I Should have excused my self the Trouble of defend­ing the Constitution of the Church of England against the Objections in Mr. H [...]b [...]rt's Sermon, and deferred the Task, to some abler Pen; but to gratify your Request, and take a Share of the Burthen with my Brethren, I willingly comply with your Desire, not discerning any Difficulty in the Undertaking, that will exceed a very ordinary Capacity. You will not, I pre­sume, expect that I should trouble my self or you, with Remarks upon any Thing in his Discourse, besides those Passages that are designed to asperse our Constitution; and deter serious People from conforming to the Worship and Discipline of the national established Church of England And as Opportunities are now given for such Conformity, by having Congregations in Communion with the Church of England, in many of your Towns; the Reasons for con­forming, will deserve the serious Attention of such People as prefer no Interest whatsoever to that of pleasing GOD and securing their eternal Happiness; which can only be done, by a strict and careful Practice of their whole Duty, [Page 6]whatever Temptations may assault their Virtue. And if any Objections, are thought weighty and forceable, against conforming, we should all of us be pleased to see them offered in their full Strength; that we may thereby be re­claimed from destructive Errors, if we have embraced them, or have Opportunity, by refuting such, [...] the Spirit of Meekness, to represent Truth in its native Lustre, that it may invite the Embraces of all such as are honestly disposed to receive it.

Mr. Hobart's Attack upon the Constitution of the Church of England, being designed to deter Men from conforming, especially in New-England; it will be proper to consider the Force of his Objections, as they may be intended.

• 1. Against the Safety or Lawfulness of the Communion of the Church of England, especially in Connecticut.
• 2. Against the Expediency. Or,
• 3. Against the Necessity of conforming in Point of Duty.

We assert the Communion of the Church of England, in all the Territories belonging to the Kingdom of England, to be safe and lawful, in Respect of the Laws of GOD and Man. we assert it to be, not only expedient, but necessary too in Order to discharge the Duty we owe to GOD, and [...] cace and Order of Society, that every Man that has Opportunity, should actually embrace this Communion. Men not only consistently with their Duty may, but to discharge their Duty must, be of the Communion of the Church of England, if they are Members of the Nation of England.

These must be supposed to be the real Sentiments of all those, who endeavour to proselite Men from every Sect to the Communion of the established Church; and I will offer something for Confirmation hereof before I finish. But shall begin with considering Mr. Hobart's Objections.

I. As they seem to be levelled against the Safety or Law­fulness of this Communion, especially in Connecticut, where his Discourse was delivered.

[Page 7] I say seem to be levelled, because most of his Readers will understand that to be the Sequel of his Objections; and that they would not be worth the Pains he takes, if this Conclu­sion was not to be inferred: Although he has not indeed put his Arguments in Mood and Figure.

To be Fellow-Labourers, he calls an Important Part of the Ministerial Character. Page 10. I shall not crack my Brains to comprehend the Profundity of this Assertion. But this be­ing the Theme of his Discourse; he would have his Hearers consider and comprehend, that all Ministers of Christ, are Fellow-Labourers. Thus he explains his Sense of being Fellow-Labourers; some would think he seems to conclude, that Men can't be Ministers of Christ, if they don't answer his Description in that ‘ Important Part of the ministerial Character:’ And then, he tells, us, Page 20. ‘ There are several Things opposite hereto, and which, where­ever they obtain, prevent Ministers acting in the Charac­ter under which they are mentioned in his Text,’ i. e. Fellow-Labourers.— Then he adds, ‘A fixed PRELACY in the Church is another Thing repugnant to, destructive of that Equality which renders Gospel-Ministers Fellow-Labourers. This you all know (quoth he) obtains in the Church of England;’ The Consequence must at least, seem to be, that the Communion of the Church of England is unsafe, Men can't safely or lawfully in the Sight of GOD join with them, because so important a Part of the ministerial Character is wanting among them. He lays so much Stress upon this Important Matter, that I can't think any indifferent Person will say I have put a forced Construction upon his Discourse, when I make the Conclusion to be a seeming to say, that our Ministry is so defective in an Important Part of the Character, that no serious Person should venture to join him­self to such a Communion. What he says more largely and particularly, of the Imperfection of the ministerial Character, Page 21, &c. must be understood as delivered with a Design to seem at least to conclude, that so important Defects attend the Ministry of our Church, that a serious Christian should be afraid to become one of our Communion. Especially seeing

[Page 8] Another Objection lies against the Safety and Lawful­ness of joining with the Church of England in Connecticut, where his Discourse was delivered, viz. That by leaving the Assemblies of Worshippers there formed, and going over to the Church of England Profession, he says, ‘They contract the awful Gum of Schism, run into Parties, promote Se­parations, divide and disturb the Peace of the Church, rend, not the [...], but the [...]dy of Christ.’ Page 25, 26. Upon which he thus expo [...]lates, ‘Can you answer it to GOD or your own Consciences,’ &c. So that the Ob­jections against the Safety and Lawfulness of our Communion, may be fairly understood or comprized under these two Heads. Unto which I shall reply in Order.

1. By considering the Force of all his Objections against the Validity and Regularity of our Ministry, on Account of the Hierarchy of our Church; i. e. The Prelacy esta­blished.

His Text is Phil [...]m [...], ver. 24. Mar [...] Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my Followed [...]. The Sum o [...] [...]is Expo­sition is, that true Minister at the Gospel concur together, help, and not hinder one another in promoting the Designs of redeeming Grace, and are equal to one another in Power and Office. I am only at present concerned to examine his Arguments for levelling all Orders in the Church; and I shall be very willing to join in condemning all Practices that may be called counter-working the Ministers of Christ. I esteem none as Fellow-Labourers with me, whose Works are a Controvention of my chief Designs: But I would carry this important Affair of being Fellow-Labourers, a little higher than Mr. Hobart has done; he only makes it necessary that the present Set of Ministers, (and perhaps it may seem as if he had his Eye only to Connecticut) should be Fellow-La­bourers; that they should not oppose one another.

It don't seem to me, that he intended it should be necessary for the Ministers of his Perswasion in Connecticut to be Fellow-Labourers, and therefore not oppose the Twenty-Six Bishops in England; much less our-half Ministers (as he would have them esteemed; the Presbyters. Nay, I would have [Page 9]the Matter carried higher still; I am for being a Fellow-Labourer with St. Paul himself, as Marcus and L [...]cas were said to be: This is applicable to all true Ministers, they are Fellow-Labourers with the holy Apostles; and more than this, they are Workers together with GOD too. Which is the same Word Synerg [...] in the Original, 1 Cor. iii. 9. This the Apostle presumed to assert of himself and Apostles; and I p [...]sume he would have thought the Man very weak in his Intellectuals, who should have charged him with Blasphemy, for making himself equal with GOD, his Fellow-Officer, with equal Power, without Dependance or Subordination [...] As Mr. Hobart asserts the important Sense of that Word to be.

There is nothing at all in his Text to restrict the Sen [...]e of the Word Fellow-Labourers, and oblige us to un­derstand it in any different Sense from that, the same Apo­stle useth it in, when he says of himself and Apostles, that they are Synergoi, with GOD; and there is nothing in his Text to limit the Word to any other Sense than the Word Fellow-Labourers will properly bear, when applied to a Father and his Sons, or a Master and his Servants, labouring together to accomplish the same Work. And who would not think the Man, to be of very shallow Capacities, that would infer an Equality between Father and Sons, and be­tween Masters and Servants, because they are Synergoi, Workers together in the same Field? In producing an Ef­fect many efficient Causes may concur; one Principal, the rest Adj [...]vants, in Subordination, Concauses or Synergoi, each one a Cause in Proportion to his Efficiency; Equi Caufae quamvis non equales. The highest Officer in the Church may properly call a Number of the meanest Christians, Fellow-Christians; the greatest Prince, may call a Number of Beggars Fellow Men; and the greatest General, may call his Subalterns Fellow-Officers, and Fellow-Soldiers; and what Man would infer an Equality in these Cases, from such Expressions, unless Mr. Hobart, to carry on a Design of de­luding ignorant People?

I don't remember ever to have seen this Text of Mr. Hobart's produced for demolishing the Hierarchy, his singular [Page 10]Sagacity must have the Applause, of discovering in this Text a Force that was never seen before, and [...] was ignorant of; or else I am sure he would never have said of himself and other Ministers, we are [...], with GOD. For if that Word had been capable in Reality of such a Construction as Mr. Hobart has put upon it. I mean to import Equality in Office or Efficiency, he that had more Goodness than to receive divine Honours, when the People would have forced them upon him, [...] 14.14. would have had so much Caution as not to have given such a Handle to Idolatrous Superstition, as it must have done to claim Equality with GOD.

