DISPUNTING on Points on Religion would be one of the most pleasant as well as profita­ble Entertainments of this imperfect State, if those who engage in Controversy would be but careful to maintain that good Nature and Cha­rity, that benevolent and kind Regard to their Antago­nists, which Christianity obliges us to show towards all Men: If a sincere Zeal for Truth, and a fervent Love to one another did direct and animate our Enquiries and Disquisitions, they would certainly bring us nearer to one another in our Sentiments, if not cause us all to think and speak the same Things.

But if, instead of offering the Reasons of our Opini­ons with Meekness, and speaking the Truth in Love, we use the most provoking and insulting Language we can invent, and rake every Dunghill to find Scandal to fling at our Adversaries, and care not whether it be true or fa [...], so it be but spiteful and disgraceful, if instead of rectifying their Mistakes we try to blast the Reputation of those who differ from us, and represent them as hateful and ridiculous, as Men of no Conscience or Reason, and strain their Expressions to such an ill Sense as was never intended; though this kind of managing Controversy may make Sport for Fools, yet it must needs do a World of Mischief by souring Men's Tempers, [Page 6]and propagating Malice and Ill Nature, which is the very Temper of the Devils; and so making Men much more the Children of Hell, than they would be, if they did remain ignorant of the Truth in Contest.

We never have more need to remember the Com­mand of our Blessed Master, to love our Enemies, and to bless them that curse us, than while we are engaged with such an unfair Disputant, especially if his Malice and Falshood be masked with Saintship and a pretended Zeal for Piety.

I am sensible Mr. Hobart has the Advantage of me both as to his Matter and Manner of Writing; his Bu­siness is to load us with Reproaches, and once in a while to shew the Sprightliness of his Wit by breaking of a bitter Jest upon us: And it is an old Observation, that Satyrs are more eagerly entertained, and read with more Applause than Vindications. And the Spectator observes, ‘Ill Nature among ordinary Observes, passes for Wit. A spiteful Saying gratifies so many little Passions in those who hear it, that it generally meets with a good Reception. The Laugh rises upon it, and the Man who uttered it, is looked upon as a shrew'd Sa­tyrist.’ But I am so near to that World in which all are serious, that I shall leave him in the quiet Pos­session of that sort of Arguments. I shall likewise over­look most of his personal Reflections, and cruel Mockings, which his Friend Mr. Dickinson, says, are as really Perse­cution as Bonds and Imprisonments, P. 168. And shall directly come to the Point in Dispute.

The Controversy lies chiefly in these three Points.

• I. Whether there can be any true Ministers of JESUS CHRIST without a Succession?
• II. Whether the Succession in the Church of England has ever been broken?
• [Page 7] III. Whether the the Presbyterian Ministers in New-En­gland have Authority from CHRIST by Successions?

To begin with the first of these, when I say, that there can't be a lawful Minister without an uninterrupted Succession; I mean, that in order to a Man's being a lawful Minister, he must be ordained or appointed to that Office by some Men who have received Authority to ordain, and they who have not received such Author­rity, can not constitute and Embassador of Christ; and this Authority to ordain since the Apostles Time, is not immediately from Heaven, but by Men. And it is not material whether the Ordainers be called Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or by any other Name, if they have had the Power of Ordination committed to them it is sufficient.

To prove this I cited Mr. Law's Reasoning, which I esteem as clear a Demonstration as such Truths are capable of; who says thus "If there be no Succession of Person authorized from CHRIST to send others to act in his Name, then both Episcopal and Presbyterian Preachers are equally Usurpers, and as mere Lay-Men as any at all. For there can't be any other Difference between the Clergy and Laity, but as the one hath Authority derived from CHRIST, to perform Offices, which the other hath not. But this Authority can be no otherwise had, than by an uninterrupted Succession of Men from CHRIST, impower'd to qualify others. For if the Succession be once broke, People must either go into the Ministry of their own Accord, or be sent by such as have no more Power to send others than to go themselves. And can these be called Mi­nisters of CHRIST, or received as his Ambassadors? Can they be thought to act in his Name, who have no Authority from him? If so, then every christian Slave, may ordain to as good Purpose as the best Bishop in Old England or New. For it can only be objected to such Actions, that they had no Authority [Page 8]from CHRIST. And if there be no Succession of Or­dainers from CHRIST, every one is equally qualified to ordain. — The Administring a Sacrament is an Action we have no Right to perform, considered ei­ther as Men, Gentlemen, or Scholars, or Members of the civil Society. Who then can have any Autho­rity to interpose, but he that has it from CHRIST? And how that can be had from him, without a Suc­cession of Men from him, is not easily conceived. Should a private Person choose a Lord Chancellor, and declare his Authority good; would there be any Thing but Absurdity, Impudence and Presumption in it? But why he cannot as well Commission a Per­son to act, sign and seal in the King's Name, as in the Name of CHRIST, is unaccountable.

The Ministers of CHRIST are as much positive Ordi­nances as the Sacraments, and we might as well think, that Sacraments no instituted by him, might be means of Grace, as those past for his Ministers, who have no Authority from him.

Once more, all Things are either in Common in the Church of CHRIST, or they are not: if they are, then every one may Preach, Baptize, Ordain, &c. If all Things are not thus common, but the administring the Sacraments and Ordination, &c. are Offices appropri­ated to particular Persons, then I desire to know, how, in the present Age, or any other since the Apostles, Christians can know their respective Duties, or what they may or may not do, with respect to the several Acts of Church Communion, if there be no uninter­rupted Succession of Persons authorized from CHRIST? For till Authority from CHRIST appears to make a Difference between them, we are all alike, and any one may ossiciate as well as another. Therefore to make a Jest of the uninterrupted Succession, is to make a Jest of Ordiantion, to destroy the sacred Cha­racter, and to make all Pretenders to it, as good as those who are sent by CHRIST.

[Page 9] Now what Answer has Mr. Hobart returned to this Reasoning? Alas, he has past it over in profound Si­lence. But why was this Neglect? Certainly it could not be an oversight, for it was the first Argument that stared him in the Face. Neither was it for want of Time or Paper, for after above a Year of Preparation, he has sent us a large Piece of 172 Pages, pretending that it is an Answer to our Reasons for our not being Dissenters; and yet the most material are entirely overlook'd. Or lastly, did he think this Reasoning to be too weak and childish for him to take Notice of it? No, surely, for the weaker he accounts any Part of our Discourse, the more he labour to expose it to Con­tempt. It remains therefore that the only Reason must be, that he knew it was unanswerable: and there­fore the wisest Course was to pass by it in Silence; in which Manner he has treated most of our Arguments. But if he had answered this one single Argument ef­fectually, it would have been of infinitely more Value than all his great Book without it. Had he cleared up but this one Point, and shewed how a Man who has no Authority from CHRIST, can constituted a true Am­bassador for him, I would have returned him my hearty Thanks, and have joined immediately with the Dissen­ters, although I believe they have no Mission from CHRIST. But to be pestered and teased from Time to Time with long and virulent Addresses, urging us to become Dissenters with such vehement Importunity, as though all we are worth to Eternity, as well as the Salvation of the Heathen World did depend upon it; and yet at the same Time not to afford one faint Endeavour to remove the Obstacle out of the Way; really Mr. Hobart, this looks a little disingenuous. Indeed, I blame no Man for not doing Impossibilites, as this is: I only blame him for boasting so often that he had confuted us, when he knew, that our chief Arguments not only remained untouched, but were really unanswerable. But though he cannot answer our plain Reasons for the Necessity of a Succession, yet he thinks to bear us down [Page 10]by Authorities. Whereas I must let him know, that ten Thousand Authorities in Matters of Religion are not equivalent to one plain Reason. And it will not excuse my living in Error and Sin, to say, it was agreeable to the Opinion of such a Divine, or such a Church. Rea­son is the Birth Right of every Man, for the using of which he must be be accountable to the Author of it.

However we will allow the Opinion of others its proper Weight and Influence. The first Authority he cites, is Article XXIII, of the Churh of England, which runs thus, ‘It is not lawful for any Man to take upon him the Office of publick Preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be law­fully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be chosen and called to this Work by Men who have publick Authority given into the Lord's Vineyard.’

You will now easily perceive that this Article asserts the Necessity of a Succession in the same Sense as I have done, if you observe, that the World Congregation, when these Articles were composed, was used in a dif­ferent Sense from what is annext to it at this Day. A Congregation now denotes a Number of Christians who can meet to Worship in one Place, but in these Arti­cles it signifies the whole Catholick Church dispersed all over the Earth; as you may see in Article XIX, where the Catholick Church is thus defined, ‘The vi­sible Church of CHRIST is a Congregation of faith­ful Men, &c.’ Now, says this Article, none are to be accounted lawful Ministers unless they have had an Ordination by such Men as have received an outward Commission or Authority in the Church, impowering them to call and send others. And he who is or­dained by such Men, who never had publick Authority committed unto them in the Church, to call and send Ministers into the LORD's Vineyard, he is no lawful Minister. From hence it follows, that where there [Page 11]is no Succession, there is no lawful Minister, and where the Ordainers never received Authority to call and send others, there the Ordination is a Nullity. Thus, if the Bishop who ordained me had received no Authority to ordain, then I am no lawful Mi­nister, and the same is true of him, if his Ordainers had not received publick Authority, and the same holds true in all Ages. So that the Line of Succession must reach up to the Apostles, otherwise there can be no lawful Ministry. So that according to this Article, the Presbyterian or Independent Ministers of New-England are no lawful Ministers, for that Set of Priests who separated from the Church of England and ordained them, never had received publick Authority in the Church to ordain or send others; whatever Authority they used, it was assumed or stolen, no such publick Autho­rity was ever committed to them. These Ministers therefore entred not in by the Door, but climbed up another Way. How unlucky was Mr. Hobart in producing this Article for Proof, that a Succession is unnecessary?

His next Evidence is Arch-Bishop Laud, P. 57. who says, ‘I do not find any one of the antient Fathers that makes the local, personal, visible and a continued Successi­on, a necessary Sign or Mark of the true Church in any one Place.’

But pray, what Succession is this, which he says is not necessary? Is it a Succession in the Christian Priest­hood or Ministry? No certainly: but a local, personal, visible, continued Succession of the Church, i. e. in one Place: This, be says, is not necessary, or a Mark of its being true. Thus, altho' there has not been a vi­sible continued Succession of what we call a Protestant Church in England in the Times of Popery, yet that is no certain Mark of Sign that this Protestant Church is not a true Church. This, I suppose was in Answer to the Papists, who incessantly demand, Where was your Protestant Church before Luther? But how im­pertinent was this to the Case before us? Dare Mr. Hobart say, that Arch-Bishop Laud was of Opinion that [Page 12]the apostolick or ministerial Authority was lost in En­gland in the Times of Popery? Had he taught such Doctrine as this, I dare say, the Red hot Zealots would not have cut off his Head for his Popery: nor would Mr. Neal, and other Dissenters at this Day speak of him as being more than a Devil. Surely he was hard put to it, to find Evidences, otherwise he would not have produced such impertinent ones as these, and put them in Capitals.

