full
* There was more truth than irony in this statement. John

salary, must take it in paper, while he is paid in silver and
gold, aud is as much better off than they as gold is better
than paper. Besides all this, he may get all he can out of hia
hearers, in addition to what the Society gives.
His task moreover is comparatively lignt. " A Missionary
" who has bought a good stock of penny sermons, may fol-
" low his diversions or practise physic, all the week, aud yet
" preach a tolerable sermon on Sunday. He is accountable
" to the Society only for his conduct." (Page 40.)
Nor is this all. He has the chance to rise to preferment.
The high dignities of the Church are open to him. " The
" great Cardinal Wolsey was a butcher's son." Here, then,
are preferments and benefices to fire the ambition of young
clergymen of learning and parts.
The writer confesses that he has dwelt on these temporal
advantages mainly, but it has been because the hinge of the
whole controversy turns on them. In fact there are good
grounds to believe that there are ten times as many converts
made by them, as by all other arguments put together. Still
he will make a few remarks on the advantages which the
church offers for the world to come.
Churchmen as a class, he holds, are less affected than others
with fears about future punishment. Presbyterians allow
that all who are regenerated shall be saved, but the Church
of England regenerates all her members by baptism, " wa-
" ving over them the sign of the cross, by which they become
" faithful disciples of the crucified Jesus."
There are troubles among the Dissenters also, from which
Churchmen have no apprehension. In New Hampshire, the
former have remodeled the Assembly's Catechism. At Bos
ton a celebrated D.D.* at tie head of a large party, boldly
and openly ridicules the doctrines of the Catechism. In
Connecticut, an Ordination Council proves that t ere is no
ecclesiastical Constitution of the Colony.
" The Church of England," he says, with special reference
to Hart and Todd, who defended the proceedings at Dana's
Ordination, at Wallingford, " will no doubt return her hearty
" thanks to those sagacious gentlemen who have taken so
Brainerd's salary as a Missionary to the Indians, where he
was constantly called upon to relieve the needy, was only
forty pounds ; yet he remarks, in a letter published in Eng
land, m 1753,. " Sundry of our Missionaries irom the Society
" for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts have sixty,
" and some seventy,besides something very considerable from
" their people ; I believe near hab? as much more." Brainerd
questions whether such expenditure was wise or in accord
ance with the intent of tbe founders and donors of the So
ciety, supplying a plentiful and populous country like New
England, and sinking "thousands of pounds annually only
" to gratify a few sticklers for a party." Life of John Brai
nerd, 26-\
• Rev. Dr. Mayhew is meant.

" much pains to discover, and point out to the world, the
" weakness and inconsistency of this (Saybrook) Platform."
He closes by intimating that if this letter Bhonld be servicea
ble and the one addressed should conform and take orders,
he could give him further directions for the successful man
agement of his mission, which would furnish materials for
auother long letter.
The Real Advantages, &c, evidently hit the mark at which
its Author aimed. John Beach of Newtown, the former an
tagonist of the two Dickinsons, felt called upon to reply to it
in A Friendly Expostulation with all persons concerned in
publishing a late Pamphlet entitled The Real Advantages,
&c. This was an octavo of forty-five pages, published at
New York in 1763. It is quite a tame production by the side
of Wells's pamphlet. The Author complains and laments,
and seems disposed to assume the tone and bearing of one
who is injured and wronged without having offered provoca
tion. The controversy seems to have closed with a publication
from the pen of the Congregational Minister of Newtown,
who was of course Beach's neighbor, as well as his successor
there. Beach it seems had published subsequently to his
Friendly Expostulation, &c, another pamphlet entitled A
Familiar Conference, &c.,and upon its appearance was issued
Remarks upon a late Pamphlet entitled A Familiar Confer
ence, Published by the Rev. John Beach. In several Letters
to a Friend. By David Judson, Minister of the Gospel in
Newtown. New Haven : 1765. Octavo, pp. 22.
In the preface to this, Judson speaks of the preceding
Pamphlet b^ Beach, in which he complains of his course.
But the main controversy now has degenerated into a dis
cussion of Arminian questions, and faith and works. In
deed the interest of it was soon to be effectually superseded
by the publications of the two respective champions of
Presbyterian and Episcopal ordination, Dr. Charles Chauncy,
of Boston, and Dr. Thomas Bradbury Chandler, of Eliza-
bethtown, New Jersey. Their writings commanded indeed
the attention of the whole country ; and Checkley and his
opponents were heard of no more.
Hablem, N. Y. E. H. Gilleit.

THE
SPEECH OF
Mr. John Checkley,
UPON HIS
T RYA L,
AxBofton in New-England,
For Publishing
The Short and Eafy Method with the Deijls:
To which was added, A Difcourfe concern
ing Episcopacy; In Defence of Chrifii-
anity, and the Church «/" England,
againft the JEJcislS and JDi0S£tlIer0.
To which is Added,
The Jury's Verdift ; His Plea in Arrest of
Judgment; and the Sentence of Court.
The Second Edition.
LONDON:
Printed by J. Applebee, in Bolt-Court, Fleet Street
M.DCC.XXXVIH.