I believe Mr. Hobart is the first Man that ever thought of making D [...]mas an Apostle, of equal Authority, with St. Paul, and the Apostles so called, to distinguish them from others that had ministerial Power and Authority in the Church. And if Mar [...]us was not advanced to the [...]isco­pate; when St. Paul called him Fellow-Labourers, as Mr. Hobart concludes he could not be, Page 24. i. e. that he could not till some Years after be, what the best Record of An­tiquity tell us he was at length, the fi [...] [...]is [...]op of [...] ­andria, we may finish the Refutation of Mr. [...]sword [...] Ar­gument for Equality drawn from St. Paul's [...] in this Text, by observing the Imparity at that Time between St. Paul and Marcus; the one an Apostle, the other his Deacons, for the English Word Minister is in the Original Deacons; contrary to Mr. Hobart's Observation, Page 16, that ‘the Deacons are an Order inferior to the Ministry properly so called:’ For the Ministry properly so ca [...], is in Greek Diaconia, and Ministers properly so called in the New-Testa­ment, Diaconoi, Deacons.

And thus when Mr. Hobart thinks St. Paul was ordained to the Apostolate, with Barnabas, Acts 13. and went upon the Works of converting the Gentiles; Paul and Barnabas Apostles, had this same Mark, who was also called John, for their Minister, in the Original Diaconos. Acts 13.5. That this was the same Marcus, Mr. Hobart allows Page 7. and that he accompanied Paul and Barnabas from Jerusa­lem to Antioch, just before their Separation to this Work. [Page 11] Acts 12.25. Now as he was with them at [...], when they were thus solemnly separated, by what Mr. Hobart will have an Ordinance, Page 18. came with them from Je­ [...], when [...] their Ministry, was rather their Attendant than they [...], for 'tis said, They took with [...] whose Sir [...]ame was Mark. And when those two, by the Command of the Holy Ghost, had that solemn Separation, which Mr. [...] ca [...] Ordination, and no Men­tion of Mark in this Designation, nor Reason to believe he was [...] with them, and [...] went forth to the Work with them their [...], called their Minister, Diaco [...]s, Deacon; s [...]re [...]y we have all the Reason in the World, to consider them in a great [...], both as to Office and Efficiency, and he must be more than weak, that will not acknowledge it; and therefore confess that Mr. Hobart's Text, had no Aim to eq [...]li [...]e every Minister with the Bi­shops of the Church; and whatever his other Arguments may prove, this Text will infer nothing at all to the Pre­judice of the Form of Government in the Church of England, nor argue any Defect in the Orders of our Pres­byters, although they don't claim the Dignity or Power of Bishops.

But perhaps some of his Readers may think his Argument for Equality among Gospel-Ministers, taken from the Com­mission our Saviour gave to his Apostles, being but one and the same, designed for all Ministers, may exclude all Impa­rity in Office and Power; although the same may not be inferred from their being Fellow-Labourers.

This is an Argument that has been used before him; and may amuse inattentive Readers, but is nothing more than Amusement; far from being a sufficient Foundation to con­clude that our Communion must be dangerous, or unsafe from any Effects of restraining the Power of Ordination and chiefest Jurisdiction to the Bishops, although but 26 among many Thousands of the inferior Clergy.

Mr. Hobart's Design is to asperse our Constitution in Re­gard of the Presbyter's Office, and perswade his ignorant and inattentive Readers, that such of the Clergy of the Church [Page 12]of England as preach and administer Sacraments in this Country, not claiming all the Powers that Christ gave his Apostles by the Commission Matth. [...]8.19, 20. can have no Power at all.

Our Bishops claiming all the Powers given by that Com­mission to the Apostles, may be truly the Apostle's Suc­cessors; and if there were Ministers subo [...]n [...] and infe­rior to the Apostles in the Church, their Fellow-Labourers and Fellow-Officers too in a [...]ower Order and Rank of Mi­nistry, while the Apostles themselves presided, and exercised a prelatical Jurisdiction; I can't [...]e how their Commission which was as much one and the [...] while they lived, as it has been since, should have such a restra [...]ing Nature [...]ow; that it must absolutely in its Nature, forbid all Inequality of Powers, among such as derive any Power from it, as Mr. Hobart seems to dream.

The Sum of what he would have his Readers believe is Page 17. ‘In a Word, the Commission Christ gave his Ministers is one and the same; all to whom this Com­mission belongs have full and equal Right to use all the Power and Authority contained in it; and they to whom it does not belong, are no Ministers of Christ, nor do they derive any Authority from him.’

If Mr. Hobart thinks these Propositions have a necessary Connexion, I must beg Leave to be of another Mind: "The Commission one and the same, therefore all to whom it belongs have full and equal Righ [...] to all the Powers, &c!" The Weakness of this Inference may appear from his own Pa­rallel Instance, the Charter of Connecticut, which is one, but one and the same, which he says is the Governor's Commission, and if so, then the Lieutenant-Governor and Assistants and Judges and Justices and Captains, in different and distinct Or­ders and with very different Powers arising form one Charter, and all authorized by it, not in Equality, although the Charter one and the same.

But the Case of Connecticut Charter brought by Mr. Ho­bart to illustrate the Nature of the Apostles Commission. I [Page 13]think affords little of Argument or Illustration: Let us con­sider how far there may be any Appearance of Truth in what Mr. Hobart asserts, and wherein his Mistake [...]s▪ ‘All to whom this Commission belongs have full and equal Right to use all the Power and Authority contained in it: Says Mr. Hobart.’

Ans. 1. With Respect to the Apostles who were immedi­ately authorized to gather and govern the Church by this Commission, it seems to make them Equals in that Power: Certainly it does not subject some unto any one of their Number: In short there is no Pope established by this Com­mission: And yet I care not say, that a Primate among the Apostles was repugnant to any Thing contained in this Commission, provided he had been regularly chosen by the College of Apostles, who seem to have a very ample Power given them, and much lest to their Wisdom and Prudence; especially under the Guidance of Inspiration. And if for the more effectually promoting the great Design of their being authorized with this ample Power, they had thought fit, or should have been afterwards directed by the Holy Ghost, to appoint a President and Vice-President out of their Number, and then should have decreed, that in ordaining Colleagues in the Apostolate one of these should preside, and no such Ordination performed without the President or Vice Presi­dent: And if they had been directed by the Holy Ghost, to establish Presidents and Vice Presidents so many as should be sufficient for Admission of Colleagues into the Apostolate in all Ages and Places, I can't conceive any Clause of the Commission Matth. 28.19, 20. would have been contra­vened thereby, I see no Clause sorbidding such an Imparity, when it should be regularly established.

And as Mr. Hobart allows, that this Commission, enabled them to provide a Succession in their Office, Page 18. — I think we many fairly suppose also, it sufficiently authorized them to concert such Measures, and establish such Rules, as might seem convenient in an Affair of so much Importance to the Church, as the Succession in the Apostolate, or Epis­copate which is the same, should be; that faithful Men in every Age, might succeed in that sacred Office, and the [Page 14]Church secured against Imposture, and every Danger of In­terruption in the Line of Succession; where so much de­pended upon that.

That our Saviour his Apostles such an ample Power, as included Authority to establish Rules and Orders, for well discharging the great Trust committed to them by their Commission, which made them joint Colleagues, in [...] all Nati [...] and teaching them to [...] whatever Christ [...], i. e. to behave them­selves as the Disciples of Christ in all In [...]ances of [...]ty, in order to obtain the Happiness and Salvation he came into the World to procure for them; that the Apostles, I say had Authority, by their Commission, to settle and [...] Rules and Orders for well discharging this Tr [...], no Man need to doubt, who [...] the Declaration with which our Saviour introduced their Commission; and the general extensive Expressions of the Commission it self: as the same is recorded in the several [...]. St. Ma [...] tells us, that after his Re [...]rrection, he came unto his P [...]ci­ples, and said unto them, All P [...]r it gives [...] Heaven and in Earth. Mat [...]. 28.18. After asserting this ample extensive Power gives in him, i. e. by his Father, he goes on according to St. [...]n 20.21. Peace be unto you: as my Father bath s [...]nt me, even [...] I [...], i. e. with ample and extensive Power, to do every Things that may be proper and convenient for gathering, guiding and governing his Church, and continuing the Succession in their own Of­fice; as well as providing such and so many Assistants, or Synerg [...]i with them, in Or [...]r [...], or with Powers as various, as they should find Occasion for; and to qualify them for such a Trust, breathes on them, and says receive the Holy Ghost, &c. And promiseth the Continuance of his gracious Assist­ance with them and their Successors, unto the End of the World.