It is difficult to bring all his Evidences together, they being scattered here and there at a great Distance. But I think there is but one more, P. 78. He cites Bishop Hoadly, saying, ‘ This regular uninterrupted Succession of Persons, qualified and regularly ordained, is a Matter im­possible to be proved, &c. And there is a Certainty that this Succession hath often been interrupted.’ In answer to which I would observe, his Lordship uses the Words, This regular uninterrupted Succession, in the Sense of the Non-Jurors, against whom he was writing: and there­fore this Evidence is nothing to the Purpose. We hold the Necessity of a Succession in no other Sense than is exprest in Article xxiii. of the Church of England; that is, that they who ordain others must have Authority to do it, otherwise the Ordained are not lawful Ministers: Whereas this Regular Succession which the Non-Jurors contended for is broken, when some Bishops are de­prived by the Civil Government, altho' they who suc­ceed them are ordained by Men who have publick Au­thority so to do. Now this Regular Succession (so cal­led by the Non-Jurors) I freely own is not necessary; nay, it is certain, it has been interrupted in several In­stances. But then these Interruptions (so called) have not at all impaired the Apostolick Authority which is continued still by Ordinations performed by true Bi­shops. In other Words, a Breach in the Non-Jurors Regular Successions, is no Breach at all in the real Mini­sterial Succession by Ordination, which we believe to be necessary.

But if his Lordship really meant, (as I believe he did [Page 13]not) that they who ordain others, may convey valid Orders, although they themselves have no Authority to ordain; then I must beg leave to dissent, and reply in his own Words, ^† I hope he will not expect that I should be led by Authorities of modern Authors, (when he himself hath so often declared against it) in a Mat­ter of mere Judgment and Reasoning ;or yield to great Names, without considering the Grounds upon which their Assertions are built. The Grounds of the con­trary Judgment, I have already given: and his pro­found Silence in such an important Point, is a tacit Acknowledgment, that it is unanswerable.

I grant, that as Men may use the World Succession in different Senses, and view the Thing in different Lights, so there may be some Men of great Learning, who taking it in the Sense of some Non-Jurors, may with Reason make a Jest of it. But I'm inclined to think there is no sound Believer, much less learned Bishop or Divine, who will say, that a Succession, (as I use the Word) is unnecessary; or in other Words, that it is not necessary that they who ordain should have Authority so to do: which is all I now plead for.

Lastly, I would observe, this same learned Divine, now Bishop of Winchester, wrote a Treatise on Purpose to shew the Necessity of those called Presbyterian Mini­sters yielding to be ordained by true Bishops, in order to their being accounted true Ministers; in which he has carried the Matter as high, and done it as effec­tually as ever I could wish to see it done. And a Man's Judgment is to be discovered by the profest Design of his Writing, and not by a single Sentence se­parated from all the rest.

These are, I think, all the Authorities he has cited to prove the Non-Necessity of a Succession in the Ministry; and whether they are sufficient, I leave to the Reader to judge. I must confess it appears to me to be a very odd Way of Proceeding, to quote Au­thorities [Page 14]and great Names to prove Contradictions to be Truths, and Impossibilities to be real Facts, which is really the Case here. For if a Succession be not necessary, but Men may be true Ambassadors of CHRIST without it, then Men who have no Authority from CHRIST to go themselves or to send others, yet have good Right to constitute Ambassadors for him, and those so sent without any Authority, yet have good Authority to Sign and Seal in CHRIST'S Name. Mr. Hobart has said a great deal, and with no small degree of Assurance, which may serve to amuse the Reader and puzzle the Cause, but every Man of plain common Sense may with a very little Pains be fully sa­tisfied where the Truth lies. When Mr. Hobart has tired himself with laughing at the Succession, only ask him this plain Question; supposing the Authority CHRIST gave to the Apostles is not contunied by a suc­cessive Ordination, and that such a Thing is needless, how can one Man have a better Right than another, to act in CHRIST'S Name, or as his Ambassador? If he should say, some Men were ordained to that Office, but others were not: Ask him again, how came these Ordainers to have more Power to Ordain than every Body else? To this he must Answer, because they themselves had been ordained to the Ministry. And the like Answer he must return till you come up to our Blessed LORD JESUS who was the first Ordainer. In a Word, there is no Medium betwixt holding the Necessity of a Succession, and laying the Ministry open and common, and asserting the Lawfulness of Lay-Ordination.

Mr. Hobart is very angry with the New-Light Mi­nisters, because they are not ordained by Ministers, which he supposes to be the only Method that GOD has appointed. And for that Reason he says, Christ will condemn them; and we should not countenance or re­ceive them. Now if the Succession ever was broke, and the Apostolick Power lost, this must be the Case of all the Ministers who arose after that Interruption, and [Page 15]began a new Succession, for there could be no Mini­sters then to ordain them. And if all the Ministers, for Instance, a Thousand Years ago, undertook the Mi­nistry without an Ordination by Ministers, we my do so again, and again; it is no Matter how often; for the Apostolick Power being once lost, is lost for ever. And who in that Case has any Authority to begin a new Ministry? If some have a Right to begin a new Suc­cession, why have not every one the like Right? Why not New-Lights as well as Old-Lights? Indeed the Case is so exceeding plain and evident, that it should seem like an Affront to a common Understanding to take any more Pains to prove, that a Succession is necessary to make a lawful Minister.

I am very sorry to observe, that Mr. Hobart instead of confuting this sort of Reasoning, has given himself an unaccountable Liberty to slander and misrepresent us, and imputes to us such absurd Tenets as we never had the least Inclination to. Thus in his former Ad­dress, he calls the peculiar Whims of the Non-Jurors, our Darling Principles, P. 120. And he would have it understood, that according to our Principles, the Civil Power had no Authority to deprive the Nor-juring Bishops; with a great deal of the like Nature; which is so far from being true, that I sincerely believe, that their Deprivation was both just and necessary, and that the State had a Right not only to deprive, but to ba­nish them; as Solomon did Abiathar. For the State certainly hath a Right to defend and preserve etself, which it could not do, if its Enemies were allowed to hold the highest Dignities in the Church.

The same untrue and unjust Representation of our Principles he constantly makes in this last Address, as­cribing any Tenets to us, which he can easily confute, without any Regard to Truth or Justice.

Thus says he, ‘We have already observed, that a Succession of the Ministry in general will not satisfy Mr. Beach, but it is a Succession in the particular [Page 16]Order of Bishops, as superior to Presbyters, which his Scheme makes necessary, P. 47.’

Which is so far from being true, that as I declared before, and he knew it, so I say again, let the Ordain­ers be called Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, or Ruling Elders, or Pastors, let them be Superiors, or Inferiors, or all Equal, it alters not the Case so far as the present Controversy is concerned: the only Thing I insist upon here, is, that they who Ordain, should have received Authority to send others, as our Article XXIII, requires.

And yet almost all Mr. Hobart's Discourse is pointed against this Tenet, which he falsly ascribed to me. And therefore it is no Wonder he has done nothing towards convincing me of my Error, if I am in one.

Again, he affirms, that ‘according to me, the Laity in their Communion aree in as bad a Situation,’ (as I should have been in if I had remained with them, against the Dictates of my own Conscience,) ‘For their Accep­tance with GOD, absolutely depends on such a Suc­cession in the Ministry as they are wholly destitute of.’ P. 27. If this be true, I have certainly damned every Presbyterian and Independent in New-England. And yet he often affirms that I say that Men's Accep­tance with GOD, absolutely depends upon this Succession. And at the same Time it is so far from being true, that I hold nothing is absolutely necessary on our Part, but only Holiness; I don't esteem the Sacraments them­selves to be absolutely necessary?

With what Conscience could Mr. Hobart charge me with this stingy and uncharitable Opinion, when he saw with his own Eyes the clean Contrary in that Pa­ragraph, part of which he cites? P. 42, where I used these Words, ‘Had I remained with you, and had the same Sense of the Matter as I now have, and (I think) cannot help but have, I fear I should have perished in the Gainsaying of Core, Jude 11.—In say­ing these Things, I don't judge, censure, or con­demn your Ministers, or mean to insinuate, that they [Page 17]cannot be saved. For that is a Sin of Ignorance in another, which in me would be a damning Crime. I am far from judging that your can't be saved in your Way, though erroneous.’

Does this look like making Men's Salvation absolutely to depend upon the Succession? Does it appear like damning all the Dissenters; as he represents it? He talks of using an honest Freedom; I'm thoroughly convinced of his using Freedom enough, I only wish we could see some Sign of his Honesty. Let a Man take that Free­dom Mr. Hobart makes use of, and he will find no Difficulty to triumph over any Antagonist, and answer any Arguments without ever coming near them.

And as to his saying so often, that it is a dreadful Thing to venture our Salvation upon a Succession, as we do; I can see no Sense in it: For we run no Ven­ture at all; but let it turn out which Way it will, we are as safe as they can be. If GOD don't require us to attend to a Succession, then we have only taken a little more Pains to please him than was necessary: But if our Opinion be true, and GOD does require us to attend to the Succession; then such Men who have despised and neglected it, will appear to have con­tracted no small Guilt.

This Case is very much like that of the Christian Religion; Infidels tell us, that we venture our Souls upon the Truth of the Gospel, which perhaps may turn out to be a mere Cheat. To whom we reply, we don't run any Hazard at all by being Christians. For if the Gospel be a Fiction; our believing it to be true, and living up to it, can do us no hurt. But if it be true, as we have sufficient Reason to believe it is, then Unbe­lievers are in amazing Danger. So it is here, our Sal­vation is not at all endangered by our believing and regarding a Succession in the Ministry, No, it is the only Way to be [...] all the Danger lies in neg­lecting it.

And how this can [...]troy a Man's Comfort, (as he says) is quite above my Comprehension: for we can [Page 18]consider, if there be a Succession, no Church on Earth has a better Claim to it than the Church of England; And if there be no Succession, or no need of it, then we are certainly safe, and in no Danger, whether we have it or not. So that we have the Comfort of being safe, which is no small Consolation. And every Man for the Peace of his own Conscience should make a pro­per Enquiry, whether the Minister of whose Hands he receives the Sacraments be indeed CHRIST'S Ambassa­dor. And that Plea which some of the Laity make for their Carelessness in this Affair, will not excuse their Sloth before GOD, that is, let Ministers dispute this Point among themselves; it don't belong to us to trouble our Heads about that Controversy, who are lawful Ministers. For he who is qualified to serve on a Jury to try Men's Titles to an Estate, can't pretend that he is not capable to form a Judgment in this Case. And to say that it will not be enquired in the Day of Judgment, whether we were Church Men or Presbyterians, is not true; for we are accountable for our careless Neglect of the least Truth that we might have known. And the more diligent and faithful we have been to know, and do the Truth, the more acceptable we shall be to our great Master.

As to his saying, that our Notion of a Succession tends to Infidelity, it is equally groundless: for an uninter­rupted Succession in the Ministry is a standing Proof of the Truth of Christianity. But it tempts Men to despise the Ministers of the Gospel, when they hear them call themselves CHRIST'S Ambassadors, and pretend to be his Agents or Attornies, to act, sign, and seal in CHRIST'S Name and Stead; and yet know, that CHRIST never sent them, nor any impower'd by him. What Man of Sense can reverence such Pretenders as CHRIST'S Representatives; when a Man can't be a Attorney for the poorest Fellow in the Land, without his own Act and Appointment? And when Ministers are despised, and not esteemed as CHRIST'S Ambassadors, Religion etself will fall into Contempt with them.