THE
SPEECH OF
Mr. JOHN CHECKLEY,
Upon his Tryal at Bojlon in
New England, &c.
May it please your Honours, and you,
Gentlemen of the Jury ;
My Counsel having made so very good a De
fence on my Behalf, the saying any thing for
myself may seem needless and unnecessary.
And indeed it would be so, if the charge against
me was not out of the common Road, and very
extraordinary. But (may it please your Honours) I am repre
sented asa Person Guilty on many Accounts : 1st,
For wickedly and maliciously imagining and con
triving, by the Subtilty of Arguments, to draw
into Dispute his present Majesty's Title to the

Crown, &c. 2dly, Of scandalizing the Ministers
of the Gospel by Law established in this Pro
vince. Sdly, I am charged with falsifying the
holy Scriptures. Athly, With representing the
Church of Rome as the present Mother Church ;
and lastly, with raising Divisions, Jealousies,
and Animosities among his Majesty's loving Sub
jects of this Province.
These are Crimes of a very heinous Nature ;
and had they been as fully prov'd as they have
been strongly suggested in the Indictment, I must
acknowledge I should deserve a very severe Pun
ishment. Since then the charge against me is so very ex
traordinary ; since these Proceedings, and the Me
thods of my Prosecution seem to be something
new in this Country : and since I am so fully con
scious of the Innocency of my Intentions, and. that
I had no Malice in my Heart : I believe your
Honours will readily allow, that to be silent, at
this Juncture, would look like an Argument of
Guilt, and be truly Criminal.
With your Honours Permission, then, I shall go
on, and will endeavour to take up no more Time,
than to advert to such Things, not so fully in
sisted on by my Counsel, as will further shew the
Innocency of my Intentions, and that I had no
Malice in my Heart, nor designed any thing against
the Government.
May it please your Honours,
and you, Gentlemen of the Jury ;
The first Passage pretended to be against the
Government is this, P. 63. "As the Necessity
"of Government, and the general Commands in
' ' Scripture of Obedience to Government, do re-
" quire our Submission to the Government in be-
" ing, where there is no Competition concerning

1 ' the Titles ; that is, where no one claims a better
"Right than the Possessor:" thereby (saith the
Indictment) subtilly, by Arguments, to traduce
and draw into Dispute the undoubted Right and
Title of our said Lord the King, d-c.
But this was not designed, nor can it possibly
be wrested, to hurt the Title of his present Ma
jesty ; unless any Person will make it appear,
thut another hath a better title to the Grown than
his present Majesty ; which I am sure is not aver
red here, nor any thing like it. For the whole
Sentence is no more than an hypothetic Proposi
tion concerning Government in general (without
any averment of any particular Government) ;
and founded upon this Maxim of the Law, that
bare Possession is a good Title, till a better can be
produced. But, (may it please your Honours) to shew
you farther, that I had no evil Design against the
Government, I beg Leave to remark, and to shew
wherein I industriously alter' d the Phrase, to pre
vent any such Misapplication of it.
In the Book from whence this Passage is tran-
scrib'd, the Words run thus ; P. 36. " As the
" Necessity of Government, and the general Com-
"mands in Scripture of obedience to Govern-
"ment, do require our Submission to the Gov-
" ernment in being, where there is no Competition
" concerning theTitles, or any that claimsa better
" Right than the Possessor."
Here I beg your Honours, and you Gentlemen
of the Jury, to observe, that these expressions,
where thereisno Competition concerning the Titles,
or any that claims in better Sight than the Posses
sor : I say,- these expressions in this Book, are not
explanatory one of the other, but are disjunct ;
and by the Assistance of a few, useful Innu
endo's, this expression, where there is no Compe-
4

tion concerning the Titles, might have been so
dress'dup, as to have looked like something against
the present Government. For everybody knows,
that there is a Competition concerning the Title
to the Crown of England.
But to prevent all Possibility of mistake con
cerning this Expression, and that it might not be
pressed and forced to fight against the Govern
ment whether it would or not ; in this very Booh
it is explained in such a manner as (seems to me)
to make it almost impossible for any one but an
Enemy to the present Government, so much as to
think that these Words were designed against
it. For in this Booh, these Words, where there is
no Competition concerning the Titles, are imme
diately explained in this Manner : That is, where
no one claims a better Right than the Possessor.
And by the Words, claims a better Right,
must mean, justly claims a better Right.
And indeed it is impossible to force it to have
any other Meaning, if the preceeding and sub
sequent Matter, and the Design and Scope of the
Argument be considered.
For it is an Argument with the Dissenters from
the Church of England, in this Manner, viz.
Episcopacy was instituted by Christ, for the
standing and perpetual Government of his
Church. That Form of Government still exists in the
Church of England.
Therefore, supposing that the present Bishops
did not derive there power by an uninterrupted
Succession from the Apostles, but were appointed
by the King, or by some others not having Epis
copal Power ; yet since they govern according to
that Form which Christ appointed, tho' they did
not come regularly by it, they ought to be obeyed,

until some other person shall come and make it
appear that they have a better Right to govern the
• Church, than those in actual possession.
And the Reason for such Obedience is given,
viz. That if it were not so, a Door would be
opened to let in Anarchy and endless Confusion,
if every bold Pretender to a Right should be
hearkened to, and his barb Pretensions, should
be sufficient to alienate the Obedience of the Peo
ple, from those in actual Possession.
This (may it please your Honours) is the Argu
ment. Now nothing is more plain, than that
every different Sect among the Dissenters, ex
pressly affirm their own particular form of (what
they call) Church Government to be of Christ's
Institution, and claim a better Right to the Gov
ernment of the Church than the Bishops, whom
they call Usurpers; (particular Instances of
which I am ready to produce ; but shall wave it,
believing it would be no pleasure to your Hon
ours at this time, to hear with what scurrility
some imprudent men have treated that venerable
Order :) I say each differing Sect among the Dis
senters claim a better Right than the Bishops ; yet
the Bishops and they only ought to be obeyed :
Why ? Because none of these Dissenters have
ever yet made it appear, that their claim is just.
May it please your Honours : This is the whole
Design and Drift of the Argument; and I have
been thus long upon it, to make it appear to your
Honours, and to you Gentlemen of the Jury,
that is impossible to cloath these Words, claims
a better Right ; with any other meaning than
justly claims a better right ; for otherwise, the
Argument would have no design, but would be
glaring Nonsense, and Contradiction to the im
mediately preceeding and consequent Matter, and
to the Scope and design of the whole Book.