This ample Power delivered thus generally, without par­ticular Directions, must include a discretionary Power as to Modes and Particularities to be observed; always to be confident only, with the general Directions given, and such farther Instructions as might be given afterwards, from the [Page 15] [...] And [...] they were taught to expect, [...] the P [...]e he made them of such miraculous Inspira­ [...] were intended by [...] P [...]r, after that [...] Acts 1.8. Under whose [...] appointed standing Rules in the Church, touching Pri [...]a [...]y, and Pre [...]idency in their [...] would necessarily arise [...], would not have been re [...]gnant to any Part of ther Comm [...]on or any Thing contained in it. Much [...].

[...] With Respect to other [...], or Ministers in the [...], to whom this Commission was not immediately given Christ: Can [...], among such with any Pro­priety be argued from this Commission; although they may be said to be concerned in it and have Power by it, as this Commission authorized the [...] Apostles to convey all the Power unto others, to act in the Name of Christ, as his Officers, which the various Exigencies of the Church re­quired; and with Provision for perpetuating such Powers by regular Succession unto the End of the World.

Every Order and Degree of Mini [...]ry in all Ages how different soever in Power and D [...]nation, may be said to be virtuated by this [...] as by this the Powers were derived from Christ to his Apostles, to be conveyed by them to others, and so reg [...]ly [...]ded down from Age to Age: But that the Commission immediately given to the Apostles▪ should properly and [...], be the Commission given to any one besides those very [...]r [...]ons upon whom he breathed, and said, R [...]i [...]e [...]. I can't see any Necessity to conclude. Nor can I see any Use of distinguishing between Commission and Designation to an Office, and Trust, when that is regularly made, he that has Power and Authority given him to act in Behalf of GOD and Christ, may be said to have a Commission or Designation to such Trust, by whatever Means such Authority is given according to Christ's Direction; and this Power being given to others from the Apostles by a solemn Ordination with Imposition of Hands, conveying such Powers as their Commission authorized them to give, such Ordination might as properly be called Com­mission [Page 16]as Designation; and if the Apostles ordained, i. e. commissionated or designated some Persons to one Office or Trust, and some to another, as they found the Exigen­cies of the Church required; the ample Powers in their Commission recorded, would well justify them in so doing; but the several Persons so designated or authorized must re­ceive their Power or Commission from such Ordination as was agreed upon by the Apostles, to be a regular convey­ing of Power, and Authority to act in such Affairs which such Ordination was well understood to qualify them for; and not further.

When the Apostles ordained the seven Deacons, they said and did so many Things, doubtless, as were sufficient to distinguish that Ordination from the Ordination of Pr [...]s [...]yters, although Imposition of Hands accompanied both, and might be the immediate Conveyance of the Power, which each received; and this whole Dispute about Equality of Power among Ministers may easily be decided, by attending to the very plain Matters of Fact, recorded in the New-Testament, of different Orders and Degrees in the Ministry. For if all Ministers of Religi [...] were not one and the same Order, all vested with equal Power, it the Apostles Days, when St. Paul and the rest of his Co [...]tempora [...]s flourished in the Church, how ab [...]urd will it appear for any to conclude, that one Commission which Christ immediately gave to his Apo­stles, conveyed equal Powers to all other Ministers with them? For if Impa [...]ity be plainly found in the Apostles Age, and under the Direction of their extraordinary Inspi­ration; there can't be the least Face of a Reason, to infer Equality since, from the Nature of that Commission which was the same then as it is now.

That the Deacons were an Order inferior not ony to the Apostles, but to other Ministers then in the Church, Mr. Hobart allows. Page 16. That they were appointed by the Apostles, an Order instituted for some Services in the Church, chosen and ordained, Mr. Hobart allows; and al­though only seven are mentioned as ordained at the first In­stitution of that Order, yet more were added afterwards; and their Order, distinct from and inferior to the Presbyters, [Page 17]as well as Apostles, was continued in the Church, and has been ever since reckoned an Order of the Clergy; and employed in other Services besides serving Tables, (as Mr. Hobart mis­takes the Nature of their Office to be.)

At the first Appointment of this Order, the Apostles direct­ed the Brethren to look out seven Men full of the Holy Ghost. And St. Stephen who was one of them, is said to be full of Faith and Power, and that be aid great Wonders and Miracles among the People. Acts 6.8. He disputed against the Synagogue of Libertines &c. Ver. 9. And they could not re­sist the Wisdom and Spirit by which be spake, ver. 10. He preached a long and excellent Sermon. Acts 7. Philip who was also one of the Seven, preached Christ unto them of Samaria, Acts 8.5. He wrought Miracles and cast out unclean Spirits, ver. 5, 7. And baptized his Converts, ver. 12▪ 13: But confirmation and giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of Hands, was reserved to the highest Order. The Apostles sent Peter and John for this. Ver. 14, 15. &c. Here is a clear Account of one of the lowest Order▪ (but not so low as Mr. Hobart would make him) performing the sacred offices of Religion, and in the same Chapter we are told of his preaching and baptizing, ver. 29, &c. Ver. 40. We find Deacons as well as Bishops mentioned in the Apostle's Salutation, Phil. 1.1. And St. Paul instructs Timothy about the Qualifications for Deacons as well as Bishops, 1 Tim. 3.8; Ignatius, one of the ear­liest Christian Writers, mentions Deacons as an Order of the Clergy, and Tertullian in the second Century, mentions the Deacons Power of baptizing with the Presbyters, as being both alike derived from the Bishop, and in Subor­dination to him. So that we are to look upon Deacons as Ministers in the Church, deriving their Institution from the Apostles, having their Power to preach and baptize in the Name of Christ, by Virtue of the Commission Christ gave to his Apostles, but never were though: equal Officers to the Apostles.

Marcus was allowed to be what Mr. Hobart means by a Minister properly so called. He is one of the Synerg [...] with St. Paul in his Text; but the Imparity in this Instance I have already proved. And although Mr. Ho­bart, [Page 18]by inferring Equality from the Word Fellow-La­bourers in his Text, must be understood to say that Marcus and Demas &c. were equal to St. Paul and the rest of the Apostles; and when he argues Equality among all Mi­nisters, from their deriving Power from the Commission immediately given to the Apostles; he must mean that all Ministers, must be equal with the Apostles, and that therefore the Apostles themselves could not be Prelates, i. e. as having any Authority or Jurisdiction over other Ministers of the Gospel, yet I can't believe that Mr. Ho­bart himself, or any other Person of tolerable Sense will deny (upon cool Reflection) the Imparity in Office and Power, that subsisted between the Apostles and other Mi­nisters; I mean Presbyters as well as Deacons, so long as the Apostle themselves lived and presided in the Church.

I don't know of any that pretend to more Orthodoxy than Quakers, that have denied an Order of Elders or Presbyters superior to Deacons, and inferior to the Apostles, of whom Mention is so often made in the New-Testa­ment, as well as by the very first Christian Writers and in all later Accounts of Christianity. So that I need say no more upon it, and will mention only two Texts in the Writings of St. Paul to put the Matter out of all Doubt, that in the first planting of Christianity, GOD him­self established Imparity among the Ministers whom he sent to preach the Gospel of his Son; and did not think it was necessary all his Ministers should have one Office, and one Work; because one Commission to the Apostles, was es­teemed sufficient to convey Power from GOD to every Order and every Individual in each Order to the End of Time; as thereby a Succession might be provided, of such as were well authorized to give Power to as many in each Rank, or Degree of Order and Office, as the Churches Needs should require.

St. Paul tells the Corinthians, GOD hath set in his Church first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Helps, Governments, 1 Cor. 12.28. Then to declare their Inequality as much as Words can express, by an In­terrogation [Page 19]implying Negation, he adds, ver. 29. Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? &c. Meaning no, by no Means. The other Text I shall refer to is Eph. 4.11. speaking of the Gifts bestowed by our Lord upon his Church at his Ascension, And he gave, some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers, &c. I will leave this without a Comment, supposing the Im­parity made by GOD himself at that Time to be very clear and evident; and as such Imparity has always in Fact been found in the Church, in every Age, we must have better Arguments than such as Mr. Hobart has brought, to make any Man of Sense believe the Commu­nion of a Church unsafe meerly because such an Imparity is found among her Ministers: Nay it should on the other Hand be rather thought dangerous to be of a Com­munion, without Prelacy, especially when all the mini­sterial Power they have, is claimed from a Commission never given by Christ to the Claimants themselves; nor to any of so inferior a Rank as they value themselves upon, whether of the Laity or such Renegado Presbyters as threw off their Subjection to their Bishops, and invaded the sacred Office contrary to their Ordination-Vow and Promise, and Mr. Hobart says Oath too.