[Page 19] The only Argument, I think, which he produces to prove that there is no Necessity of Succession, is the want of Evidence that in Fact there has been a Suc­cession. Now to prevent contending where we don't really deffer, I must observe, that he asserts the Ne­cessity of a Succession in the very same Sense as I do. For, P. 55, 56, he affirms, a standing Ministry is an Ordinance of CHRIST; which is the very same, as when I say, an uninterrupted Succession in the Ministry is CHRIST'S Ordinance. He makes Imposition of Hands by Gospel Ministers of Necessity to make a lawful Mi­nister. And he says, it is disorderly and sinful to depart from this Method, P. 56. Now by Gospel Ministers, he means such as have the Power of Ordination, for he thinks all Gospel Minsters have this Power. And this (say he) is sufficient to condemn the New-Light Separa­tists with their Lay-Ordinations — These disorderly Wal­kers have Reason to expect that CHRIST, instead of owning them as his Ministers, will reject and condemn them for acting contrary to his Will, discovered by the Practice and Example of his Apostles, which he caused to be recorded for the Instruction of his Church in all Ages. And the Di­rection given to the Churches of CHRIST, with Regard to such disorderly and irregular Persons, is not to countenance, own or receive them, but on the contrary to discountenance and censure them. Now if this Doctrine be true, that CHRIST will condemn those who act as Ministers, and yet are not ordained by the Imposition of commissi­onated Hands, as he affirms, then it necessarily follows, that if this unlawful Minister who was ordained by uncommissionated Hands Yester-day, should ordain a second Minster To-day, CHRIST will condemn him too; because all the Ministerial Acts of the first, are dis­owned and condemned by CHRIST. And if this second unlawful Minister should To-morrow ordain a third, CHRIST will likewise disown and condemn him too. And so on to the End, though they should continue this disorderly and irregular Practice a hundred, or a thou­sand Years, yet CHRIST will never own them for his [Page 20]Ministers; neither should his Churches countenance, but censure them. Wickedness by a long Duration will not become a Virtue. Thus Mr. Hobart and I are entirely agreed, in the Necessity of a Succession; only he is too much of a High-Flier for me, and is too rigid and severe towards them who have no Succession; for he boldly affirms that CHRIST will reject and condemn them: Whereas I hope CHRIST will pardon their Mistakes and Irregularities, and accept of their Sincerity; though at the same Time I should not dare to venture upon such an unlawful Practice, nor countenance those who do, and that is the Reason of my leaving the Dissenters. You see now, that after all Mr. Hobart's Exclamations against a Succession, he differs from me about it in no­thing but only in being more uncharitable, stingy and severe towards those who have it not.

If one were disposed to be merry, it would be really diverting to observe how much Pains he takes to seem to differ from me; and yet after all his Toil and Sweat, he can't get one Inch from my Opinion. He delivers his Opinion thus, P. 56. Upon the whole; to make Ordi­nation, meaning thereby, Imposition of commissionated Hands, necessary in Point of Order, is a different Thing from making it essential to the ministerial Character.

And yet just before in the same Page he had said, that it is sinful and disorderly to neglect such Ordination: that CHRIST will not own such as do neglect it for his Ministers, but reject and condemn them, and the Churches should not countenance, own, or receive them, but discoun­tenance and censure them. Now if it be not essential to a Minister, that he should not enter upon the Work in a sinful and disorderly Manner, but come in at the Door, if it be not essential to a Minster, that he should be so ordained, as that CHRIST will own him for his Minister, and not reject and condemn him; if it be not es­sential to the ministerial Character, that he who pretends to it should be so authorized as that the Churches should not be obliged to disown, discountenance, and cen­sure him; I say, if this be not essential, I wonder what [Page 21]is. But upon the whole, this I must say, let it be essential or circumstantial, I don't think it safe to be in such Ministers Condition; since Mr. Hobart says himself, CHRIST will not own but condemn them; and for fear of that I chose to be ordained by commissionated Hands.

And indeed you may try it every Way, and as long as you please; and after all, you will find it impossible to condemn the New-Light Ministry, without asserting the Succession. For what is wanting in their Ministry, but only that they who ordained them, had no Com­mission for it? And can we imagine that when a Man is ordained without any Authority, yet that he himself should have good Authority to ordain? Or that his Successor should have it, though he had not? No surely. But as in Arithmetick, a thousand Noughts in a Row make no Sum; so a thousand such Ordinations succeeding one another, will not make one lawful Mi­nister, but CHRIST may condemn the last as well as the first.

But to help Mr. Hobart's Charity towards the New-Light Ministers, whom he in Scorn to us, calls our Brethren, I can tell him, that they are nearer a-kin to him than he is aware; for by conversing with some of them, I find, that they have a Mixture of a Presby­terian Ordination with their Lay-Orders, and some Mi­nisters have laid their Hands on them together with the Brethren; so that within a little Time the Lea­thern-Mitten will be quite worn out with them too; and theirs will become very good and substantial Pres­byterian Ordination.

I come now to another Part of the Argument. I had said, that GOD made it the Duty of the Israelites to attend to the Succession in the Levitical Ministry, and it is equally necessary to attend to the Succession in the Gospel Ministry, and there is as much if not more Evidence to direct us as to the Gospel Succession, than there was to direct them about the Levitical. In An­swer to this, he allows, that there was a Succession in [Page 22]that Ministry and Priesthood; But then he says, it was a legal Succession, and it had a legal Proof, P. 62, 64, 65. But still he very much defies that we should pretend, that there is as clear Evidence of a Succession under the Gospel, as there was under the Law. Here then let us join Issue, and if I can't prove that there is the same kind of Evidence of the Succession under the Gospel, as there was under the Law, and if I can't pro­duce as good Proof that I was ordained by one who had Authority from the Apostles by a successive Ordi­nation, as an ordinary Priest at Christ's Birth could shew for his Descent from Aaron, then I'll contentedly bear his Reproach of Enthusiasm. To begin, he says, that the Aaronical Priests had a good legal Proof, and they had only a legal Succession. And the same I say of the Suc­cession under the Gospel; a hidden and secret Succession, and invisible and secret Defects which are known only to GOD, I have no Concern with: secret Things belong unto GOD. What does not appear, is not. But what legal Proof had the Aaronical Priests at the Time of CHRIST'S coming in the Flesh? Why, he tells us, P. 64. Authentick Registers of the Sacerdotal Family were kept among the Jews as long, and with as great Care as those of the Royal Family. And this is the whole of his legal Proof. And if I should allow it to be altogether true, it would not amount to any Proof at all, that these Priests were Aaron's Descendents; for he don't pretend that these Registers were kept longer than those of the Royal Family: and it was several hundred Years after Aaron's Death before there was any Royal Family: How then could any Man know what Interruptions might happen in the Priesthood between the Death of Aaron and the reign of King David?

But that we may not be amused with empty Words, it is necessary that we should consider, what is meant by authentick Registers, kept of all the Descendents of Levi. And doubtless it must mean, that among the Israelites there were Officers sworn to record every Male Child of the Tribe of Levi, and that this Prac­tice [Page 23]was begun in Aaron's Life Time, and without any Interruption continued in all Places and in all Times of their Apostacy, Captivity and Dispersions till CHRIST came. If Mr. Hobart has Credulity enough to believe this to be fact, he can't meet with any difficulty in be­lieving all the Jewish Fables and Oral Law, or all the Legends of Rome.

I grant, that the Jews some times made Registers, and so has the Christian Church much more. Every Bishop in England, has his Name in more than one au­thentick Register. Nay every Priest and Deacon is re­gistered. But then neither these nor the Jewish Re­gisters are everlasting; but by accidents may be destroy­ed. The Text he cites to prove that the Jews kept Registers is a full Proof of this. Ezra ii. 61, 62. The Children of Barzillai, which took a Wife of the Daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their Name: These sought their Register among those who were reckoned by Genealogy, but they were not found. Upon this Text, Dr. Patrick observes, ‘this Person, whosoever he was, thought it so great an Honour to be descended from such a noble Family as that of Barzillai, that he chose to be called by that Name, which he preferred be­fore his own in the Family of the Priests: By which vain Ambition he lost his Title to the Priesthood, because he could not make out his Pedigree from the Priests, but from Barzillai.’ From hence it is evident, that though the Jews sometimes made Regi­sters of their Priests, yet they did not constantly do so. No such Thing was done in their Captivity: And the Registers they had before the Captivity, when the City and Temple were burnt, and the Remains of the People in the utmost Confusion carried Cap­tive, even these were burnt or otherwise lost; at least in great Part. So that upon their return from Babylon they must know who were Priests by their retaining the Names of those who had formerly executed the Priest Office in the Temple. So that if this Man had not exchanged his own Name in the [Page 24]Family of the Priests for his Wives more honourable Name, though he had no Register to show, yet he would not have been put by the Priesthood. Registers they often had, which in all Probability were made by the help of Tradition, some hundred Years after some of the Persons named in them were dead. And the Christian Church abounds with such authentick Registers. If you should ask how the Israelites could know, who belonged to the Royal, who to the Aaronical Family, and so to every Tribe and Family in order to their quiet Enjoyment of the Land which GOD gave them by Lot; if there were no authentick Registers kept, how could they know, what Land, or what Offices belonged to each Man? I answer, they knew it by Possession, by Tradition, by their retaining the Names of their se­veral Families, as other Nations do; but much less by authentick Registers and publick Records kept under Oath, than we do. And GOD never had appointed this Method; and if he did, they were far from care­fully observing it. The ignorant and barbarous In­dians, know very well, who among them are Sachems by Descent, and they have good legal Proof of it, without keeping authentick Registers. And the Israelites in the Time of their Idolatry and Ignorance used no better Methods to preserve the Pedigree of their Priests clear, than the Indians do that of their Sachems, neither were they so careful and zealous about it, as will evidently appear, if we consider, how often they for­sook the true GOD, and fell into the most sottish Ido­latry. Among the ten Tribes, from the Division of the Kingdom till their final Captivity, any Body was al­lowed to execute the Priests Office: It is therefore certain no authentick Registers of the true Priests were kept among them. In Judah, often, and for a long Time together, the Priest's Work was entirely laid aside, and they undistinguished from common Men. Nay so little Regard had they for the true Religion, that the Bible itself was not known among them. And when one was found, both the high Priest and King were mightily [Page 25]surprized at what was contained in it. Now can we suppose, that they were extreamly careful to keep Registers of all the Males born in the Tribe of Levi, when they were so stupid and careless as to lose the Holy Bible, which contained all their Religion? Did ever such stupid Negligence and sottish Ignorance ob­tain in the Christian Church? It is true, the Christian Church did decline from their first Purity and Zeal; and the Western Church fell into Superstition and Ido­latry: yet never were they without many Thousand Copies of the Holy Scriptures. Never was the Christian Church so careless, as to suffer Men to perform the sacred Offices unless they had been ordained by commissionated Hands. Records and Histories of every Age since Christ's Ascention, afford a good legal Proof of this. But can we imagine, that the Jews were careful to keep the Priesthood pure and unmixt, and authentick Registers, of all who were born to it, when they had no Worship of GOD at all among them; and were resolved never to have again? For what End should they preserve the Priesthood pure, when they never intended to make any Use of it? I may appeal to any Man who is not under the Influence of some En­thusiastick Instinct, whether it is probable, that the Isra­elites kept authentick Registers of the true Priests, when there was no King in Israel, and every Man did what was right in his own Eyes? As Micah who himself ordained his own Son, and then a Levite for a Priest, when the whole Nation had lost the Kowledge of GOD and his Priesthood, and are thus described, 2 Chron. xv. 3. Now for a long Season Israel hath been without the true GOD, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. That Nation for a long Time was sunk into such Ig­norance and Stupidity, that it is more probable, that not one Priest in a Thousand could either read or write, than that they kept authentick Registers of all who were born to the Priesthood. And one might almost as well look for authentick Registers among the wild Indians, [Page 26]as to expect to find them in those Ages of Dark­ness, Confusion and Irreligion among the Israelites.