8

I hope your Honours, and you, Gentlemen of
the Jury, will not take more notice of an Innu
endo an Inference or Insinuation, than of an ex
press Declaration. And if there are any Words
which seem to bear a doubtful Meaning, I hope
your Honours will in all such cases incline to the
most favorable Side.
May it please your Honours, it is a known Rule
in the Roman Law, In ambiguis orationibus max-
ime sententia spectanda est ejus qui eas protulis-
set. Wherever Words are capable of a double
Construction, there the Intention of the Speaker
is chiefly to be looked after and attended too.
I have solemnly declared, that I industriously
altered the phrase, and with this very intention,
viz. to prevent any Misapplication of it, as if it
was design'd against the Government.
Every Man hath a right to explain his own In
tentions ; and obscure expressions must not (I
hope) have Meanings put upon them, contrary -to
express Declarations.
This is a Rule in all common and civil Cases be
tween Man and Man ; but in criminal Cases, there
that Law exacts a stricter and a nicer Proof.
Wherever the Life or Liberty of a Citizen is con-
cern'd, there the Proofs ought to be Luce meridi-
ana clariora, as evident as the Sun at Noonday.
But (may it please your Honours) what proofs
have been produced, and in what Form have they
appear'd 1 — Verily, in no very comely Form !
For they are nothing but bare and nahed Inu-
endo's and Insinuations.
May it please your Honours, I mention these
Maxims of the Roman Law, only as they are
agreeable to the common Sense and Understand
ing of Mankind, as Rules of Reason and Equity :
and which (I would perswade myself ) your Hon
ours will always make the Rule of your Actions.

9

Since therefore, I affirm, that there is no per
son, who JUSTLY claims a better Right to the
Crown of England than his present Majesty, I
hope your Honours will be of my opinion, that
he who shall start at this Passage, and say, that
it is against the present Government, looks like
an Enemy to it ; for, without an Innuendo, it
plainly intimates, that he thinks some other per
son besides his present Majesty, justly claims a
better Title : which is by no means asserted in
this Passage, nor in any part of the Book ; but
the direct contrary.
Wherefore I have an humble confidence, that
your Honours, and you Gentlemen of the Jury,
will not think this passage sufficient to mahe the
Booh a Libel, nor me guilty.
The next (pretended) scandalous Clause is this,
pag. 107. "Let then the Commonwealth-men and
"the orators for the Power of the People, (if they
' ' will argue fairly and upon the square with us)
"set down the time when Monarchy did bagin
"in the World, and see if this Clew will not lead
"them up to the Division of the Nations after
"the Flood, which I am sure no man (who has
"seen that Account which Holy Scripture gives
"us of it) will venture to say, was done by the
" People. Thereby (saith the Indictment) meaning and
insinuating, that the Title of our said Lord the
King to the Crown was not good. Now to evince
beyond all Contradiction, that these Expressions
likewise, bear not the least Resemblance of any
Reflection, upon His Majesty's Title to the Crown,
I most humbly entreat your Honours to hear me
patiently, while I represent the true design of
this Argument, and the impious Schemes against
which it militates.
First then: The Deists, (those Men who

10

would turn the World, and even God and Nature,
upside down !) these men foolishly dream of an
independent State of Nature ; that is to say, they
affirm, that once upon a time (though they never
yet could tell when) all Mankind were upon a
Level, and that there was no such thing as Govern
ment in the world, and that Tom, Dick, and Har
ry, ay, every individual Man, Woman, and
Child had a right to the whole World ; therefore,
since God had not instituted any Government,
they, the People, all of 'em met together, and (to
prevent the dire Confusion that might happen
upon the bloody Scramble that was like to ensue)
they erected Government.
This (may it please your Honours) is the Scheme
of the Deists: And I am sure I need not tell you,
that it is a direct Contradiction to the Holy
Scriptures; and these Deists not believing one
Word in those sacred pages, no wonder they
talk so wildly.
It was the want of Revelation that made the
ancient Sages grope so in the dark, and have such
strange Notions concerning the Origin of the
World, of Manhind, and of Government.
The Wisdom (even) of Aristotle could never
give a Solution to this single Question, Which was
first, the Hen or the Egg? If he said — The Egg —
Then how came this Egg here, unless some Hen
laid it ? — If he said, the Hen was first. 
Then from whence came this Hen but from some
Egg which must be before it ?
This was an inextricable difficulty with Aris
totle. But a slender acquaintance with the first
Chapter of Genesis would have informed him,
that as God made the first Hen, from which all of
the same species have been derived ; so he like
wise created the World and Mankind, and actual
ly instituted a particular Form of Government,

11

giving to one Man the Dominion over the World,
aud over all that he had created in it.
The God of Ch'der did not create a number of
People all at once, loithout order and Govern
ment, and then leave them to scramble for Pro
perty and Dominion, as some Deistical Republi
cans would have us believe contrary to the express
Words of Scripture.
And to show that I do not abuse them, tho'
I could bring a Multitude of Quotations from their
own writings ; (but that I may not take up too
much of your Honours time) I shall only produce
three lines from their Veteran Mercenary, their
oracle, Daniel de Foe, who certainly knew his
own Scheme, To be as free as Nature first made Man,
E'er the base Laws of Servitude began,
When wild in Woods the noble Savage ran.
This is their wild Notion of an independent
State of Nature.
But the Vanity and Falsehood of this brutal
Scheme is detected, as with a Sunbeam, from the
Holy Scriptures, from the first of Genesis, and
from the Book of Job, where we are told (accord
ing to one Translation) Tliat vain Man is pufTd
up with Pride, and thinhshimself free-born like a
Wild Ass's Colt.
These Men would have all Mankind such Sava
ges. And they are fitly called Beasts, who range
themselves in the natural State of Beasts, all inde-
.pendent, and no Government among them.
It is this impious and Brutal Notion which the
Argument in this Book militates against and des
troys. Secondly, The Word People is an indefinite
Term, and the Republicans could never yet agree
concerning its true meaning.