Now, as in all Governments, the Head must be the Fountain of Power; what could derive from such whose highest Station was a State of professed Subjection? And neither GOD nor Man had ever given them the Power of authorizing others, any farther than as Reason per­mits every Man to make a Representative or Attorney for himself; but none for another Man, much less for GOD; without a special Authority. So that there is Reason to be doubtful, whether after all their Solemnities, they have any more than Deputies from Men, who pretend to act with them in Things pertaining to GOD: And this Doubt must be increased from what Mr. Hobart says, Page 17, speaking of the Commission given to the Apostles, and in them constituting an Order of Prelates, to be continued by regular Succession, viz. Vicarious Or­dination from them: Says Mr. Hobart, ‘They to whom it does not belong, are no Ministers of Christ, [Page 20]nor do they derive any Authority from him.’ — I hope some that are serious and intelligent, will reflect upon this Passage, and consider how much depends upon Mr. Hobart's being in the Right, in this Argument; in which I think I have sufficiently proved him mis­taken.

If any one should think, the has either proved Presby­ters equal to the Apostles; or at least that the Power of ordaining others to the Ministry, was committed to them in Equality: and may therefore be claimed [...] by those who are now called Presbyters, in Distr [...]ction from Bishops; from what he says of Paul [...] [...]ra [...]bas and Timothy, Page 18, 19▪ I answer [...] a few Words.

1. Paul and Bar [...] were Min [...]rs, [...] they came to Antioch, 'tis said, Acts [...].25. They [...] fu [...]lled their Ministry; and if they were now [...] again, it must be to a higher Order or O [...]e than they had be­fore; but as this Suppos [...]ion dest [...]oy [...] his Notion of Pa­rity, so the Power of ordinary Pre [...]byters can't be in­ferred from the Acts of Prophet, done by special Di­rection of the Holy Ghost, as that Separation was said to be; Acts 13.1. This must be of the same Nature with Commissions given by GOD himself immediately, which would be as good as that given to the Eleve [...] by Christ himself.

2. As to Timothy's Ordination, by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery; it will justify Ordinations per­formed by such a Presbytery, Men of the same Order and Authority in the Church, and no other, though called by the same Name. But this Mr. Hobart has not proved of any modern Presbyteries, nor can be prove it. If St. Paul presided in that Presbytery and laid his Hands upon Timothy at his Ordination, whoever the rest were that laid on Hands with him, it will make such a Pres­bytery, as Mr. Hobart can't find, unless he goes to a Bishop and his Presbyters, such as ordain in the Church of England: and there is good Reason to [Page 21]conclude, St. Paul was at the Head of that Presbytery; for

1. St. Paul converted him to the Faith of Christ; for this Reason calls him his own beloved Son, and expresses a particular Esteem and Affection for him.— 2 Tim. 1.2.

2. We have frequent Mention of his following St. Paul in his Travels and being an Attendant on him: [...]on which Accounts it would have seemed very probable that he should receive Ordination from him rather than from others, especially Inferiors.

3. His Epistles wrote to him as Instructions and Di­rections touching his Office, add to the Probability, but his putting him in Mind 2 Tim. 1.6. to stir up the Gift of GOD in him; and expressing it to be by put­ting on his, St. Paul's Hands, puts it beyond Probability, for in 1 Tim. 4.14. the same Gift in him, is menti­oned to be by Prophecy, with laying on the Hands of the Presbytery: If it be objected, that 'tis possible these Gifts may be different, and not intend the same Thing: I answer, such a Possibility don't affect me; I am only concerned to answer Mr. Hobart's Argument, which will make nothing for his Purpose, if he can't be sure that Timothy was ordained by a Number of Fellow-Labourers, of no higher Order, nor vested with any more Authority, than Mr. Hobart's Fellow-Labourers, at Stanford, which I suppose it absolutely impossible for him to do; and at least a very great Probability, if not a Certainty may be urged against him, from what I have mentioned above, and also the universal Practice of the Church, which took Place every where from the Apostles Times; to have all Ordinations performed by an Order superior to more Presbyters.

Mr. Hobart's great Effort being to seem to demolish the whole ministerial Powers of such Presbyters, as the Con­gregations in Communion of the Church of England are under the immediate Care of, and advance his Fellow-Labourers, [Page 22]to all the spiritual Power of Bishops; after having put his own best Claim to any Power at all, as derived from some perfidious Presbyters of the Church. Page 19. Margin. Very good then! Proceeds to offer something with no Design, at least to his Purpose, if it be not to seem to prove, that the Priests of the Church, have no Power to do any Thing as Ministers of Christ. 21, 22, 23.

1. Because they don't receive Power by [...], so much as to preach, which is a necessary Part of the ministerial Commission. Page 21.

Answer. He is too [...]ssing to deserve a s [...]ious Answer, but something will be expected to [...] such as may be puzzled with his Tris [...]ing and [...]al [...] [...]. He should have consulted the Office for ordaining Pres­byters (in every Folio Common-Prayer-Book) and known by that, the Power given to Priests by their Ordination; which perhaps might have saved him the Shame and Re­proach, which such glaring Falsh [...]ed and Prevari [...]tion must expose him to. When People are invited only to read the Form and Manner of ordaining Priests; which any Person that is curious to be sati [...]fied concerning Mr. Ho­bart's Veracity, may find Opportunity for in every Church where a Folio Common-Prayer-Book is lodged, in which also are the Canons of the Church, most wickedly falsi­fy'd by Mr. Hobart; and it will not excuse him to say, he writes after another as wicked and false as himself: I charge him boldly with gross Prevarication and Fals­hood; done with a wicked Intent, to asperse the Con­stitution of the Nation which deserves the highest Esteem and Reverence: 'Tis easy for any one to discover whe­ther I do him Injustice by this Charge. And I wish them to read Mr. Hobart's whole Page 21. Then the Form of ordaining Priests, in which are many Passages to prove this Falshood, I will here mention but three.

In the Bishop's Charge are these Words, ‘Now again we exhort you in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Page 23]that you have in Remembrance into how high a Dignity, and to how weighty an Office and Charge ye are called: That is to say [...] be Mes­sengers, Watchmen and Stewards of the Lord; to truth and to premonish, to feed and provide for the Lord's Family; to seek for Christ's Sheep that are dispersed▪ and for his Children who are in the midst of this naughty World, that they may be saved through Christ for ever." One of the Interrogatories is, "Will you then give your faithful Diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Disci­pline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, ac­cording to the Commandments of GOD; so that you may teach the People committed to your Care and Charge with all Diligence to keep and observe the same?’

When the Bishop and Priests lay on Hands, the [...] ­shop says, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of GOD, now com­mitted unto thee by the Imposition of our Hands. Whose Sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of GOD, and of his holy Sacrament; &c. The Bishop deliver­ing the Bible into his Hands, says, "Take thou Autho­rity to preach the Word of GOD, and to minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.’

Who can believe now, that our Ordination is not design­ed actually to give us Power to preach, administer Sa­craments, and exercise Discipline; yet this Mr. Hobart flatly denies: And says this Power we receive by the Bishop's License, which is not given to all that are or­dained.

He says ‘the Canons of the Church of England allow a Bishop to ordain any Person, if he has a Presentation to a Living, understands Latin, and is not scandalous.’ [Page 24]He pu [...]s at the Button of Page 21. Canon [...] cited by Mr. Pi [...]. How [...] these Men will deserve to have their Words when is any plain Matter of Fact hereafter, judge every one that react [...] Canon referred to▪ in which are these Words. "No bishop that hence [...]th ad­mit any Person. &c. — [...]ring to be a Deac [...], unless twenty three Years old, an [...] to be a Priest twenty four Years comple [...], and hath taken some Degree of School in either of the [...] Un [...]versities, or [...] the le [...], except he be able to [...], in [...], ac­cording to the [...] of Re [...]g [...]en app [...]ed &c— and to comf [...] the [...] by [...] out of the holy Scripture, &c. Ca [...]non [...] not [...]. — The [...]orm of [...] Prie [...] will [...] what [...] are [...] In [...] Rules of our Chruch are excellent and [...] by any of the [...].