How can it be thought, that this People were so exceeding careful to keep authentick Registers of all their Priests and their Children, when there was no officiating Priests among them, and they never intended that there should be any? Yet this was often, for a long Time together the State of the Jewish Church. But was this, or any thing like it ever the Case of the Christian Church; or of the Church of England? Cer­tainly it was not. But there always has been a Stand­ing and officiating Ministry. In a Word, whatever good legal Proof he shall find for the Aaronical Succession, the same in kind, and much clearer I will produce for the Succession under the Gospel. But when he insinuates that the Jewish Priests at Christ's Time could all of them produce authentick Registers of their Pedigree reaching up to Aaron, I must use the honest Freedom to tell him it is not only perfect Fiction and Romance, but plainly contradicted by the holy Scripture, Ezra ii. 62.

And yet I allow that they had then, as we now have a good legal Proof of a Right by Succession. We now have such Evidence of our Title to the Ministry by Succession, as all Nations, all Ages and Courts allow to be a good legal Proof of a good Title to an Estate. And there is no Man now in England prossest of an an­cient Estate by Descent, who can give a better legal Proof of his legal Right to it, than every Bishop can give of his Right to the Ministerial Authority by a successive Ordination.

But as for his pretending that the Jews were more careful to keep authentick Registers than Christians have been, which is all that he can offer on this Subject, it is perfectly impossible for me to believe it, while I con­sider, how much more Knowledge has prevailed in the Christian, than in the Jewish Church; and how much more careful Christians have been to preserve the di­vine Ordinances pure, than the Jews were. The Jews [Page 27]for many Years together wholly neglected GOD's Or­dinances, Circumcision, the Passover, &c. and in a Manner forgot them. And is it likely that they were mighty careful about the Priesthood? It is morally im­possible. But the Christian Church never did despise and neglect Baptism and the Lord's Supper: But al­ways observed them with great Veneration, they never were in any Age careless about the Oridination of their Clergy, so as to neglect it, or suffer it to be perfor­med by Lay-Men. If any Man denies this, let him name the Age, when the Christian Church neglected these Ordinances of CHRIST. Whereas it is very easy to prove from holy Scripture that the Israelites wholly laid aside and despised the Ordinances of their GOD, together with his Priests. I have now done with this Head, and I hope I have said enough, if not more than enough to prove, that we have as good a Proof of our Succession from the Apostles, as the Jewish Priests had of their Descent from Aaron.

II. I come now to the second Enquiry, viz. Whe­ther the Succession has been preserved in the Church of England? Mr. Hobart seems very angry with me for saying, that he had undertaken to prove that it was broken in the Church of England: and now says, P. 67. that if I had been honest I should have seen, that what he undertook to prove was, that the Succession was not clear and indisputable. Now wheter the Dis­honesty is in me or Mr. Hobart; let the Reader judge, when he has observed that Mr. Hobart in his first Ad­dress uses these very Words, P. 120. That the Line of Succession was broken in these Instances is very clear. You see he does not express it modestly, nor say, it was dis­putable; but affirms that he had clearly proved that it was broken. However, now he is ashamed of it, and is become very modest, and I wish it might continue, although what is written is written. But now he is come a Peg lower, and only says, that our Succession is disputed, and absolutely denied. And had he laid his [Page 28]Charge no higher before, I should not have taken any Pains to confute it: For there is not one Truth in Religion but what is disputed and absolutely denied by some Body or other. Some dispute and absolutely deny the Existence of GOD. Must I then turn Atheist, or Sceptick? The Question should be, what Reason have they for disputing or denying any Tenet? If they have no Reason for it, I hope we are not obliged to part with what some Men please to dispute or abso­lutely deny. I shall now examine his Reasons for disputing the Succession in the Church of England: And shall begin with an Argument he used in his first Address, P. 121. which he thinks I did not suffi­ciently attend to. I shall therefore now make ample Amends. He tells us Arch Bishop Parker was ordained by four Bishops who had been legally deprived in Queen Mary's Reign, and were not restored when they per­formed this Action. This he says, renders Parker's Consecration very doubtful, and indeed bids fair to nullify it. P. 74. and yet upon this, he says, all the Ordinations in the Church of England to this Day depend. And after all, he tells us, an Act of Parliament was procured to confirm Parker 's Consecration about seven Years after it was per­formed. Let us try now, whether we can't fairly get over these two Difficulties, and give such an Account of the Affair as shall satisfy any reasonable Person. The legal Deprivation which these Bishops were under did not at all hinder their giving valid Orders. So the Government thought; othersise they would have re­stored them, before they employed them to consecrate Parker. Can any Protestant of Sense imagine, that a Papist Queen and Parliament could really and forever take away the Power of Ordination given by CHRIST to his Ministers? if so, then the Heathen Kings and Emperors could have deprived the Apostles and all CHRIST'S Ministers of that Authority he gave them, and have reduced them to the Condition of mere Lay-Men. I grant with his Author, that when these deprived Bi­shops were employed to consecrate Parker, the Legal­ity [Page 29]of their Proceedings were not so clear as might be wish'd for. But what then? One could not wish to have it clearer, that it was a valid canonical and regular Ordination according to the Gospel: and that here is no room, to suspect an Interruption; and this is all we contend for. And as to the legal Defect, it was purged away by the Queen's Warrant to them. So that all is exceeding clear here. And now as to the Act of Parliament to confirm Parker's Consecration se­ven Years after it was over, which makes the Matter look suspiciously. The Case was thus, as Dr. Heylyn, Bishop Burnet, and all Historians that I ever saw agree, ‘All that was done, says Heylyn, was no more than this, and on ths Occasion, a Question had been made by captious and unquiet Men, and amongst the rest, by Dr. Bonner, sometime Bishop of London, whether the Bishops of those Times were lawfully ordained or not; the Reason of the Doubt being this, be­cause the Book of Ordination which was annulled and abrogated in the first of Queen Mary, had not been yet restored and received by any legal Act of Queen Elizabeth's Time; which Cause being brought be­fore the Parliament in the Eighth Year of her Reigh, the Parliament took Notice first, that their not re­storing that Book to the former Power in Terms significant and express, was but Casus omissus; and the declare, that by the Statute fifth and sixth of Edward VI, it had been added to the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sa­craments as a Member of it, or at least as an Ap­pendant to it, and therefore by the Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2. was restored again, together with the said Book of Common Prayer intentionally at least, if not in Terms. But being the Words in the said Statute, were not clear enough to remove all Doubts, they therefore did revive now, and did accordingly enact, that whatsoever had been done by Virtue of that Ordination, should be good in Law. This is the Total [Page 30]of the St [...].’ ^† Bishop Burnet gives the same Ac­count. He says, ^* ‘The Book of Ordination was not specially mentioned in the Act; which gave Occa­sion to Bonner afterwards to question the Legality of Ordinations made by it. But it had been made a Part of the Common-Prayer-Book in the 5th Year of King Edward; and the whole Book, then set out, was now confirmed; so that by a special Act made some Years after this it was declared, that, that Office was understood to be a Part of it.’

Here you see, that the only Ground of the Scruple was because the Book by which these Bishops had been ordained, had not been revived in express Terms by Act of Parliament, after its having been condemned by a Papist Queen and Parliament. And allowing this to be so, how was the Succession at all hurt by it? The Scruple was not abo [...] [...] Validity of their Ordi­nation in the Sense of the Gospel, but about its Legal­ity: or whether it was agreeable to the Laws of En­gland. An Ordination may be valid, yea and canonical, and yet not strictly legal. An Ordination by one Bi­shop is valid, an Ordination by three is canonical, but an Ordination is not legal in England unless the Form by which it is performed be established by Act of Par­liament. Now all that the Parliament did in the Eighth of Elizabeth, was to declare that the Ordination of these Bishops was legal or good in Law, since the Book by which they had been ordained was revived and established by Parliament before they were ordain­ed by it. It is strange that Mr. Hobart who has for so many Years frequented the Courts, should be quilty of such an Inaccuracy as not to distinguish betwixt Vali­dity and Legality. But the Truth is, such Mistakes are absolutely necessary to maintain a bad Cause.

'Tis worth observing, that this Cavil instead of weakening, does very much confirm the Succession and expell all Doubts: For can we imagine that the Papists [Page 31]who were so extreamly inclined to cavil against the Protestant Bishops, as to make a Clamour for such a Trifle, would not have made a Parliament Business of it, if they had had any material Defect to object a­gainst them? Can we suppose, that if there had been any Pretence then of the Nag's Head Consecration, or that the Ordainers had not been true Bishops; they would not have made some Noise about it at that Time? Doubtless they would have made the Nation ring with it. But all that Bonner and other inveterate Enemies had to object, was this, that the Book of Or­dination which the Papist Parliament had condemned, had not yet been legally revived by the Protestant Par­liament, which if it had been true (as it was false) yet it would have amounted to no more than a legal De­fect, which would not at all have hurt their Character as Ministers of CHRIST, and Bishops of his Church. Neither CHRIST, nor his Apostles, nor any other of his Ministers for three hundred Years, had any legal Right to officiate in any Nation on Earth: And if there is any Truth in what Mr. Hobart says, that this bids fair to nullify Parker' s Ordination; it certainly bids much fairer to nullify all the authoritative Acts of CHRIST, and of all his Ministers for the first three hundred Years, for it is certain, none of them were legal, or according to the Law of any Nation in which they officiated. What miserable Shifts is this Writer driven to in order to prove that our Ordinations are disputa­ble, even such as prove our Blessed Saviour's Ordinati­on to be equally, nay, more disputable. Here I shall observe once for all, that the Bishops of England are to be considered in a twofold Capacity, either as to their spiritual Power, or as to their temporal Privileges and Honours. As to the Calling and Authority of Bishops in spiritual Matters it is derived from CHRIST and his Apostles by Ordination, and from no other, neither King nor Parliament can give or take it away: But besides this spiritual Authority, the Bishops of England have certain temporal Honours and Estates [Page 32]bestowed on them by the King's Bounty, together with Jurisdiction in Cases of Marriage, Wills and the like from continual Usage, which are ratified and confirmed to them by Magna Charta; like the Estates and Privi­leges of other Subjects of the Realm. Now these tem­poral Privileges depend upon the Legality of their Or­dination; so that if the Book by which they were or­dained, had been ever so agreeable to the holy Scrip­ture, yet if it had not been established by Act of Par­liament, they could not be esteemed Bishops in Law, i. e. they could not have held their temporal Privileges, no, nor legally have exercised their spiritual Powers in England; and yet at the same Time their Authority as CHRIST'S Embassadors would have remained neverthe­less certain and indisputable. Now the Act of Parlia­ment under Consideration was not intended to put their spiritual Character out of Dispute, but their temporal, that is, to declare that their Ordination was according to the Laws of the Land; so that they should meet with no Opposition in obtaining their temporal Dues, or in exercising their ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, which by Law belonged to them, just as an Act of Parliament confirms any other Subjects in the peaceable Enjoy­ment of their Estates and Fortunes; when through some unreasonable Pretences they have been liable to a Molestation in the Law.