12

. That great Man Mr. Locke expressly says, that
the free Vote of every individual is absolutely
necessary to the erecting of Government, and, at
the same time, says that it is impossible to be had.
And nothing is more certain than this, that no
Country or Nation can be produced, where every
one of the People hath a free Vote in the choice of
their Rulers. And it is likewise certain, that at
the very time when the Democracy was most in
Vogue, in ancient Greece and Rome, all the com
mon People had not a Vote at the Election of
their Magistrates.
The Athenian Rabble did not chuse the Demar-
chi,  (Here the Chief Judge interrupted and
said, the Court can't spend their Time in hearing
you talk about the Greeks and Romans. It is
nothing to your Case.)
May it please your Honour. By the Statutes
of Magna Charta chap. 29. 5 Edw. III. chap.
9. — and 23 Edw. Til. chap. 5. No man ought to
be condemned without Answer. Coke's 4 Instit.
38. And my Lord Coke says in the same place,
That the more high and absolute the Jurisdiction
of the Court is, the more just and honourable it
ought to be in the proceeding, and to give Ex
ample of Justice to inferior Courts.
I was not suffered to defend myself in the
inferior Court ; I beseech your Honours to let me
make my Defence.
(The Chief-justice said, well go on).
I say then that the Athenian Rabble di&not chuse
the Demarchi ;
The Ephori of Sparta were not chosen by the
Spartan Mob ;
Nor did all the Roman Plebeians chuse the
Roman Tribunes.
This wild and impracticable (pretended) Power

1:1

of the People, was never reduced to Practice by
any Nation, or among any People, And it is only
against this rude, confused notion, that the Argu
ment in this book is levell'd.
Thus much for this licentious, unlimited,' pre
tended Power of the People !
And as for the pretended Independent State of
Nature, I'm sure that could have no Existence at
the Time mentioned in the 10th of Genesis;
when Nimrod (in prophane History called Belus)
was King in Babylon and Asher built Nineveh
the seat of the Assyrian Monarchs ; both which
are mentioned in that Chapter.
And from Nimrod we have the names of all the
Monarchs, and their Succession, to the end of the
Assyrian Monarchy.
And after that of the Medes and Persians, the
Greeks and Romans ; and from the Division of
the Roman Empire, we have the Succession to
the present Empire of Germany in the West, and
the Sultan of Constantinople in the East.
And in all this Tract of Time, not the least
crevice to let in this wild independent State.
These are publick Matters of Fact in which
Mankind cannot be deceived. Therefore the Ar
gument in this Book stands good and firm, and
may still, with good Reason, demand of the Re
publicans, at what JEra of time they will bring
in their Original State of Nature !
And I have the same humble assurance that I
had before, that your Honours, and you Gentle
men of the Jury, will not think this demand, nor
the Argument against the Power of the People,
as I have explain'd it, any Reflection upon His
present Majesty's Title, nor sufficient to make me
guilty, nor this Book a Libel.
The next and last Passage pretended to be
against the government is this, p. 108. "Was
5

14

' ' there ever a Time in the World when all Mankind
" (all but the Usurpers !) were all asleep ? 
This Clause likewise hath nothing in it against
the Government any more than the foregoing.
And to demonstrate that it has not, I must hum
bly beg leave to represent, to your Honours and
to the Gentlemen of the Jury, its true and genuine
meaning. In the Process of which Representa
tion, I shall be obliged, by the Nature of my
Defence, to mention the Asembly of Divines at
Westminister, and other Great Men among the
Dissenters ; but I shall do it with all due deference
to their Characters ; therefore I beseech your
Honours to hear me patiently.
This Question, What think ye, my Friends ?
Was there ever a time in the World when all
Mankind (all but the Usurpers) were all asleep,
is only an ironical Expostulation, with those who
affirm the Government of the Church by Bishops
to be an Usurpation, and who (with Deists) deny
the uninterrupted Succession of the Gospel Minis
try. The Book argues the Impossibility of such an
Order of Men creeping into the Church all at once,
and all the World over, without any Body's
Notice or Knowledge ! And the Book is further
proving positively, that in fact, these Bishops have
always been in the Church since its first Institu
tion, and proves it by this Medium, viz. The
Testimony of an uninterrupted Succession of
Gospel Ministers.
And since it is part of the Charge against me,
that I have ranked such with Deists who deny
the Succession of the Priesthood ; I shall, in the
Prosecution of this part of my Defence, (to save
time) answer both in one.
And in order to it I will (with your Honours
leave) entreat the Assistance of those Presbyterian

15

Ministers, the Compilers of the Divine Right of
Church Government, approved by the Westmin
ster Assembly, who, when it was objected against
them by the Independents, after the first Edition
of their Book, that by their Principles, an unin
terrupted Succession of ordained Persons was
necessary ; which Succession they could not pre
tend to, unless they would justify the Antichris
tian Ordinations of the Church of Rome, &c,
they added an Appendix to theii Second Edition,
wherein they considered the Objection, and re
turned an Answer to it under these two Heads,
1st, That the Reformation was begun before the
Council of Trent ; and till the Council of Trent
the Church of Rome was not so corrupted, as that
her Ordinations were null. The Church of Rome
could as validly ordain as baptize, and who did
ever question the validity of her Baptisms ?
2dly, The English Clergy had not their Ordi
nations from Rome ; Christianity was very early
(Anno 63 or 64) in Great Britain, and Church
Officers were then ordained, and a Succession of
valid Ordinations was always uninterruptedly con
tinued. I must now (with your Honours Permission)
seek for some Aid from The Divine Right of the
Gospel Ministry, written, at least authorized, by
the Provincial Assembly of London, published in
the year 1654, which says, that Church Power
is first seated in Christ the Head, and from him
committed to the Apostles, and from them to
Church Officers; and they alone who have re
ceived it from the Apostles can derive and
transmit it to other Mmisters. All Ordination by
the People is Null and Void, as being not only
not grounded on Scripture, but against Scrip
ture. And to intrude into the Ministerial Office with-