2. In P [...]r [...] of the same Design, to be [...]e [...] an [...] in his Readers that [...] Pres [...]y [...]ers have no Power [...], Christ to act: [...] of the Gospel. Mr. [...] ther adds. Page 22. ‘In Order to a Person [...] [...] this Ordination and [...] to preach the [...] must [...]among other Things take an Oath of [...] [...] to his [...].’ [...] he endea [...] [...] unlawful; because contrary to those Precepts [...] Lord, Matth, 23.8. [...].10, [...] and cell us [...] Earth, &c.— [...] be ye called [...]. And our profest Submission to the Bishop, he calls [...] "a [...]ervile Subjection to others as Christ has forbi [...]de [...] Page 25. But by his Leave, who authorized him to he thus dogmatical in putting his [...] upon these Words of our Saviour; with such an indecent Reflection upon the Wisdom and Piety not only of the [...] and all the Clergy of England, but the whole L [...]gis [...]ture at this Time, and ever since the Reformation; if these Words of our Saviour are to be understood literally, every common Man may know what they import; and the [Page 25] Quakers have a better Plea for denying all Tides that in­fer Superiority and Dignity to any Man, than Mr. Hobart to restrain the Prohibition only to Episcopal Preheminence: A Rebuke for his Insolence is the properest Answer to be given him, since his Way of Reasoning from those Prohibitions of our Saviour, would deny all ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction, as well as episcopal Preheminence: If there be any Power and Authority in any Order what­soever in the Church, to which Men ought to be subject and pay Obedience, it can not be a Fault to own that Authority, and promise and engage most solemnly and faithfully to be subject to it. Professing Subjection, or swearing solemnly to yield due Obedience to lawful Su­periors is not the Thing prohibited by our Saviour, not does he intend to prohibit all Superiority in Place or Of­fice; for 'tis plain, that the gave Power and Authority ecclesiastical and spiritual unto his Apostles; and Chri­stans are commanded to they there that have the Rule ever them, i. e. Eccles [...]astical Rulers, Egoumenois, Go­ [...], Heb. 13.17. and submit themselves, and if Sub­mission be a Duty, to give Assurance of yielding it, when reasonably demanded is no base Servility. Mr. Ho­bart might have found a better Interpretation of St. Mat­thew 23.8. i [...] Dr. Whithy, whom he cites upon another Occasion, and thither I must refer you and him, for the Sense of those Prohibitions; which only forbid as­cribing to Men what is peculiar to GOD and CHRIST.

3. One Fling more he has at our Presbyters, Page 23. ‘Well, after all this Submission, &c.— What ministerial Authority is the Person vested with? He is allowed to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments: But for the other two Branches of ministerial Authority, Government and Ordination, equally instituted by Christ, and necessary to answer the Designs of redeeming Grace, he has neither Part nor Lot in these Matters.’ With Reference to which Defects, as he would have them be­lieved, he says, Page 25. ‘ My Friends, Is it really so desireable a Thing to you to have Churches so defective as to be u [...]ly unable to exercise the Discipline Christ has instit [...]ted, and Ministers who have not half the [Page 26]Powers contained in the Commission given to the Gos­pel-Ministry, &c.’

Ans. If Mr. Hobart would have been all of a Piece, he should have said Ministers without any Power at all from Christ, because not invested with all in the Commission given to the Apostles; because he had before said, that the Commission being one for all Ministers, He that has any Part must have all, so that [...] he allows to our Ministers half, by his own Reasoning, they must in fact have enough, i. e. in Reality all, notwithstanding all the Limitations and Restrictions that Laws and Canons can make about it; but as we are agreed thus far; that the Commission given to the Apostles was full and ample enough to provide for all the Exigences of the Church in every Age, and have it furnished with Officers succeeding the Apostles in their Power to govern the Church and all Orders in it, and to ordain Pastors for the [...]lock of Christ to teach, administer the Sacraments, and dispense the Ordinances and Discipline of Christ, for the Benefit of all his Children; we may think our selves pretty well provided for in the Church of England with twenty six Bishops vested with all the Power the Apostles had; for then, they can ordain as many Presbyters and Deacons as the Exigencies of the Church require, and give them the same Powers that the Apostles gave the Elders they ordained in every Church, and the Deacons they ordained to be their Attendants and Fellow Labourers: and if any Person will take Pains to consult the Form for ordaining Priests, in our Large Common Prayer Books, he will find a Commission large enough given to such Ministers as have the Care of the American Con­gregations, to enable them in GOD's Name, and in Be­half of CHRIST, to do every Thing that Men's comfor­table Hopes and Happiness require to be done; although they act in Subordination, and are obliged to pay a pro­per Reverence to their Superiors the Bishops.

A Chiefty, by our Constitution, is reserved to the Bi­shops as it always was in the Church of Christ, and to this belongs properly the Right of giving Power by Ordina­tion, and presiding in Jurisdiction; but the Presbyters su­bordinate [Page 27]to them have as much Power in the Govern­ment of their several Flocks as Wisdom and Prudence can think proper to intrust them with; Nay, we can say, even as Jerom to Evagri [...]s, Quid [...]a [...]it Ep [...]opas, good Pres­byter non facia [...], excep [...]a Ordination [...].

What fuller Authority in the Exercise of Discipline would any de [...]re a Minister to be invested with than is con­tained in those Words of the Bishop when he lays on Hands in Ordination saying, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost, (the Gift; as Offices are called Eph. 4.11.) for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of GOD now committed to thee, &c. — Whose Sins thou dost [...]orgive, they are forgiven, and whose Sins thou dost retain, they are retained,’ &c.

Mr. Hobart says ‘Goverment and Ordination, are two Branches of Ministerial Authority equally instituted by Christ, and necessary to answer the Designs of Redeeming Grace:’ if he means that the Power of Ordination should be committed to every Minister is necessary; I can by no means agree with him; I allow it to be necessary that such a Power should be properly placed in such Persons as may be able to furnish the Church with Officers to act in the Name of Christ; but no more necessary that every Minister should have Power in the Church to ordain Ministers, than that every Justice of Peace in the Common Wealth should have Power to make Justices of Peace. So, Government is necessary, but no more necessary in the Church to have every Minister vested with the highest and chief Power, than in the State to have every Justice of Peace, vested with Power to determine Titles of Land▪ and give final J [...]dgment in Causes Cap [...]al, which would be to have Judges of Assize and Oyer and Terminer in every Parish, which Priviledge, I believe few People would be fond of. Nor have they Reason any more to be fond of Mr. Hobart's Scheme for Ecclesiastical chief Judges, many of whom have not Capacity to decide a Controversy of thirteen-pence half penny.

As for the Rubrick directing a Minister to suspend one [Page 28]against whom Immorality is objected, and notify the Ordi­nary in 14 Days, I would only say, it can't be thought & Law to oblige, when such Notifying is impracticable in that Space.

GOD's own Positive Institutions are always to be in­terpreted so as to give Place to the Law of Necessity, and so our Saviour expounds the Law of the Sabbath: and for the same Reason humane Ordinances must be so interpreted likewise; and if this limited Time being impracticable to be complied with, and the Design of referring the Cause for the hearing of Judges appointed, not taking Place: Reason will easily suggest, that such Affairs are left with the Minister to determine according to his best Prudence, with the Authority belonging to his Office, which in such Case is not restricted by that Rubrick; and has only to expect that his Doings may be referred to his Bishop; unto whose Judgment he must submit, as well as the Party complaining, when Time will give leave to obtain it. — And now I have done with his Objections from the Defects of our Constitution.

2. The Unlawfulness of joining in Communion with the Church of England in Connecticut, [...]e argues from the awful Guilt of Schism thereby contracted, disturbing the Peace of the Church and "renting not the Coat, but the Rody of "Christ:" This is awful Guilt indeed; and if I could think these Things done by conforming to the Church of England, I should perswade every Body to keep to their Conventicles of whatever Denomination; But as Mr. Hobart has contented himself to say these things only, without any shew of Argumentation to prove them; A bare Denial of them might be esteemed sufficient for my Purpose: and yet I will offer a few Words to assist the Judgment of such as desire to be satisfied about the Justness of this Objection:

• 1. Then, I will allow that making Divisions in, and Separations from, regular Christian Societies, with which we are obliged to join in Christian Fellowship and Communion, is Schism, and very Criminal in the Sight of GOD; and never to be justified or excused before Man.—
• [Page 29] 2. I will allow that Divisions may be in Fact made, in such Communities which Men leave, when they go into the Communion of the Church of England in Connecticut; These Societies, which they call Churches may be Rent and divided by the withdrawing of some of their Members.
• 3. I hope Mr. Hobart will allow that lawful and justifiable Separations contract no Guilt of Schism, much less such as doing Men's Duty to GOD makes necessary. —
• 4. It will lie upon Mr. Hobart to prove their Societies to be regularly constituted Churches of Christ, before the Guilt of rending the Body of Christ can be fixed upon Separators from them; this will prove a very hard Task; but he must go through it before his Charge of Schism will lie against any Sort of Separators from them. And then
• 5. Considering the Respect which common Sense will teach any Man is due to the Church of England Communion, as tis the National Establishment, the Religion of our Mother Country, and the Nation whose King, is the King of Connecticut; it would be proper for Mr. Hobart to shew how positive and full the Law is whether of GOD or Man, to oblige People so to adhere to their Societies of one Kind or another as not to become of the communion of the Church of England when ever GOD's Providence gives them Opportunity.
• 6. If the Congregations, forsaking which, is called Schism, are themselves founded Schism, and unjustifiable Separation from the Communion of the Church of England; or in their present Constitution must necessarily be esteemed Abettors and Approvers of Schism, Disorders, Usurpation. Contempt of the chief Authority Christ has left in his Church; or any such like Crimes; Then such Congregations whatever they may call themselves, and whatever Shew they may make of Piety and Devotion in their own Ways, ought to be esteemed in respect of the Mystical Body of Christ only as Excrescences or Tumors in the Body natural, or perhaps as Fung [...]sities in an ulcerated Tumor, the eating away of which, by whatever Means tends [Page 30]not to the Hurt, but to the Soundness and Health of the Body.