Now I hope I have said enough to shew that Par­ker's Consecration stands as fair and as clear from all rational Exceptions in Point of Validity, as it is possible for any Ordination to be. By the Way, if any should enquire, why did not Queen Elizabeth's Protestant Par­liament restore those Protestant Bishops whom Queen Mary's Papist Parliament had deprived of their Bishop­ricks? Bishop Burnet gives us this Account of it, ^‡ ‘Some Bills were proposed but not passed: One was for restoring the Bishops deprived by Queen Mary, who were Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale; but the first [Page 33]of those had been made to resign, and the last being extreme old, resolved to follow Latimer's Example, and not to return to his See: So it was not thought worth the while to make an Act for Scory alone.’

Now the Question lying betwixt us is this, whether the civil Powers, Kings, Parliaments, or Emperors can take away from CHRIST'S Ambassadors, that Authority which he gave them in Ordination, and absolutely vacate his Commission? He pretends to hold, that they can, and have done it. And I am proving that they cannot do it. I own they have a Right to put to Death, ba­nish or deprive Bishops of the Liberty of executing their spiritual Powers in their Dominions: but they cannot vacate their Commission, or so deprive them, that they must cease to the CHRIST'S Ministers, and lose his Com­mission. Otherwise CHRIST'S Commission from his Father, and the Apostles Commission from CHRIST, might have been taken away from them by the civil Powers, under whom they lived. These their implaca­ble Enemies did all they could to deprive them, but they knew of no other Method than to imprison, banish and kill them. But it seems, if Mr. Hobart had lived at that Time he could have taught them a more easy and effec­tual Method, which was only to pass an Act of Depriva­tion, and then it would have been all over with these Preachers; and CHRIST'S Kingdom would have been at an End. And doubtless if the civil Powers can deprive us of CHRIST'S Authority given in Ordination, they can deprive us of our Christianity obtained in Baptism too. If they can unmake Men as Bishops, they can unmake us as Christians too. If they can disannul Ordination, they can also disannul Baptism. Mr. Hobart says, our Opi­nion tempts Men to turn Infidels: But what can tempt Men more to despise CHRIST'S Kingdom and Religion, than to observe that there is nothing sacred in it; but that all its Powers are given and taken away just as the State pleases? Nay, that the Enemies of CHRIST can when they please vacate his Commission and nullify all [Page 34]his Authority? Again, if the Parliament's Deprivation did unmake the deprived Bishops, then could they not be restored without a new Ordination: a second Conse­cration in that Case must be as absolutely necessary as the first was. But such a Thing was never heard of. So that I cannot think that a Man of Mr. Hobart's Sense can possibly think that there is any Solidity in what he has said to prove that the civil Powers did take away from CHRIST'S Ministers the Authority committed to them in Ordination; and yet if he did not believe it himself, I'm at a loss to account for his Honesty in taking so much Pains to perswade the ignorant that it was really so. And although the Act of Deprivation names Offices; yet that denotes no other Offices than what they had re­ceived from the State, not such as they had received from CHRIST. The Office committed to them in Ordination they cannot resign or part with, although they should be ever so desirous to part with it.

And though these Bishops had acknowledged that they had received their Spiritualities from the King, yet this means no more than that they were beholden to him for the Liberty of executing their spiritual Powers in his Dominions; or as it was exprest in some Patents, to perform all Parts of the Episcopal Function, that by the Word of GOD were committed to Bishops. Now these Offices and Liberties which the State had given, they justly took away from their Enemies. And whereas he supposes, that I expose myself to the Resentment of my Superiors by this Plea; it is so far from the Truth, that it is the Plea that all the Friends of the Revolution and present Establishment have ever made: And on the other Hand, his Pretence that the Act of Deprivation was designed to unmake the Non-juring Bishops, and va­cate their Commission from CHRIST, is one of the worst Slanders that the most virulent Non-Jurors and Jacobites ever cast upon the Government. And had I said such Things as he has done, I confess I should have had some Apprehension of Danger. But as to Mr. Hobart he [Page 35]may write what he pleases without incurring any Danger at all in this World, that is the Privilege of the Lawless.

As to the Non-juring Bishops in King William's Reign, as our Succession is not through them, so they were not so absurd as to pretend that the Bishops who succeeded in their Sees had not Authority by Virtue of their Con­secration to confer valid Orders, they only said that no other Bishops had a Right to their Sees while they were alive, which whether true, or false, alters not our Case, nor hurts our Succession. For our Ordinations are not like those of the Independents, we are not ordained to this or that See, or Parish, or Flock; but Ministers of JESUS CHRIST without any particular Relation to one Place more than another.

And therefore supposing, with the Non Jurors, that Dr. Tillotson, had no Right before GOD to be Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, while Dr. Sancroft was alive, yet that can raise no Dispute about the Validity of his Epis­copal Consecration; for he was not ordained to that See more than to any other.

This Observation would be needless, if Mr. Hobart did not undertake to write confidently about such Things, as he has no proper Knowledge of. Now to sum up the Evidence on both Sides, and leave it to the Read­er's Judgment. Mr. Hobart pretends, it is likely that the Succession was broken when Dr. Parker was conse­crated. The Nag's Head Story he now tells us he al­ways looked upon as a Falshood, P. 74. But then Par­ker was ordained by four Bishops who had been deprived by Act of Parliament under Queen Mary, and not then restored, so that they were under a legal Incapacity, P. 75. To which I reply,

1. All the Bishops who ordained Parker, were not under a Deprivation, and therefore supposing, that Depri­vation had reduced them to the Condition of mere Lay­men, yet if but one of the four was a true Bishop, that Ordination was valid.

[Page 36] 2. This Deprivation was no more than the civil Power's restraining their acting as Bishops in their own Dominions; and when this Restraint was by the civil Power taken off, that Deprivation then, and so far ceased. Now Queen Elizabeth's granting a Warrant to these deprived Bishops to consecrate Parker, so far took off the Deprivation, and purged even the legal Defect.

3. Nay, supposing they had had no Warrant from the civil Power to ordain, yet their ordaining Parker ac­cording to the Gospel, would have been very good and valid; though ever so much against the Will of the Government. For such were all the Ordinations trans­acted in the Church for three hundred Years after CHRIST, all being illegal, or against Law.

4. If Deprivation unmakes Bishops, then they could never after do any Episcopal Act without a second Or­dination, a Restoration by Act of Parliament will not make a Bishop of him who was not a Bishop before that Act. Indeed I could not have believed, had I not seen it, that the Power of Prejudice should be so great, as to make a wise Man continue such a Noise about a civil Deprivation by a Papist Parliament, and call it un­making Bishops, and I know not what. Suppose, that Queen Mary and her Parliament had banished these Protestant Bishops out of the Nation, and they had gone and settled in some other Parts of the Earth, can any Man suspect that this Deprivation would have followed them to the Ends of the Earth, and have rendered them uncapable of acting as CHRIST'S Ministers? And yet this Banishment is Deprivation, and a great deal more.

From this Mr. Hobart makes a start back to the A­postles Time; and says, P. 76. Having thus taken a view of two or three Links at this End of the Chain, and seen how flawy and defective they look; let us now examine a few Links at the other End.—And here produces two Evidences to make it doubtful who were the first Bishops in Rome: And adds his own Remark, P, 84. thus, [Page 37] I know of no other Scheme on which the Difficulties that occur in the Succession of these Persons can be solved.

If he knows of none, I can acquaint him with one, which Mr. Bingham has given us, ^† ‘It is true, says he, there is a little Difference in the Account which these Authors give of the Succession: for some reckon Linus first, then Anacletus, then Clemens; others begin with Clemens, and reckon him the first in Order from St. Peter, but this is easily reconciled by learned Men; who make it appear that Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived; and that Clemens was ordained their Successor by St. Peter also. So that we have two or three Persons, by this Account, ordained suc­cessively Bishops of Rome by the Hands of the Apostles.’

But to prevent impertinent wrangling, I must observe again, that when we speak of the Necessity of a Suc­cession, we mean no more than what he says every Body allows. I suppose, says he, P. 82. every one will grant, that it was the Practice from the Times of the Apostles, for Ministers to ordain Ministers. And they who do other­wise, he says, are guilty of Sin and Disorder, and CHRIST will not own but condemn them.

This is all we contend for, which yet he says, in us is the Height of Madness, P. 78. And yet our high and raving Madness is no worse than this, we believe that the Apostles ordained Successors, and they others to suc­ceed them; and the same has been the Practice in every Age. So the Holy Scripture and the History of all Places and Ages inform us; It is no Matter whether these Ministers were Bishops, or Presbyters, or both; if they were Ministers of Ordination it will satisfy the Height of our Madness. And it is no Matter whether we know for certain, who were ordained by the Apostles, so long as we know they did ordain others, and this Custom has always continued, as Mr. Hobart affirms. [Page 38]And thus we are agreed that there is a Succession and good Evidence of it, after all that he has said, to prove it the Height of Madness. What although Historians differ about, who were first ordained by the Apostles at Rome, since all are agreed that they did ordain Successors, and they others, and this has been the constant Practice in all Ages? He concludes his Discourse against the Suc­cession with this Remark, P. 82. There is, says he, a vastly greater Probability that the Presbyterian Succession has been preserved entire and uninterrupted, than that the Episcopal Succession has been so. Several Things have oc­curred to my Thoughts while writing on this Subject, which fully convince me of this.

This I confess is a new Discovery; Dissenters highest Ambition formerly was satisfied with a Power equal to any Bishop in England; but Mr. Hobart has quite outdone all that ever went before him; by his hard Study and long Writing on this Subject, he has found out that the Dissenters Power and Succession, though it is only from the Bishops, is vastly clearer and more indisputable than theirs.

But let us try this rare Paradox by the Test of com­mon Sense, and see if it be solid. Does not he pretend that the Bishops of New-England had all their Power from the Bishops of the Church of England? How then came they by a vastly better Claim than those they sprang from? Why, he tells us, that their Succession as Pres­byters is clear, but not their Succession as Bishops. Well, but don't he affirm, that Bishop and Presbyter is one and the same? How then can one have a clearer Succession than the other? Besides, did the Bishops ordain those Men who afterwards left the Church and turned Dissen­ters, in their Capacity, as they were Presbyters, and at the same Time ordain those who continued in the Church in their Capacity as they were Bishops? No certainly. If they ordained us as Bishops, then as they were Bishops, they ordained you too: If they ordained you, as they were Presbyters, then as Presbyters they ordained us like­wise. [Page 39]There could be no Difference; so that his rare Discovery, the Fruit of much Study, turns out to be but a childish Jingle; and is more easily confuted than ex­plained. However, we may observe, that he allows, that the Succession in the Church of England as to our Presby­ters or Priests, is clear and indisputable. And he says, P. 85, that what he has said, establishes that (Succession) in the Line of Presbyters. So that we who are Presbyters in the Church, are in the Line of Succession from the Apostles, our Enemies being Judges.