16

out Ordination, is as the Sin of Korah and his
Company. The same Provincial Assembly have much more
to this purpose, in their other Treatise, called,
The Divine Right of the Ministry of England,
from whence (that I may not tire your Honours)
I shall quote but a few things.
Chap. 3. pag. 44. They say they think it no
disparagement to their Ministry to say, they re
ceived it from Christ and his Apostles, and from
the Primitive Churches, through the impure and
corrupt Channel of the Church of Rome, ' ' And,
"p. 43. the receiving our Ordination from
" Christ and his Apostles, and the Primitive
' ' Churches, and so all along thro' the apostate
' ' Church of Rome, is so far from nullifying our
"Ministry, or disparaging of it, that it is a great
"strengthening of it, when it shall appear to all
"the World, that our Mmistry is derived to us
" from Christ and his Apostles, by Succession of
" a Ministry continued in the Church for 1600
" years, and that we have a Lineal Succession
"from the Apostles.'1''
Thus far the Westminister Assembly. And
were it not intruding too far upon your Honours
Patience, I would keep company with my Indict
ment {North about) to that part of Great Britain
called Scotland, and shew, that (even) the Gene
ral Assembly of Scotch Presbyterians, held the
absolute Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession
from the Apostles; which I could abundantly
prove ;. but shall wave it, and close this part of
my Defence, with the Words of that Great and
Learned Man, the late Mr. Pemberton in his Dis
course of Ordination, p. 2. "It is not to be dis
puted that Christ has appointed a standing
" Gospel Ministry in his Church, to continue to
' ' the Consummation of all things.

17

"It was not a temporary Constitution, but a
" standing Ordinance, that there should be in all
"Ages of the Church an Order of Men to repre
sent his Person, publish his Laws, exhibit the
" Promises, and administer Seals and Censures.
" This seems evident to a Demonstration, from
" the Promise of Christ's Presence to be with his
"Ministers to the end of the World. Matth.
"xxviii. 20.
Thus far Mr. Pemberton. And I firmly believe
that your Honours, and most of the Presbyterian
and Congregational Ministers in this Country are
of the same Opinion with this Great Man. There
fore I shall say no more upon this Head.
Believing that what I have offered, will fully
convince your Honours, and you Gentlemen of
the Jury, what is the true Meaning and Design of
this Clause, Was there ever a time in the World
when all Mankind {all but the Usurpers !) were
all asleep ; and that it was not spoken concerning
Civil Government at all, and therefore impossible
to be any Reflection upon his present Majesty's
Title to the Crown of England ; and at the same
time demonstrate, that the ranking of such Men
who deny the uninterrupted Succession of the
Priesthood under the Gospel, with Deists, not
withstanding it is part of the Charge against me,
that yet it is no Grime ; even your Honours, the
late Mr. Pemberton, the General Assembly of
Scotland, and the Assembly of Divines at West
minister, being my Judges.
With your Honours permission, I shall now
descend to another Part of the Charge against
me, and of another Nature ; viz. Of scandalizing
the Ministers of the Gospel by Law established in
this Province.
And I doubt not but that I shall fully clear
myself from this part of the Charge likewise.

18

Wherefore in order to my Vindication, I shall
endeavour succinctly to prove these three Proposi
tions. 1st. That no Acts of Assembly in this Province;
either by Right, could, 'or in fact, have estab
lished any way of Worship and Ministry whether
Presbyterian or Congregational ; so as to make
that the Establishment, and the Episcopal
Churches to be Dissenters.
2dly, That by a just and true Construction of
the Laws of this very Province, the Church of
England is established here.
3dly, That by the Laws of England, the Church
of England, as established in England, and no
other, is positively established inall his Majesty's
Plantations. I shall now endeavor to prove the'first Part of
the first proposition, viz. That no acts of this
Province, by Right, could establish any way of
Worship and Ministry, so as to make that the
Establishment, and the Episcopal Churches to be

May it please your Honours. As the Books
say, a Law made against the Law of God is void ;
so the Charter to this Province from whence we
derive our power to make Acts and Laws, reserves
and expressly provides, that no Act shall be
made repugnant to the Laws of England, which
therefore, if made, would be ipso facto void.
If therefore I can prove, that the Church of
England is by the Laws of England established
in the Plantations, and no other ; then the
establishing any other, and making the Church
of England to he Dissenters, is plainly repug
nant to the Laws of England, and consequently
inconsistent with and against our Charter, and
therefore void.
As to the Second Part of the first Proposi-

19

tion. — viz. — That no Laws of this Province, in
fact, have established any way of Worship and
Ministry, so as to make that the Establishment,
and the Episcopal Churches to be Dissenters.
May it please your Honours, and you Gentle
men of the Jury : Had these Acts (for Instance)
confirmed the Plat-form, and the Ministry pur
suant to that, then in Fact they had (or at least
had attempted, to have) established another Way
and Ministry.
But these Laws make use only of general Terms,
in relation to any way of Worship and Ministry,
without ever mentioning either the Presbyterian
or Congregational by Name ; therefore I humbly
conceive that neither of these can be the Establish
ment, to the Exclusion of the Episcopal Churches,
and so as to make them the Dissenters.
¦ I shall now endeavour to make good my
Second Proposition, which is this, That by a just
and true Construction of the Laws of this very
Province, the Church of England is established
here. And in order to it, I must ask leave of your
Honours to premise a few things : 
1st. That where the Acts of Assembly make
use of any Words, and do not explain what they
mean by them, I humbly conceive, that such
Words shall be construed according to the Laws
of England.
As for Instance, the word Libel and Defama
tion in the Act about Criminals. The word Fee
Simple in the Act for Distribution of Inheri
tances, &c.
2dly, Where two Expositions may be of an Act,
and the one is agreeable to the Laws of England,
and the other contra-riant or repugnant to them,
I most humbly believe, that your Honours will
take it in the first sense, and not in the latter.