The Method I proposed in the Beginning of this Letter, will make the Consideration of some Particulars properly fall under my third Head of Discourse, which may help to form a Judgment upon the Charge of Schism, which Mr. Hobart objects against those who leave their Congregations and conform to be Church of England, and therefore I refer to that Place what might otherways have been properly offered here.

II. I now proceed to take Notice of his Objections that may be considered as drawn from the Inexpediency of con­forming to the Church of England; If Persons of Sob [...]iety and Religion, who are desirous that the Church of Christ should be kept pure &c. should forsake their Assemblie and go over to the Communion of the Church of England Mr. Hobart exposlulates with them Page 26. ‘Can you answer it to GOD or your own Consciences, to the present Age or to Posterity, if you should be Instrumental in destroying an Ecclesiastical Constitution so exactly agreeable to the Gospel; and which has been so signally owned and blessed for promoting Religion in the Power and Prac­tice of it; and in introducing, instead of it, so de­fective a Constitution, and which will almost certainly bring in with it an Inundation of Vice and Looseness; and Issue in the Destruction of practical Religion’? I design here to consider only what he has said in Relation to the Inundation of Vice, Looseness, Prophaness and Immo­rality mentioned in the above Passage, and much more with great confidence in the same Page: confirmed by his own Observations in his Travels through half the Plantations in North-America, and what he has heard of the Islands: How good and regular their Constitution is has had some Con­sideration, and shall have more under the next Head. — I am willing here to suppose the Matter doubtful, whether it be very good or no▪ Nay I would suppose it not so good as it should be in Point of Regularity; sprung up in Disorder, and needing something to recommend it besides its Agreement with the Gospel; and the Countenance it [Page 31]may pretend to have humane Laws: This may seem to be, according to Mr. Hobart, a particular Aptness in their Constitution to promote Virtue and Piety: so that although so no Objections might be laid against the Manner of their e­recting and Regularity of their Constitution in some Points, yet if it has an Aptness in any peculiar Manner, to promote real Goodness, and save a Nation from an Inundation of Vice, or preserve a Country from growing Immorality and Profaness; it might claim an Approbation; at least as a ne­cessary Expedient to preserve the Country from Wickedness and Ruin, which must unavoidably come in like a Flood, if the national Establishment should prevail, and Mr. Hobart is to be believed.

I only therefore propose to consider under this Head, whether so much as Inexpediency may be argued against conforming to the Church of England, on Account of what Mr. Hobart suggests of [...]most Certainty of an Inundation of Vice and Immorality; and Destruction of practical Religion that will attend the introducing of the Church of England: Which Suggestion is a wicked Calumny proceeding from that Bigotry and Self-Admiration which the Zealots, among every Sort of Enthusiastick Sectaries, are remarkably tinged with. Some Effects of the New-Light Heat Mr. Hobart condemns, but discovers the some rash censorious Temper against those whom he disapproves, and Pharisee-like, pleases himself with Comparisons between his own Sect and all others, and overlooking their own Hypocrisy and detestable Vices, passes s [...]c [...]re Censures upon other Faults; like him who said. GOD I thank thee I am not as other Men, &c, and yet farther from Justification than him whom he despised. Luke 18.14.

Every new Sect pretends a Necessity of separating from the impure Mass of Mankind, and have the Vanity to think themselves the only Saints, and Darlings of Heaven: And commonly they seduce well-meaning People into their Snares by Appearances of Piety, and Pretences to a more strict Virtue than other People, upon whose Faults and Failings they are very sharp-sighted; and take Pains to exaggerate in such Instances as they have no great Temptation to be like [Page 32]them in, or find their Account in differing from; although taking their whole Practice together, they may have Faults greater, and Vices more abominable. Whoever is acquainted with the Rise and Progress of the several Sects in our own Nation, must know they have all been Refiners; and yet turned out more and more impure.

The Brownists and Independents refined upon the Puri­tanical Presbyterians, the Baptists and Quakers upon them, and the self-admiring Saints of New-England, have been re­fined upon, by their own Tennent and Davenport, &c. with their New-Light Exhorters, who by their inward Light have seen the whole Country lying in such a State of Carnality, Sin and Death, that Hell has been ready to swallow them all up, Ministers and People except those few here and there, whom they could fright into the Convulsions of Conversion, and drive as far from Reason and common Sense as them­selves.

Mr. Hobart proposes a Comparison to be made between New-England, and some of the Is [...]ands where no Teachers have been but Ministers of the Church of England; but suppose we should find some such Places more addicted to Cursing and Swearing and Intemperance, than Connecticut, and less careful to observe the Sabbath; which Vices I would by no Means extenuate or excuse, perhaps some Vir­tues may be found there also, not so conspicuous in New-England; and when the Vices and Virtues of both Parties are to be exactly weighed, who shall hold the Ballance? However if it could well be done, a Comparison to decide this Controversy, would much more properly be made be­tween the State of Religion and Virtue in the whole Nation of England, before any of these re [...]ining Sects opened their [...] Shops in the Kingdom; and the State of Religion and [...]tue at present; and as it has been gradually im­pro [...] to better or worse ever since. And then, we may make some reasonable Conjecture, of the Influence of those Principles [...]d Practices, Mr. Hobart so much admires, to­wards making a Nation or Country more or less virtuous, or viciou [...]

[Page 33] The People of England were a very religious and pious People before any Independents or Presbyterians opened Meeting-Houses in England, this is well known to all that are acquainted with our History and the Genius of the Na­tion in those Days. And there are remaining to this Day Monuments of the Virtue, Piety and practical Godliness of our Forefathers, in the Endowments of Churches, Hospitals, Colleges and Charity Schools, and many other Instances that our despising Neighbours can't pretend to vie with; and notwithstanding the large Strides that Vice, Irreligion, Athe­ism and Profaneness have made in their Advances, since the Phanatick Phrenzy opened the Sluce of Impiety and Wicked­ness, and demolished all the Hedges about Religion and Vir­tue, when they overturned the Constitution of the Nation, pulled down Monarchy in the State, and Prelacy in the Church. Yet vital Piety and Religion fruitful in solid Virtue and sub­stantial Goodness is yet to be found in the Church of England, in a Degree not to be parallel'd by any of her boasting Ene­mies. The printed Sermons and Discourses of our Divines are sufficient Monuments of their laudable Endeavours to put a Stop to the Flood of Atheism and Immorality that has been flowing in upon us, the Progress of which, although it ought to be lamented, is not owing to the Tendency of any Doc­trine, taught by our Church; or any Faults in the Constitu­tion of the Church of England: But to the Disorders and Confusions introduced by a Variety of Sectaries, all weaken­ing the Churches Discipline, and with much Zeal propagating Notions and Opinions naturally destructive of Vertue, and reproachful to Christianity; thus by seeming very zealous for Godliness, in a Way of Strife, Disorder and Confusion, and declaiming against Morality, and Self-Righteousness, and other Methods which I care not to mention, we have seen Chri­stianity exposed to the Contempt of Infidels, and careless Living and Vice encouraged by Methods pretending to ad­vance the Glory of sovereign Grace.