III. We come now to the last Enquiry, which is, Whether the Ministers of the Presbyterian or Indepen­dent Persuasion in New England have Authority from CHRIST by Succession? And because I would not have the Reader's Mind diverted from the main Question, I shall take no Notice of what he has said about the Prin­ciples and Practices of the first Settlers of this Country, not because I think his Account just, but because it does not concern the Controversy. And to treat him with the utmost Fairness, I shall grant him what he pleads for, that all the Lay Ordinations in the Country shall not prejudice his Cause in the least Degree, and that the first Ministers in this Country were ordained by the Bishops of England. The only Question now is, whether by Virtue of the Episcopal Ordination, they were invested with a Power to ordain others? Upon this single Point the whole Controversy turns. For he grants, the Necessity of a Succession, as I have already shewed, and that this Succession is in the Church of England, and claims a Power from CHRIST by Virtue of their Episcopal Ordination in this Church. Here there­fore, let the Reader, who would make a true Judgment, carefully weigh the Reasons on both Sides. In my first Vindication, as I considered all the Arguments on this Head, that I had ever heard or read, so first I took No­tice of Mr. Neals's, and exprest myself thus, ‘You sa­tisfy yourselves with the Argument Mr. Neal has ad­vanced, [Page 40]who says, the Form of ordaining a Priest and a Bishop is the same. But I am sorry that I am obliged to tell you, there is no Truth in it. For they are two Forms, and as different as the Forms of or­daining a Priest and a Deacon.’ Now hear Mr. Ho­bart's Reply to this, P. 103. He says, ‘I can't leave this Subject, without taking Notice of the Injustice done to Mr. Neal, whom Mr. Beach charges with Fals­hood. He tells us, that Mr. Neal has said, the Form of ordaining a Priest and a Bishop is the same; and he assures us there is no Truth in it. The Case is this, Mr. Neal in the Place Mr. Beach refers to, is speak­ing of the Book of Ordination composed in the Reign of Edward VI, and he says of it; The Form of ordain­ing a Priest and a Bishop is the same, there being no express mention in the Words of Ordination, whether it be for the one or the other Office: This has been altered of late Years, since a Distinction of the two Orders has been so generally admitted, but that was not the received Doctrine of these Times.’ Now, says Mr. Hobart, ‘Mr Beach I suppose, will not deny that the Case was truly thus, with Regard to King Ed­ward's Book; and I cannot imagine with what Con­science he could charge Mr. Neal with Falshood, be­cause in the present Book of Ordination, the Form for ordaining a Bishop is different from that for or­daining a Priest, which Mr. Neal does not deny. Can you now believe, that Mr. Beach, wrote under a Sense that his next Answer might be to his eternal Judge.’

Mr. Hobart has so often reviled me for this serious Expression, and represented me, (as he owns) as being guilty of little less than Perjury, that if I should vin­dicate my Innocence in every Instance, I must write a Book as large as his, and yet neglect material Points. I desire herefore the candid Reader, by this one Instance of my supposed Falshood, to judge of all the rest. Mr. Hobart's Friend in Boston, (I suppose) has thought this so material a Point, as to make a distinct Head of it, [Page 41]and put it in the Index thus, Mr. Neal vindicated against the Charge of Falshood. Let us see then, where the Falshood will fall. And here I need make no Defence but what Bishop Maddox has made for me in his An­swer to Mr. Neal, P. 57. He having shewn that the three Orders had obtained from the begining, and uni­versally in the Christian Church, then says; ‘Notwith­standing all this, Mr. Neal is extreamly fond of a Parity among the Clergy, and has taken too much Pains in that Cause. It was an Excess of Zeal to press the pious Reformers and King Edward's Ordinal into this Service.’

And here, (says Mr. Neal,) "it is observable that the Form of ordaining a Priest, and a Bishop IS THE SAME. Again says he, our Reformers admitted but two Orders of Church Officers to be Divine Appoint­ment, viz. Bishops and Deacons, Presbyter and Bishop according to them, being but two Names for the same OFFICE. By this Account, says the Bishop, 'tis plain, Mr. Neal would have it believed, that Bishop and Priest were, in the Opinion of the first Reformers, sy­nonimous Terms, signifying not only the same Order, but the same Office. His material Proof is the pub­lick Ordinal; and to be sure, if any where, the Re­formers spake distinctly, when they are designedly treat­ing upon this Subject, and appointing the very Forms of Ordination and Consecration. Here then we join Issue, and both appeal to the same Ordinal, as a decisive Proof.

Mr. Neal's Assertion is in these Words, The first Reformers believed BUT TWO Orders of Church Men in Holy Scripture, viz. Bishops and Deacons. These very same first Reformers, in the very same Ordinal, he refers to, make the following express Declaration. ^† It is evident unto all Men, diligently readynge Holy Scripture and auncient Autours, that from the Apostles [Page 42]Tyme there have been THESE ORDERS of Ministers in CHRISTE' s Churche, BISHOPPES, PRIESTES and Deacons.

Without stopping for one Reflection, let us go on to his next Assertion, which runs thus;

The Form of ordaining a Priest and a Bishop is the same?

Here we have Recourse to the same Ordinal, and find therein two Forms, one for the Priest, and the other for the Bishop, as distinct from each other as the Forms of a Deacon and a Priest. The Title of the one Form is, The Form of ordaining of Priests; the Title of the other is, The Form of Consecration of an Arch-Bishop or Bishop. Perhaps Mr. Neal means, that the very Form of Ordination and Conse­cration, those individual Words, by which they are or­dained and consecrated, are the same. But neither is this the Case. The Form for the Priest is as fol­lows. When this Prayer is done, the Bishop with the Priests present, shall lay their Hands severally upon the Head of every one that receiveth Orders, the Receivers humbly kneeling upon their Knees, and the Bishop saying, Receive the Holy Ghost: 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 Sacra­ments: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. — The Bishop shall deliver to every one of them, the Bible in his Hand, saying, Take thou Authority to preach the Word of GOD, and to Minister the Holy Sacraments in the Congre­gation where thou shalt be so appointed.

The Form of consecrating and Arch Bishop, or Bi­shop is this. Then the Arch-Bishop and Bishops present, shall lay their Hands upon the Head of the Elect Bishop, the Arch-Bishop, saying, Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace of GOD which is in thee, by Imposition of Hands; for GOD hath not given the Spirit of Fear, but of Power and Love, [Page 43]and Soberness. Then the Arch-Bishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying, Give Heed unto Reading, Exhor­tation and Doctrine; Think upon these Things con­tained in this Book: Be diligent in them, that the Increase coming thereby, may be manifest unto all Men. Take Heed unto thyself, and unto Teaching, and be diligent in doing them; for by doing this, thou shalt save thyself, and those that hear thee. Be to the Flock of CHRIST a Shepherd, not a Wolf: Feed them, devour them not: Hold up the weak, heal the sick, bring together the broken, bring again the out-cast, seek the lost; be so merciful, that ye' be not too remiss so Minister Discipline, that you for­get not Mercy; that when the chief Shepherd shall come, you may receive the immarcescible Crown of Glory, through JESUS CHRIST our Lord. Amen.

These are the Forms of ordaining a Bishop and a Priest, which are called the SAME. The Weight of thus misrepresenting a publick Ordinal, falls wholly upon Mr. Neal." "The old Puritans complained, that the Priest receiveth in his Ordination no Authority to govern the Flock, but only to preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments.

Nothing, sure, but the Impossibility of supporting his Scheme, and proving the Parity of Presbyters and Bishops, any other Way, could have put Mr. Neal upon this Method of attempting it. He had indeed undertaken a difficult Task, and must therefore have great Allowances in the Execution of it. The Sense and Practice of the whole Christian Church for fifteen hundred Years, in a Form of Church Government, so early, so universally, so constantly received, were great Obstacles. No Instances of Presbyters executing the distinguishing Offices of a Bishop. No Example of a Man's being a Bishop one Day, and reduced to a mere Presbyter the next, as must have been the Case, had a Bishop, as is sometimes alledged, been no more than a Chair Man, a Moderator, or temporary [Page 44] President of a Presbytery. No Instances of many Bishops in Places where there were many Priests; on the contrary, we always find one particular Person mentioned as the Bishop, and sole Bishop of one par­ticular City; even where there were many Presbyters. This being the Case, and the promiscuous Use of Names, not sufficient to overcome so many Arguments, or shew the Identity of Order and Office between a Bishop and a Priest, any more than an Apostle's calling himself a Deacon ^† will prove the Apostolate and Deaconship to be one Order; other Methods were to be try'd, and the very Form of consecrating a Bishop who had before been ordained a Priest, be employed to prove there was in the Opinion of the Compilers of that Form, no such Order as Bishops in the Church, all meer Presbyters, and nothing more; not only the Order but the very Office the same! Since Mr. Neal [and Mr. Hobart after him] has thought fit to intro­duce the Reformers as Patrons of this Notion, of Bishops and Priests being the same, it may not be im­proper to lay before the Reader Bishop Burnet's Ac­count of the Authors of that Opinion. ^* In the an­cient Church they knew none of these Subtilties which were found out in the latter Ages. 'Twas then thought enough that a Bishop was to be dedicated to his Function by a new Imposition of Hands, and that several Offices could not be performed without Bi­shops; such as Ordination, Confirmation, &c. But they did not refine in these Matters, so much as to enquire whether Bishops and Priests differed in Order and Office, or only in degree. But after the School­men fell to examine Matters of Divinity with logical and unintelligible Niceties, and the Canonists began to comment upon the Rules of the ancient Church, they studied to make Bishops and Priests seem very near one another; so that the Difference was but small. They [Page 45]did it with different Designs. The Schoolmen having set up the grand Mystery of Transubstantiation, were to exalt the Priestly Office as much as was possible; for the turning the Host into GOD, was so great an Action, that they reckoned that there could be no Office higher than that which qualified a Man to so mighty a Performance: Therefore as they changed the Form of Ordination from what it was anciently believed to consist in, to a delivering the sacred Vessels, and held that a Priest had his Orders by that Rite, and not by the Imposition of Hands; so they raised their Order or Office so high as to make it equal with the Order of a Bishop; but as they designed to extol the Order of Priesthood, so the Canonists had as great a Mind to depress the Episcopal Order. They generally wrote for Preferment; and the Way to it was to exalt the Papacy. Nothing could do that so effectually, as to bring down the Power of Bishops. This only could justify the Exemptions of the Monks and Fryars, &c. All which were unlawful, if the Bi­shops had by Divine Right, Jurisdiction in their Dioceses; therefore it was necessary to lay them as low as could be, and to make them think, that the Power they held, was rather as Delegates of tha A­postolick See, than by a Commission from CHRIST or his Apostles; so that they looked on the declaring Episcopal Authority to be of Divine Right as a Blow that would be fatal to the Court of Rome; and there­fore they did after this at Trent use all possible Endea­vours to hinder any such Decision: It having been then the common Stile of that Age to reckon Bishops and Priests as the same Office, it is no Wonder if at this Time the Clergy of this Church, the greatest Part of them being still leaven'd with the old Superstition, and the rest of them not having Time enough to exa­mine lesser Matters, retained still the former Phrases in this particular. On this I have insisted the more, that it may appear how little they have considered Things [Page 46]who are so far carried with their Zeal against the esta­blished Government of this Church, as to make much Use of some Passages of the Schoolmen and Canonists that deny them to be distinct Offices; For these are the very Dregs of Popery; the one raising the Priest higher for the sake of Transubstantiation; the other pulling down the Bishops lower for the sake of the Pope's Supremacy; and by such Means bringing them almost to an Equality. So partial are some Men to their particular Conceits that they make Use of the most mischievous Topicks, when they can serve their Turn, not considering how much further these Argu­ments will run, if they ever admit them. Mr. Neal imputes these Sentiments of some in the Reign of King Henry VIII. to the Reformers under King Ed­ward VI, though in the Preface to their Ordinal they expresly declare the contrary."