20

Now without reciting all the Laws relating to
Public Worship and Ministry, which would take
up too much time, though I have them all ready,
if your Honours shall think it necessary, I believe
it will be sufficient to remark, that the acts of
Assembly make use only, of indefinite Expressions
and general Terms.
For Example, in the 4th and 5th of William
and Mary, the Act makes mention of a gathered
Church, and provides, that the Minister shall be
chosen according to the Direction given in the
Word of God; and the Laws likewise ordain that
each Town shall have an Orthodox Minister, or
Ministers. But these Acts no where explain what those
Directions in the Word of God are, nor what is
meant by an Orthodox Minister.
So that, I humbly conceive, Recourse must be
had to the Laws of England, as is usual in like
cases, to know the true and undisguised meaning
of these general Terms and indefinite Expres
sions. And I am sure I need not inform your Honours
what the Laws of England mean by the Words-
Church and Orthodox Minister.
But that the Gentlemen of the Jury (who can't
be supposed to be so well acquainted with the
Laws of England) may know what they mean, I
most humbly entreat your Honours patience, while
I recite Part of the ISth of Eliz. Chapter 12.
which was designed to settle Orthodoxy, and de
clares who shall be deemed Orthodox Ministers.
The Act runs thus,
"That the Churches of the Queen's Majesty's
" Dominions may be served with Pastors of sound
' ' Religion : Be it enacted by the Authority of
' ' the present Parliament, That every Person un-
" der the Degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall

21

"pretend to be a Priest, or Minister of God's
" Holy Word and Sacraments, by reason of any
' ' other Form of Institution, Consecration or Or-
" dering, than the Form set forth by Parliament,
"in the Time of the late King of most worthy
" Memory, King Edward VI. or now used in the
"Reign of our most gracious Sovereign Lady,
"shall in the Presence of the Bishop, dc, de-
" clare his assent, and subscribe to all the Articles
" of Religion, comprized in a Book Imprinted,
' ' Entituled, Articles, whereupon it was agreed, dr.
These (May it please your Honours) are the Ar
ticles of the Church of England ; And ' ' (says
"my Lord Chief Justice Coke) the subscription
" hereby required is to three Articles.
" The 1st is, That the King's Majesty, under
" God, is the only supream Governor of the
" Realm, and all other Ms Highness's Dominions
" and Countries.
" 2dly. That the Book of the Common-Prayer,
' ' and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Dea-
" cons, containeth nothing in it contrary to the
"Word of God, &c.
"Sdly, That he alloweth of the said XXXIX
"Articles of Religion, and acknowledgeth them
"to be agreeable to the Word of God.
After reciting these three Articles, my Lord Coke
goes on, — And I hefifrd Wray, Chief Justice
"on the King's Bench Pasch. 23d of Eliz. re-
" port ; That where one Smith subscribed to the
"said XXXIX Articles of Religion, with this
"Addition, (So far forth as the same were agree-
' ' able to the Word of God) that it was resolved
" by him, and all the Judges of England, that
" the Subscription was not according to the Sta-
" tute of the 13th of Eliz. because the Statute re
quires an absolute Subscription, and this Sub
scription made it conditional; and that this
6

22

" Act was made for avoiding Diversity of Opini-
" ons, &c. , and by this Addition the Party might,
" by his own private Opinion, take some of them
" to be against the Word of God ; and by this
"means Diversity of Opinions should not be
" avoided, which was the Scope of the Statute ;
"and the very Act itself, made touching Sub-
" scriptions, hereby of none effect. Coke 4. Inst.
"324. Now (may it please your Honours) if a Person
(though episcopally ordained) who refuses to
give his Assent and Consent to these three Articles
absolutely, and without any Condition or Reser
vation, shall not, by all the Judges of England,
be deemed Orthodox, or of Sound Religion ;
(which is one and the same thing) much less (in
my humble opinion) shall a Dissenting Teacher,
who absolutely condemns Subscription, and im
agines that those who impose it, have not right
Opinions of Religion, or are not of Sound, .Reli
gion, or Orthodox : I say, such a person (certain
ly) by the Laws of England, will not be allowed
to be of Sound Religion or Orthodox !
Who likewise, in the Eye of the Law of Eng
land, is mere laicus, not in Holy Orders, but a
mere Lay-Man.
Since then the Laws of England allow no
Minister to be Orthodox, but he who is Episco
pally Ordained, and who subscribes the abovesaid
three Articles, which is a Minister of the Church
of England.
And inasmuch as by the Acts of Assembly of
this Province, an Orthodox Ministry is established
in every Town ;
Therefore, by a just and true Construction of
the Laws of this very Province (unless they are
repugnant to the Laws of England) the Ministers
of the Church of England are established here.

23

I beg leave to remark under this head, that
our pre«ent Governour Col. Shute, in his Order
to the Magistrates of Bristol, &c, wherein he pro
hibits their taxing the Churchmen towards the
maintenance of any other Ministers of any other
profession than Episcopal, calls the Church of
England the established Church here.
And the late Govemour, Col. Dudley, (by wise
Men deservedly acknowledged the wisest Man
that ever was in this Country,) in a like Order, in
Favor of the Church at Newbury, declares the
Church of England to be the established Church ;
and speaking of their Proceedings for settling a
Church there, says, that they are according to
Law, and that they ought to be suffered to go
peaceably on for their good Establishment.
May it please your Honours ;
The Opinion of this great and wise Man, was
founded upon his exact knowledge of the Laws
of England ; some of which (by your Honours
permission) I shall now produce, in order to make
good my third Proposition ; viz.
That by the Laws of England, the Church of
England, as established in England, and no
other is positively established in all His Majesty's
Plantations. May it please your Honours, and you
Gentlemen of the Jury ;
The Common Law, and especially Magna Char
ta, is allowed to be the Law of the Plantations, and
every Englishman's Birth-Right. And by that,
the Holy Church, i. e. the Church of England,
isfor ever inviolably confirmed.
The Church reformed, and confirmed, and es
tablished by the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th, of Edw. VI.
mentions England, Wales, Calais, and the Mar-