If Mr. Hobart had well understood, the true Causes and Springs from which the Immorality, Atheism and Profane­ness of the present Age is derived, he could never have im­puted it to any Defects in the Constitution of the Church of England: in his Discourse there is Fallacia non Causae pro [Page 34]causa, The Fault he might have found at Home, which in vain he seeks abroad. And as the late scandalous Efforts of fanatick Zeal so disreputable to Christian Religion, and well known to have direct Tendency to Profaneness and impure Living, were an Improvement upon the Doctrines common­ly received in this Country, and might have made a much greater Progress, if the Obstructions and Checks it met with from the Church of England Congregations had been out of the Way, (altho' it must be confessed to the Honour of many not of the Church of England Communion, that they shewed a be­coming Discountenance to those Disorders, and did their ut­most to suppress them.) So, what might be universally ob­served of the Temper and Tendency of the Church of Eng­land Principles with Reference to this Flood of Impiety, Profaneness and Licenciousness, the Country was in Danger of being over-run by, may convince every Considerate unpre­judic'd Person, that the Danger Mr. Hobart would alarm People with, of Vice and Wickedness coming in among them by Means of the Church of England, is a m [...]re Scare-Crow. and has no Foundation in Reason; but if the Constitution of it be well considered, it will be easy to see that substituting that, in the Room of whatever may now be said to prevail in the Country, would be the introducing Order, Peace, Pu­rity and Happiness; and not any Thing that would be dis­honourable to GOD, or hurtful to the Country.

I have only now to take Notice of what may be consi­dered

III. As Objections against the Necessity of going over to the Communion of the Church of England in Point of Duty. Those that propagate the Church of England in Connecticut, would not put themselves to so many Difficulties, and take so much Pains, if they did not believe the Glory of GOD the Welfare of many Souls, were to be promoted thereby, nor should we endeavour to proselyte some, if we did not be­lieve it the Duty and Interest of all to become Proselytes. And that it would be every Way, for the Benefit and Ad­vantage of the Country, for the present Age, and for Poste­rity, to have all Parties and Sects said aside, and the national Constitution submitted to, by all the Colonies depending on [Page 35]the Crown of England, and to be esteemed as Parts of the English Nation; which is the English Church, or Church of England.

The visible catholick Church of Christ, or Christian Church militant, as making one Body visible, of which Christ is the Head; may be considered with Respect to its Parts either Heterogeous or Homogeneous.

The Heterogeous Parts, are the various Orders of Clergy and Laity of which the Church is composed; and might all be conceived [...]o belong to the Church in Jerusalem, if the Constitution of the Church had been perfectly compleated, before it extended its Limits beyond that large City. The Apostles as Colleagues vested with all the Powers in the Commission, Matth. 28.19. might chuse St. James or any other of their Number, to be their President, and make such Rules or Canons as they might think proper, especially by Di­rection of the Holy Ghost, for regulating the Methods each should pursue, for Preservation of Unity and Order, in the Execution of the Authority each was invested with, by that Commission, to make Disciples, baptize, &c. They might a­gree and determine, what Assistants should be employed in this Work, and what Manner of Ordination they should have, and what Powers given by such Ordinations; and may be conceived at least, to have not only filled the Place of Judas in their own Order, but to have ordained Presbyters, and Deacons, and appointed each their Trust and Duty; and with about 5000 Converts to Christianity, as the Laity join­ed to them, and continuing in their Doctrine, and Fellow­ship; we may conceive this to be then the visible Catholick Christian Church; the Parts of different Names and Use, the Apostles, Elders and Deacons for clerical Offices, and the Laity according to their several Stations.—And according to such a Model, under the Presidency of some of the Apostoli­cal Order, when People of other Nations embraced the Faith of Christ, the Church might extend its Limits; and as many Societies as should be thus formed in different Places, might be called Parts or Members of the one Church.

[Page 36] The Homologous Parts therefore, are such Members of the Catholick Church in any Parts of the World, formed ac­cording to the Apostolical Model; who may be said to be in their Doctrine and Fellowship; having at least one Apo­stle, or a Successor to the Apostles, in the Fulness of Power gi­ven them by our Lord's Commission, to preside in Jurisdiction and Ordination. Such Churches are true Parts of the Ca­tholick Church, whether consisting of many or fewer Christi­ans, and may be united into one, although gathered out of several Nations; if not interfering with the Orders and Rules of the Church Catholick; and may be Churches in such and such Nations, although those Nations may not be chri­stian. But when any Nation becomes Christian, i. e. by any authentick, national Act establisheth Christianity for the Reli­gion of such Nation, and receives such a Model of the Church of Christ as was settled by the Apostles, that makes a nation­al Church; the Largeness of which may require many of the superior Order of Officers or Successors to the Apostles, to answer the Ends of Government and Ordination, and there­fore although those by Office are equal, the Preservation of Order in the Church will require Rules for Precedency; hence we find early in the Church Metropolitans, Primates, Arch-Bishops, as well as among the inferior Orders, Arch-Presby­ters, Arch-Deacons, Deans, Prebends and Canons. And such is the Nation of England, first a Civil Society Indepen­dent; having a Right to govern it self, and make Laws to regulate its own most important Affairs, without being lia­ble to the Controul of any Power upon Earth; then adopt­ing Christianity into their Constitution, and by authentick Laws making it the Religion of the English Nation, provid­ing for the Support and Dignity of Bishops, and the Main­tenance of the inferior Clergy, and for the decent Perfor­mance of the Christian Worship; and thus become a Chri­stian Church, the Church of England: Which is the same as the Nation of England become Christian, and a true Part or Member of the one Catholick Church.

Such a Church [...]n [...]ted into one and regularly formed as a Member of the Cat [...]lick Church may also be divided into Parts of the same Name, thus Metropolitical and Diocaesan Churches may be Members of a National Church, and Pa­rochial [Page 37]Churches may be Parts of a Dioc [...]san; by having a common Government and regular Subordination they are united in one, how many Parts soever; and by whatever Means distinguished; but even a Parochial Church or single Congregation, if it belongs to the Catholick Church of Christ as a true Member thereof, must have its Clergy or­dained by and in Subordination to, such Officer or Officers in the Church as have derived their Power of Presidency and Ordination from the Apostles, as Successors to them in the Power with which they were invested by our Lord himself. And this may be said of all the Congregation in Communion with the Church of England; our Clergy are ordained by Bishops, who regularly succeed the Apostles in the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination, have a decent Regularity esta­blished by the Legislature of the Nation, as Governors com­bined in one national Church, and common Rules and Laws properly enacted, to which the Members of every Congre­gation are subject; and thus make one Church.

Our Constitution has been so often proved truly primitive and apostolical, i. e. agreeing well with the apostolical Practice and Rules; and the Practice of the Primi­tive Church, that I will suppose nothing needs to be added here upon this Head: Especially considering what I have said already in Answer to Mr. Hobart's Objections against the different Orders in our Church. And if we may suppose the Constitution of our national Church to be regular and good, our Prelates, Successors to the Apostles in their Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction; and this Church con­tinuing stedfast in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, which I hope may be said truly as well as boldly) it may surely be urged upon every Man, that is English, that belongs to his Nation, and is properly a Part of it, in whatever Corner he may live, that his Duty obliges him to be of the Commuion of the Church of England: And not to make Profession of any Sort of Religion that is opposite thereto. If it be every Man's indispensible Duty to be a Christian, the same Duty will oblige him to be and continue a Member of the Church of Christ which is his Body, to preserve and maintain the Peace, Order and Unity of the Body, and especially that [Page 38]Part to which he particularly belongs; which will infer the Duty of reverencing and submitting to the Officers regu­larly presiding and governing in such Church; which being the Bishops of the Church [...] England in chief, every one that makes a Part of this Nation, owe Reverence and Submission to them, under Christ and may esteem our Saviour's Words to his Apostles applicable to such Prelates; He that despiseth you, despiseth me, &c.

Their Authority as the Apostles Successors, gives Virtue and Influence to the Powers of Presbyters and Deacons, to transact with Men in the Name of Christ, whatsoever they are intrusted to perform in reconciling Sinners to GOD, and applying the Seals of the Covenant of Grace. The Neglect, Contempt and Disobedience shew'd to these, is therefore a very great Breach of Duty, these are such as the Apostle commands Christians to obey submit to, Heb. 13.17. Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your Souls, as they that must give Account that they may do it with Joy and not with Grief; for that is unprofitable for you. The Greek Word here rendered them that have the Rule over you, signifies Governors, such as Prelates are in the Church: There are many Texts in the New-T [...]amen [...], [...]ing Divisions, requiring the Preser­vation of Unity, [...]ce and Order, and Submission to Go­vernment, that might be alledged as clear Proofs upon this Head; and the Pleas from Toleration or Charter can't evade their Force, but I will rather proceed to answer what may appear to be an Objection against the Necessity of conform­ing to the Church of England in Connecticut, as contained in Mr. Hobart's Discourse, and that is, that by joining in Com­munion with the Church of England,

1. They forsake the Communion of regularly instituted and well-governed Churches of Christ, P. 25. And become ‘Instrumental in destroying an ecclesiastical Constitution so exactly agreeable to the Gospel.’ — Now if he had proved as well as said, that the Congregations in Connecticut are a Communion of regularly instituted and well-governed Churches, that have a Constitution ecclesiastical exactly agree­able to the Gospel; it would have been very much to the [Page 39]Purpose, and indeed no Pleas without this can be of any Force, to take off the Necessity I have been urging; and if what he depends upon to support this Pretence proves a Mistake, the Necessity lying upon every Man to conform to the Church, will revolve in full Strength; and must be [...]rged forceably, upon all Orders of men among them, Rulers and People.