And now I leave it with the Reader, who are guilty of the Falshood, we who say that one and one make two, or Mr. Neal, Mr. Hobart, and his Friend in Boston, who affirm that two distinct Offices are one and the same? It is a stubborn Matter of Fact, which will not bend to Men's Humours. Every one may see that as these Forms are two now, so they were in King Edward's Time. Seeing then after a Man is ordained Priest, he must be ordained anew, and by a distinct Form, in order to receive the Power of Ordination, it is certain that those mere Priests who came into New England and set up the Business of ordaining here, acted without any Authority received by their Ordination: Consequently the present Ministry which sprang from them, have no Authority by Suc­cession.

Let us now consider Mr. Hobart's other Argument, which is taken from there being but one Commission in the holy Scripture. He says, P. 99. If there be but one Order, and Presbyters have Authority from CHRIST, (as I allow,) which they cannot have, unless CHRIST'S (Com­mission belongs to them, and if it belongs to them at all, [Page 47]they must have all the Authority contained in it. That GOD has joined, Men cannot separate. P. 100. This Ar­gument contains the Strength of their whole Cause, and is to them like Samson's Locks, I shall therefore carefully re-examine it, although I had answered it before.

1. It is not true, that if a Man has Part of the Gospel Ministry he must have all. A Deacon in the Church has a Part of the Gospel-Ministry, but not the whole, the Expressions in ordaining a Deacon, are sufficiently descrip­tive of the Gospel Ministry, yet the whole Power that CHRIST has annext to the Gospel Ministry no more be­longs to a Deacon, than to a Lay-man. A Deacon is expresly empowered to preach, to baptize, and to assist in the Administration of the Lord's Supper. Now if Mr. Hobart's Argument be good, a Deacon has the whole Apostolick Commission, and as much Authority to or­dain as any Bishop in England.

To this he makes no Reply.

Again, the twelve Apostles before CHRIST'S Resur­rection, had a Part, but not the whole of the Ministry: They had Power to preach, baptize and administer the Lord's Supper, yet CHRIST kept the Power of Ordina­tion in his own Hands, and never committed it to them till just before his final Ascention; when he said, as my Father sent me, so send I you. Judas had received Part of the Ministry, but never the whole of it. Acts i. 17. For he was numbred with us, and had obtained part of this Ministry. It will not do, to say this was not the Gos­pel Ministry, for here St. Peter says expresly, it was PART of that very Ministry which they had after CHRIST'S Ascention; yet Judas never had the Power of Ordination. I grant, Men cannot lawfully separate what GOD has joined. But then GOD never has so joined the whole of the Gospel Ministry, as that a Man can't have a Part withouth the whole. Where, when, did GOD say, "He that has a Part shall have all." Prov, xxx. 6. Add thou not unto his Words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar. A Man may be impower'd to preach, [Page 48]or to baptize, and yet have no more of the Apostolick Commission as the Deacons had: We read Acts x. 48. When by St. Peter's Preaching, a great Number were converted, he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the LORD. Now it is most probable, that the Persons whom he commanded to baptize these new Converts, were the Lay-Brethren who had accompanied him from Joppa. v. 23. By this Command they were authorized to baptize these Persons, and yet they had no Authority to preach, much less to ordain, nay, after this Service was over, they were as absolute Lay-men as any at all. So when three thousand were converted and baptized in one Day, it is most likely that more Hands were employed in it, than the Apostles, St. Paul baptized but few of those whom he converted. He was not sent to baptize, but to preach. So that it is most probable that his Con­verts were chiefly baptized by Persons impower'd by his Command to do it.

But whether this was really the Case, or not, it can't be denied but that they might take this Method; and then it is certain they could give Part, without giving the whole of their Authority. Nay Dissenters do certainly undertake to give a Part of the Ministry without giving the whole of it. It is a universal Custom among them to examine Candidates, and when they approve of them, they send them to preach the Gospel, in Testimony of which they give them a written Instrument signed by their Ministers. Now this Right, Liberty or Power to preach the Gospel is a Part of the Gospel Ministry or A­postolick Commission. And though in this Case they do not commonly use the Rite or Ceremony of Imposition of Hands, yet this does not hinder, but that they have as good Authority to preach, as if their Hands had been laid on them. And Mr. Hobart is clear in it, that Im­position of Hands is not necessary to convey the Mini­sterial Authority, but if they who appoint a Man to the Ministry, do but signify this their Appointment any other way it is sufficient. No body, (says he), I suppose, [Page 49]upon Ministerial Authority as such a physical Quality, as is communicable only by Contact, first Ad. P. 114. So that as often as the Presbyterian Ministers approve and send a Man only to preach, they do really undertake to give a Part of the Ministry without the whole. And by a Certificate signed by their Hands, they impower him, as effectually as if their Hands had been laid on his Head. Suppose then, that a Number of these licen­sed Preachers should take upon them to ordain others, would you not call them Sons of Korah and Usurpers? Yet they could defend themselves with the same Ar­gument that New-England Ministers use. They could say, ‘we were appointed to preach the Gospel, which is a Part of the Apostolick Commission or Gospel-Ministry, and we can't have Part without having the whole. There is but one Commission, and it can't be divided, he that has any Part of it, must have all. If there is but one Order, we are of that Order, and so must be equal to those who appointed us to preach.’

Will you now tell these Preachers, that they want Imposition of Hands? they can tell you as Mr. Hobart does, ‘that is only a Point of Order, but is not essen­tial to the ministerial Character, and all allow physi­cal Contact is not necessary.’ Will you tell these mere Preachers, that they who appointed them to Preach, never intended to give them Power to ordain? The same we say to you with Regard to those Priests who first set up Presbyterian Ordination in this Country, the Bishops who ordained them, never intended to qualify them to ordain others, and they themselves vowed they would never do any such Thing; which rendered them less qualified to ordain than absolute Lay-Men. Let us now proceed one step further, suppose your Mini­sters after having examined and approved of a Candi­date to go and preach the Gospel, should not only pray for a Blessing upon this his Undertaking, as I hope they do, but should also use the Rite of Imposition of Hands. I ask now, whether this does not make him [Page 50]a Minister of the Gospel, as far as Preaching goes? Certainly it does. Again, I desire to know why you may not, in sending forth a Man to Preach, use the Rite of laying on of Hands, as well as that of signing a Certificate to the same Purpose? The only Difference is, the one is scriptural, and the other is not. If then such a Thing can be done, then the Gospel Ministry may be divided, and a Man may have a Part, and not the whole. And if it can be done as the Dissenters constant Practice shews that they think it can; then it is really done in the Church of England, and Priests have a Part of the Gospel Ministry, and not the Power of Ordination. And that set of Priests who came into New-England, and ordained the Presbyterian and Inde­pendent Bishops, had no better Warrant for this, than the probationary Preachers among the Dissenters have to ordain others to the whole Gospel Ministry.

In the New-England Churches there are as really three distinct Orders; as in the Church of England, in some Churches there are Deacons ordained to assist in the administring the holy Sacrament, to pray in the Congregation, especially in the Minister's Absence, &c. There is a second Order sent forth merely to preach and pray, these of the second Order are as fully au­thorized to that Part of the Gospel Ministry, as they can be by those who send them: for physical Contact is not essential, says Mr. Hobart. The highest Order is their Bishops who claim the sole Power of Ordination, and so exclude both the Inferior Orders from any share in this Office. So that for my Part, I have no diffi­culty to join with them upon the Score of three Orders, all I fear is that none of their Orders have any Mission from CHRIST.

Appointing a Man to preach the Gospel is really or­daining him, whether it be done by a written Instru­ment, as the Dissenters do, or by Imposition of Hands, as our Bishops do, it alters not the Case. If a Bishop should upon examining a Man, approve of him to go and preach the Gospel, and give him a Testimonial of [Page 51]this his appointing him to that Work, signed by his own Hand, as the Dissenters do, this Man would no longer be a mere Lay-man, but as really a Minister of GOD's Word, as the Bishop himself, and yet be no Minister of the Sacraments, nor of Ordination. In a Word, the Argument can not be evaded, turn it over and over, view it on which side you please, it proves that the Gospel-Ministry can be, and is divided, Men can, and do receive a Part without the whole. And therefore the great Argument to defend the Lawfulness of the New-England Ministry is certainly a Mistake. Stubborn Matters of Fact, confute it.

2. Another Mistake in his Argument is, that every Minister to the End of the World must have that very individual Commission which CHRIST gave to the A­postles, Matth. xxviii. 20. Whereas really what he calls the Commission is nothing more than the Account or History of their last Ordination: And is the Com­mission of no Man now living. Every Minister's Commission is given at his Ordination, and the Words and significant Signs then used, shew what his Com­mission is. And yet,

3. It does not follow, as he imagines, that we are no Ministers of CHRIST; because our Commission is not to be found in the Bible. For that Man who is or­dained or sent to perform any Part of the Gospel Mi­nistry by such as have CHRIST'S Authority to send him, is so far CHRIST'S Minister, and has his Authority.

4. The Office of a Priest in the Church of England, according to Mr. Hobart is no Office of CHRIST'S Ap­pointment: As it is described in the Book of Ordina­tion, it is inferior to that of a Bishop. And Mr. Hobart says, P. 52. that the Priests are but the Bishops Substitutes or Curates instead of being CHRIST'S Ministers. And therefore his supposing that CHRIST has in the holy Scripture annext the Power of Ordination to this Office, is certainly vain and groundless, and therefore those Priests who came into this Country, and ordain­ed the New-England Ministers clearly and certainly, had [Page 52]no Authority to do it by Vertue of their Episcopal Or­dination; but the Leathern Mitten Ordinations were quite as Regular, and much more honest.

Nay, Mr. Hobart insists upon it, that they by Vertue of their Episcopal Ordination had not Authority so much as to Preach, how much less to ordain Bishops? It is certain, if neither CHRIST nor his Apostles insti­tuted more than one Order of Gospel-Ministers, then the Order of Priests is only of Ecclesiastical Institution; and CHRIST has not annext the Power of Ordination to this merely human Appointment. So that according to Mr. Hobart's Principles, it is demonstrable that the New-England Bishops have no Authority from CHRIST by Succession.

What he says about a Constable's being ignorant of the extent of his Power, when first put into his Office, is nothing to the Purpose: because the Law discovers that. But the Gospel as it makes no Mention of the Institution of this Order of Priests, so it is perfectly silent about any Power of Ordination annext to it.