24

ches thereof, and other the King's Dominions,
aud says, the Inhabitants of this Realm, and
other his Majesty's Dominions.
This was repeal'd by the 1st of Mary; but the
1st of Elizabeth took off that Repeal ; and men
tions again the Realm of England, Wales, or
Marches of the same, and (or) other the Queen's
Dominions; — and in the conclusion expressly
inhibits any other to be established within the
Realm, or any other the Queen's Dominions or
Countries. The 13th of Eliz. which declares who are Or
thodox Ministers, entitled an Act for the Minis
ters of the Church to be of sound Religion, — and
provides, That the Churches of the Queen's Ma
jesty's Dominions may be served with sound Min
isters, &c. — qualified as in the Act.
Now, (may it please your Honours) I humbly
conceive that by King's Dominions must be meant
not only the then Dominions, but what shall be
the King's Dominions at all times, while that
Law remains in force.
As (for Instance) Acts of Trade that extend
to the Plantations, bind new or acquired places,
added to the King's Dominions, after such Acts
were made.
And the 12th of Charles II. which was made
after the settlement of these Colonies, confirms
those former Acts, that mention the King's or
Queen's Dominions err Countries.
But above all, the 5th of Q. Anne, entituled, An
Act for securing the Church of England, as by
Law establish'd, reinforces and confirms the 13th
of Eliz. and the 12th of Charles II. — and pro
vides, That the King shall swear to maintain the
said Settlement, (i. e. by the said Acts, which
acts comprehend the King's Dominions or Coun
tries) of tbe Church of England, and the Gov-

25

emment thereof, as by Law establish'd within the
Kingdoms of England and Ireland, Dominion
of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed,
and the Territories thereunto belonging.
And immediately declares, that this Act shall
be held a fundamental and essential Part of any
Union between the two Kingdoms.
May it please your Honours ;
By all the foregoing Acts, and by this Act in par
ticular, it appears, that the Church of England
as established in England and no other, is es
tablish'd in all his Majesty's Plantations.
And by the same Act it appears, that to es
tablish any other would be a Breach of the
Union between the two Kingdoms.
Therefore I humbly hope, that neither your
Honours, nor you Gentlemen of the Jury, will
look upon this Book, as written to the Scandal cf
the Ministers of the Gospel, established by Law,
in this Province ;  for it is a defence of them
and their Sacred Character.
May it please your Honours ;
I have a great deal more to say in my Defence ;
but perceiving that so much Time is already
lapsed, I shall omit it, only begging leave to say
some few Things to the Jury.
Gentlemen, I would have you seriously consider
what you are about.
Remember that the Book indicted is, The Short
and Easy Method with the Deists, an no other ;
a Book wrote in Defence of Christianity, in De
fence of our Holy Faith, against the blaspheming

And tho' there are some Passages in the Indict
ment, which are spoken of the Congregational and
Presbyterian Ministers in this Country ; yet I
woulcl have you consider, that these Passages are
not in the Booh indicted, but in another.

26

But granting that they were there, I beseech
you, gentlemen, to reflect with yourselves, whether
those Gentle methods of reasoning and pers wad
ing and those tender and compassionate Expostu
lations with those Gentlemen, to make them seri
ously consider with themselves, of the Validity
of that Commission by which they act : — I say,
reflect (Gentlemen) whether this looks like Malice,
and whether it should bring upon me such a
severe Prosecution, and is sufficient to demonstrate
me a Criminal.
I would have you consider that I have suffered
very much already on account of my Religion.
May it please your Honours ;
I shall now conclude, only beg leave to render
Thanks -for the Liberty granted to me (which was
deny'd me at the Sessions) of making so particu
lar a Defence ; and if in the Prosecution of it I
have said any thing ungrateful to your Honours,
I am sure you will forgive me when you consider,
that the nature of the Charge against me obliged
me to such a manner of Defence.
Wherefore, without any further Apology, I shall
submit it to your Honours, and to you Gentlemen
of the Jury, with all that Humility that becomes
a Christian. Hoping, nay, being well assured.
that you will not find me guilty, nor this Booh a
Libel. The Jury's Verdict. John Checkley )
adsect' >
Dom. Reg. )
The Jury find specially ; viz. If the Book en-
tituled, A Short and Easy Method with the Deists,
containing in it a Discourse concerning Episco
pacy, (published and many of them sold by the
said Checkley) be a false and scandalous Libel ;

37

then we find the said Checkley guilty of all and
every part of the Indictment (excepting that sup
posed to traduce and draw into dispute the un
doubted Right and Title of our Sovereign Lord
King George to the Kingdoms of Great-Britain
and Ireland, and tiie Territories thereto belonging)
— But if the said Book, containing a Discourse
concerning Episcopacy as aforesaid, be not a false
and scandalous Libel ; Then we find him not guilty.
Att. Samuel Tyley, Clere.
The Plea in Arrest of Judgment.
May it please your Honours,
Notwithstanding that I have been heard so fully
by my Counsel, in Arrest of Judgment ; I must
yet beg leave of your Honours, to say something
further myself on the same Plea, Wh,y Judgment
ought to be Arrested.
May it please your Honours;
Upon my Trial at the Sessions, it was often de-
clar'dfrom the Bench, that they would not have me
suppose, that I was to be tried for writing any
Thing in the Defence of the Church of England
and of Episcopacy, against the Presbyterian or
Congregational Ministers in this Country: — no,
by no means! for the ministers were able to
defend themselves.
And to demonstrate to your Honours, that their
Worships designed to amend the Indictment in
that Particular, they ordered the Attorney-General
to insist upon those three clauses only (pretended
to be) against the Government.
The Jury found me guilty of imagining and
contriving, by the Subtility of Arguments, to
traduce the Title of his present Majesty.
(For it cannot be supposed, that they found me
guilty of any thing else, since that and that