Without a Clergy regularly authorized to minister in the Church of GOD, he will not pretend an ecclesiastical Constitution agreeable to the Gospel. What Countenance he pleads to their Manner of ordaining from the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas and Timothy, I have already considered, as also his Plea, that Christ's Commission to his Apostles, was a Commission to every Minister, and therefore conveyed the Right of ordaining to every Minister, as well as all other Powers given by that Commission, Math. 28.19. unto the Apostles; the Absurdity of this Supposition I have also con­sidered and refuted, and seeing he confesseth Page 17. ‘All to whom this Commission belongs have full and equal Right to use all the Power and Authority contained in it, and they to whom it does not belong, are no Ministers of Christ, nor do they derive any Authority from him.’ I assume, this Commission belongs not to their Ministers, i. e. as a Commission given by Christ to any of them, much less all and every Sort of them, he makes the Conclusion himself, which I hope will be attended to, more seriously as coming from him. And their Confidence must abate, in Proportion to the Uncertainty of their Plea, that the Apostles Com­mission in their Commission to act in the Name of Christ.

It ought to be considered that this Opinion is contrary to the Sense of all Christians that own an Inequality of Order, and therefore all the famous and noted Churches from the [...]postles Days; and if true, denies any Superiority in the Apostles themselves over the Elders they ordained in every City; which I am persuaded few Men of Sense, upon cool Reflection, will give into.

Besides, if this Commission had been intended for all Mi­nisters [Page 40]of Christ, don't Reason tell us, that Rules and Me­thods for designating Ministers would have been necessary, and Compliance with such Methods and Rules a Quali­fication, for enjoying Christ's Commission. And can we think the Churches Rules and Laws have no Force in such Cases?

If Imposition of commissionated Hands is necessary, this alone will be sufficient to shew the utmost Irregularity and Confusion in the Connecticut Constitution, which having al­lowed Lay Ordination, in the Instances of Messirs Eliot at Guil [...]ord, Buckingham at Sea-Brook, Chauncy at Stratford, and how many more I know not; from whom the present Sett of Ministers derive their Ordination, at least many of them; whom Mr. Hobart's Conclusion discards from any Pretence of Authority from Christ. And for my Part, I don't believe the rest subsist upon any better Foundation; because such Ordainers, receive no Power from, by or under, the Com­mission given to the Apostles, for the Work of ordaining, and were guilty of Usurpation, and Disobedience to the lawful Authority of the Church, in pretending to it.

The awful Guilt of Schism, as Mr. Hobart justly calls it, was contracted by those who began the Separation in Eng­land, renounced the Authority of their Governors, and in­vited discontented People to join in their Disobedience; to despise their lawful and faithful Guides, and set up Parties against them, in Defiance of the Laws both of Church and State, and after the Guilt contracted by such Disobedience and schismatical Separations, what In [...]luence could crossing the Waters have, to purge these Crimes? or justify the same disobedient Tempers, and unlawful Practices, an a new Country dependent on, and a Part of the Nation of England? Nor have these Principles or dividing Practices grown more innocent by long Continuance, a Spirit of Contempt and Disobedience has been propagated with great Industry, a­gainst the lawful Governors of the Church; to prevent, if possible, the Generations yet unborn, from returning to the Unity of Christ's Church; this Mr. Hobart's Sermon is an Instance and Proof of. And if the Separation he kept on Fo [...] unjustifiably in Old-England, these in New-England draw [Page 41]their Guilt upon themselves; not only by acting upon their Principles; but justifying their Contempt and Disobedience, by denying and disputing against all Episcopal Power, supe­rior to that of Presbyters, and refusing the Communion of those that submit to such a Power most regularly established. And now pursuant to their own Practice against the Church, the New-Lights are paying them in their own Coin by the Separations they are carrying on.

2. He would have People think they rather act against their Duty in conforming to the Church of England, be­cause they have been baptized and educated in their Churches.

This needs but little Answer; for such an Argument would have the same Force in Behalf of the most corrupt Religion, and against the most necessary Duty, if Men must think themselves obliged to abide by the Choice of their Parents in their Behalf, when they come to be able to dis­cover their Errors. And as to what he says, of the wicked Practice of learning such Children the Church Catechism; I will only say, it might be more proper to begin with the Creed, or else to ask the Children that have had such Bap­tism, What Answer do the Children of the Church give? when asked, Who gave you that Name? And when asked, What did your God-Fathers, &c. ^*

3. The last Thing I observe that has any Appearance of an Objection against the Necessity of conforming to the Church is Page 26. that their Constitution ‘has been signally owned and blessed for promoting Religion in the Power and Prac­tice of it.’

[Page 42] If by signally owned, Mr. Hobart intends any s [...]vents or Influences by which GOD has testified that he owns and approves their Constitution, as it is Anti-Episcopal, and op­posite to the national Establishment, it would have been very much to his Purpose to have related some of the most re­markable of those Events, that they might be fairly exa­mined, to try what Evidence might be gathered from them, of GOD's owning their Constitution, as he calls it, very im­properly; for all the Approbation their religious Models have had, considering their Varieties, Mutations, Fluctuations, Uncertainties, &c. will not make a Thing that may be called a Constitution. The Apostles of our Saviour were signally owned of GOD, in preaching the Doctrines of Christ, and testifying that GOD had raised him from the Dead, and thereby declared him to be his Son, the Messiah promised, and that there was no other Name given among Men whereby they could be saved. The signally owning them was by such Events, as demonstrated a Divine Power co­operating with and in them: GOD bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders, and diverse Miracles and Gifts of the Holy, Ghost, Heb. 2.4. If Mr. Hobart has any Thing of this Nature to produce it may be called signally owned of GOD; but if he means nothing but their boasted Conversions and some Instances of Zeal in their Ways of Religion; it wi [...]l appear nothing miraculous, and perhaps all he means by Religion in the Power and Practice of it promoted by their Ways, will not exceed the Righteous­ness of the Scribes and Pharisees, nay perhaps it will not exceed the Righteousness of Quakers, or even many bi­gotted Papists: I hope it will not affront his humble Saintship, to tell him that Multitudes in the Church of England, may be found, whose Practice is a much better Transcript of our Lord's Example and the Precepts of his Gospel, than such as he would boast of.

What I have said already renders it needless to en­large here, only I would take Notice, that the great­est Zeal and Application in some Instances, nay many Instances of Duty, may consist with a State of great Imperfection and Hypocrisy; and always does so, when [Page 43]some essential Part of our Duty is overlooked and neg­lected: The Jews in the Prophet Micah's Time were very zealous in observing the Rites of Moses's Law; they spared no Cost for Sacrifices and Offerings, and when the Lord sends his Prophet to expostulate with them for Ingratitude, they return a murmuring discon­tented Answer, as if they could not devise what more GOD would have of them; Micah 6.6, 7. Where­with shall I come before the LORD. &c. — Shall I offer try First-born for my Transgression, &c. i. e. Will not GOD be pleased unless we offer our Children in Sacrifice as the Heathen do? The Prophet lets them know that their Murmuring was without Reason, they had Means enough to know what GOD required of them. Verse 8. He hath s [...]w [...] thee, O Man, what is good, &c. They seemed to think, no Fault could be found with a People so godly: But yet were very de­fective in some Parts of their Duty as important as their Godliness. Obedience to Superiors and Governors, in Church and State is an important Duty for Christians, to follow Peace with all Men and Holiness, to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace; such Duties require Sub­mission to the Government and Orders of the Church: If our Bishops are vested with Power from Christ, as Governors in his Church, let those who are [...] to despise them, and those that usurp their Authority and perswade others to act in Opposition to and Contempt of [...] consider the Con­sequen [...] of their Behaviour, and not suffer themselves to be flattered into an Opinion of their great Sanctity, while their Practice is so wide of their Duty in Instances of so much Importance, and on which more may depend than they, at present, may be aware of. I only add my earnest Wishes and Prayer to GOD that all those that are in Error may be brought into the Way of Truth and Salvation. And am,