28

only, by order of the Worshipful Bench, was all
the Charge against me.)
And an heavy Judgment was thereupon given.
From which Judgment I appealed to this Hon
ourable Court ; and after a full and fair Hearing,
have been acquitted absolutely by a Verdict -of
Twelve Men, from being guilty of traducing and
drawing into dispute the undoubted Right and
Title of our Sovereign Lord King George, to the
Kingdoms of Great-Britain and Ireland, and the
Territories thereto belong.
This was the Charge against me, and of this
and this only, was I found guilty in the Lower
Court. But the Verdict of the Jury in this Honourable
Court, is an absolute Reversion of the Jury's Ver
dict before the Sessions.
Wherefore I humbly hope, that this alone (if
there were nothing else) will be thought sufficient
why Judgment should not be given against me.
For, with all due Submission, I cannot yet
believe, that your Honours, in your superour Wis
dom, will ever give the*, least Occasion for the
World to say, that the very formal Reason of my
Condemnation was my publishing a Book en-
titnled "A Short and Easy Method with the
" Deists, wherein the Certainty of the Christian
" Religion is demonstrated by infalliable proof
" from four Rules, which are incompatible to any
' ' Imposture that ever yet has been, or can possi-
"blybe. To which was added another in Defence of the
sacred and venerable Order of Bishops, and in
Defence of the- Church of England, in whose
salutary Communion (by the -Grace of God) I
purpose to live and die.
Nor can I possibly imagine, that this Honoura
ble Court will give the least Umbrage to People

29

for their supposing that your Honours think the
Justices at the Sessions, did not put my Trial
upon a right Footing; or that their Worships
spoke unadvisedly, when they said, The Ministers
can defend themselves.
There are likewise other Things, which, in my
humble Opinion, are worthy of the Notice of this
Honourable Court, before Judgment is given
against me.
The Jury have brought in a special Verdict,
and have not declared the Book a Libel, that
being left with your Honours, whether you will
adjudge it so or not.
And that the Book may not be condemned as
a Libel, I humbly beg leave to remark these few
Things for your Honours consideration.
It is a ruled case in my Lord Coke's 4 Instit.
235. b. That if one shall say of a Merchant, That
he is a Bankrupt, or would be a Bankrupt within
two Days ; the Words contain Matter of a Libel,
and are actionable.  But I humbly conceive,
that if the Merchant, of whom the Words were
spoken, was actually declared a Bankrupt by the
Laws of the Land, at the Time when the Words
were spoken ; the Words would not contain in
them the Matter of a Libel respecting that Man,
and consequently not actionable.
The Use I would make of it is this.
The Book, now under the Consideration of the
Honourable Bench, contains in it Arguments for
Episcopacy, all of them laid down, from the
Beginning to the End, in a Hypothetic Man
ner, thus, — If Jesus Christ instituted Bishops,
and gave to them alone the Power of sending
others, then those who pretend to have Christ's
Commission and have not received it, either im
mediately from Christ, or immediately from these
7

30

Bishops, cannot be the Ministers of Christ accord
ing to Christ's Institution.
And further, that if any Person shall causelessly
separate from any sound Part of the Catholick
Church, he is a Schismatic and Excommunicate,
by voluntarily cutting himself off from the body
of Christ.
Now if any one shall make the Assumption and
say, these are the Presbyterian and the Congre
gational Ministers &c. and their respective Con
gregations under them,
Yet, (may it please your Honours) granting it to
be so ; I humbly conceive, that the saying, con
cerning tho Dissenting Ministers and their Congre-
gationsthat they are no Ministers, and that they are
Schismatics and Excommunicates (supposing that
these Speeches were absolute and not conditional);
yet, I say, I humbly hope, that this would not
be actionable, nor respecting the Dissenters, Mat
ter of a Libel. Why ?
Because, the Dissenters of all Denominations,
are declared to be Schismatics and Excommunica
tes by the Laws of the Land.
And in order to make this appear I beg Leave to
recite the 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12th Canons
of the Church of England published by his
Majesty's Authority under the Great Seal of
England, and now reprinted this very Year by
the King's Printer, by Order of his Grace the
Archbishop of Canterbury. * * *
[After reading the Canons.
May it please your Honours :
There are no expressions in the Book at Bar,
tantamount to these Censures of the Dissenters, in
the Canons just now recited.
And I shall humbly leave it with your Honours,
if it may not be worth your Consideration,

31

whether the condemning this Bock, will not be a
Declaration, that the Church passed these Censures
against the Dissenters clave errante ?
But be that as it will, the Dissenters are
affirmed to be no Ministers, to be Schismatics, and
excommunicate by the Canons of the Church of
England, which are part of the Laws of the
Land ; and therefore, to say the same things of
them, I humbly hope, shall not be deemed a
Libel. The Sentence of Court.
Suffolk, ss. At a Court of Assise, &c.
Nov. 27, 1724.
Checkley )
adsect' >
Dom. Reg. ) The Court having maturely ad
vised on this special Verdict, are of
opinion that the Said John Checkley is guilty of
publishing and Selling of a false and scandalous
Libel. It's therefore considered by the Court, That
the said John Checkley shall pay a fine of Fifty
Pounds to the King, and enter into Recognizance
in the Sum of One Hundred Pounds with two
Sureties in the Sum of Fifty Pounds each, for
Ms good Behaviour for six Months, and also
pay Costs of Prosecution, standing committed
until this Sentence be performed.
Att'. Samuel Tyley, Clere.
FINIS.

A
SPECIMEN Of a True
Dijfenting Catechism,
Upon Right True-Blue
Diffenting PRINCIPLES
WITH
*LEARNED NOTES,
By Way of Explication.
£>ueflion. Why don't the Dijfenters in their
Publick Worfliip make ufe of the Creeds ?
Anfwer. Why ?  Becaufe they are not
fet down Word for Word In the Bible.
Queftion. Well,  But why don't the
Dijfenters in their Publick Worlhip make ufe of
the Lord's-Prayer ?
Anfwer. Oh !  Because that is fet
down Word for Word inthe Bible.
* They're fo perverfe and oppofite
As if they worlhip'd God for Spite,