The Case of an Antipedobaptists covenanting not to baptize Infants, is not a Parallel, because he is suppo­sed to have Power to baptize, and he who can baptize, may lawfully baptize any who are the proper Subjects of Baptism. But the Priest in the Church of England, receives not Power to ordain any at all; as I before demonstrated, and the old Puritans complained. Mr. Hobart tells us how compassionately concern'd he is for some good People, who ask him what they shall do, when we who should be Guides differ so widely? Now I would advise such serious Persons to put on the same Temper of Mind, as if they were under Oath to serve on the Jury to decide a Controversy about an Estate. The Case you are to try, is this, whether those Priests of the Church of England, who came into this Country, and set up the New-England Succession, had Authority to ordain? Mr. Hobart says they had: We think they had not. We plead, that if a Man re­ceiving Priest's Orders, can be supposed to receive Au­thority [Page 53]to ordain Bishops, he must be supposed to re­ceive this Authority, not only without any Word, or Sign which does express it, not only without any such In­tention in the Church, or in the Bishop ordaining, or lastly in himself, but even against the Will and Intention of the Church, against the Will and Intention of the Ordainer, nay against his own Resolution, decla­red in a solemn Vow at the Time of his Ordination. And you know no Title to Land or Estate is ever so convey'd. This Mr. Hobart does not deny; but acknowledges it looks like Demonstration, and he himself says a great deal more to prove that it is utterly impossible that they should have received Power to ordain by Virtue of their Episcopal Ordination: for says he, that Ordination don't give them so much as Power to preach, and they were only the Bishops Substitutes and Curates, and if so, it is im­possible that they should be Bishops themselves, and have Power to ordain.

But now he pleads, that though these Priests were so ignorant of the Extent of that Office at the Time of their being ordained to it, that they tied their own Hands by Vows not to act as Bishops, yet seeing CHRIST in the Gospel has annext the Power of Ordination to it, they had therefore good right to use those Powers which at first they did not understand to belong to their Office.

And though at first they did not know that they had the Power of Ordination, yet if CHRIST has annext the Power of Ordination to their Office, they had good Right to use it, their former Ignorance and Vows notwithstand­ing. Upon this Plea his whole Cause depends.

To which I answer, the Office or Commission, into which these Priests had been introduced is not recorded in the Scripture. ^† Therefore no Powers are there annext [Page 54]to it. It is true, that he who would know the Extent of any civil Officer's Power must not judge of it by the Mistakes of the Officer at the Time of his being put into that Office, but by what Power the Law has annext to his Office. So he who would know whether the Power of Ordination belongs to that Office, called the Office of a Priest, he must judge of it by the Commission itself, but this Commission is no where to be found in the Scripture. The Presbyterians all say, no such Office is to be found in the New Testament, and we grant that our Commission is not there, and therefore certainly no Power of Ordination is annext to it in Scripture. But he who would know what Powers we have, must consult the Book of Ordination, where our Commission is to be seen, and there he will find no Power of Ordination is annext to our Office: but the contrary fully declared.

If now Mr. Hobart should say, (for I know not what else he can say,) if the Case be so, that our Commission is not to be found in the Gospel, then we are not CHRIST'S Ministers. I answer, this does not follow, for as I said before he who is ordained to any Part of the Gospel Ministry by such as have Power from CHRIST, is CHRIST'S Minister. It is a groundless Imagination, that none are CHRIST'S Ministers, unless their Commission is recorded in the Gospel. They who have Authority to act in [Page 55]CHRIST'S Name, are as really his Ambassadors, as if their Ordination had been recorded in the Gospel.

Let me suppose, that we who have had Episcopal Or­dination, should be convinced by Mr. Hobart's Rea­soning, that our Subordination and Subjection to our Bishops, is that servile calling Men Master, which our LORD has forbidden, and should take it into our Heads to ordain others, and declare such to be as good Bishops and have as much Authority as any in England, and at the same Time should not fall in with Mr. Hobart's Party, but join with the New-Lights (whom he sneer­ingly calls our Brethren) I would fain know, whether it is not very likely, that he would condemn us as guilty of the greatest Wickedness, calls us all Sons of Korah, and perjured Usurpers? Be sure every indiffer­ent Judge, must condemn it with abhorrence. And I'm sure I should enter upon such a Course with as much Horror in my Conscience as I should engage in a Course of Adultery. Yet this was exactly the Case of the first Sett of Ministers who began the New-England Succession, they had exactly the same Ordina­tion as we; without one Word's Variation, they had made the same Vows of Subjection to their Superiors, they never had received a Power to ordain either ex­plicitly or implicitly by Words or Signs; yet they pre­sumed to ordain Bishops, and give an Authority which they themselves had never received. Such a shocking Presumption this was, that all Church History for fifteen hundred Years don't afford any Instance like it. In saying this, I would not insinuate, that these Priests though guilty of Usurpation, were all wicked Men and lost; I will not say of them as Mr. Hobart does of the New-Light Ministers, that CHRIST will condemn them. I esteem the Memory of some of them for their reli­gious Zeal. But at the same Time I detest that Usur­pation, and believe that in me it would be the Sin of Korah, and we should not imitate even good Men in any bad Action.

Mr. Hobart very much misrepresents the Case, when [Page 56]he so often pretends that we join with the Church of England merely to get rid of disputed Ordination, but don't mend the Matter by coming into the Church. No, no, this is not the Case, we chuse Ordination by the Bishops, because no Reason can be offered, why we should doubt of its Validity. And we dare not ven­ture upon your Ordination, because we think we can demonstrate that it is the Fruit of Usurpation. We don't say to you, as you do to us, who knows but that some Time or other, there has been some secret Flaws in your Line of Succession, which are now known only to GOD? No, but we point out to you the Time, and shew you how you set up without any Mission from CHRIST, either mediate or immediate. We freely ac­knowledge from that Time, your Succession is uninter­rupted, though you have no Registers to shew; and some Lay-Ordinations have not spoiled your Suc­cession, but it is just as good now as when you began. And in chusing Episcopal Ordination we venture no­thing; for if your's be as good as can be, it cannot be better than the Bishops, from whom you say, you had it. If we are prejudiced and biast in this Affair, it must be a very strange Piece of Self-denial that blinds us; For it is natural to all Men, to love Power and Great­ness; and can any Man think, that we had not rather be as high in Power and Authority as any Bishop in England, as your Principle would make us, than to be only the Bishop's Curate and Substitute? Who had not rather think that he has Power to ordain, and act inde­pendently, than to be in Subordination, provided the Evidence were equal on both Sides? But the Evidence against our bing really Bishops, (as you would make us) is so clear and full, that we think nothing but the Pride of Korah, can hinder our seeing it. And if we are not Bishops, it is certain these Ministers are nothing, that is, they have no Authority by Succession, for we have the same Authority as they had, who first ordained the New-England Ministers. If they were real Bishops, so are we; if we have not the Power of Ordination, it is [Page 57]certain they had it not. And if they had it not, their Successors have none. In a Word, Mr. Hobart and Brethren can't prove themselves lawful Ministers, with­out proving us to be Bishops at the same Time. And who can think we should not be glad to see that Point well proved?

As I know that I am liable to Mistakes, so I endeavour always to keep my Ears open, and be disposed to re­ceive Truth from any Person, and I should not have been asham'd or unwilling to have changed my Opini­on once more, could I have seen Reason for it. Upon sevral Accounts I should have been very glad, to be convinced, that I may go safe to Heaven in the Dis­senting Way. I grant, that what he says, is true, that if we would all become Dissenters it would save a great deal of Money: Besides, it would save Candidates for the Ministry the Charge and Danger of a Voyage, in which several have lost their Lives already, it would preserve us from much Obloquy and Reproach cast upon us by Reason of our Conformity to the Church of England: were it not for which, we might have as much Respect and Honour as others: whereas now our Names are cast out as evil, and we have the Tryal of cruel Mockings, and are treated as the Off-scouring of all Things, and have almost all manner of Evil said of us falsly for Conscience Sake: so that a Man that values his Reputation, had need have in some Degree the Spirit of a Martyr, ar at least of Confessor, in order to become a Churchman.

But then on the other Hand, I am obliged to consider, that if I turn Dissenter, besides other Evils, I must as­sume the Office of a Bishop and ordain, which in me would be a taking GOD's Name in vain, and a lying in CHRIST'S Name, saying that he has sent me to ordain, when I know he has not. And I must countenance and own those who do so: While those Words sound aw­fully in my Ears, Numb. xvi. 40. That he be not as Ko­rah and his Company. If I had lived among the Suc­cessors of Jonathan, Micah's Priest, I'm sure it would [Page 58]have been my Duty to have separated from them, al­though they had as signal Blessings, and as long Posses­sion to shew for their Usurpation, as the New-England Ministers have. I often reflect on the Case of Saul, King of Israel, who for his transgressing the divine Or­der, pleaded his pious Intentions and the Necessity he was under, 1 Sam. xiii. 9. 12. Therefore said I, the Phi­listines will come down now upon me from Gilgal, and I have not made Supplication unto the LORD; I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. If ever the Plea of Necessity, and Zeal for Worshipping GOD, could excuse the transgressing GOD's Method and Order, certainly Saul must have been justified in what he had done. For he forced himself to it out of an earnest Desire to recommend himself to GOD's Protection in so eminent a Danger. He would have been glad with all his Soul to have complied punctually with GOD's Rule.

Now hear Samuel's Answer to this Plea of Necessity. ver. 13. And Samuel said unto Saul, thou hast done fool­ishly: thou hast not kept the Commandment of the LORD thy GOD, which he commanded thee, now thy Kingdom shall not continue. And again upon the like Occasion, he says to him, 1 Sam. xi. 22. Hath the LORD as great De­light in burnt Offerings and Sacrifices, as in obeying the Voice of the LORD? Behold to obey, is better than Sacrifice; and to hearken, than the Fat of Rams. For Rebellion is as the Sin of Witchcraft, and Stubbornness is as Iniquity and Idolatry. Now Sacrifices and burnt Offerings were then positive Institutions, as Ordination and the Sacraments are now, from hence I certainly conclude, it is safer to wait GOD's Time for them, than to receive them from uncommissionated Hands. And where GOD gives not an Opportunity to receive them according to his ap­pointed Order, he will not be displeased with us for not receiving them.

When I consider how heinous a Crime it is to coun­terfit a Man's Hand, and much more the Hand and Seal of a Prince, I am afraid to pretend that I have a [Page 59]Commission to send Ambassadors to act, sign, and seal in CHRIST'S Name, when I know I have none; or even to join with those who do so. Here is one Difficulty, which if Mr. Hobart, had helped me to overcome, I should have returned him many Thanks; and have been en­couraged to have proposed some more. But since he either will not, or can not help me to get rid of the Apprehension of this amazing Guilt which stares me full in the Face, when ever I think of joining with the Dissenters, I hope he will not be so unkind to my Soul, as to continue to urge me to that Course which will expose me to the Danger of eternal Damnation. For though I may be mistaken, and the Thing in it­self be harmless enough, yet so long as I believe it to be a Crime of a very heinous Nature, the doing it must expose me to the Lashes of a guilty Conscience, and the Anger of GOD. For he that doubteth is damned, and whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin. Whatever a Man believes to be a Sin, though in itself innocent, yet in him it is a wilful Sin if he doth it. I know without his Teaching, that there are some Things in the Church of England, that might be altered for the better, and I hope will be so, but seeing as it now is, it is the best I can join with. I therefore hope to live and die in it, and leave it to the Reader whether this is not the safest Course I can take? But if after all the seri­ous Reader should think thus, there is a great deal of Piety among the New-England Ministers, and therefore though their Call or Ordination is not regular, yet it may be safe to continue with them. I would ask one Question, suppose, that the good People who first set­tled this Country, instead of erecting a new Ministry, had only changed the Elements of the LORD'S Supper; and instead of Bread and Wine, had used Flesh and Cyder, if that had been the Case, might there not have been as much Piety among them as there is now? And yet would it not have been our Duty to have joined with a more regular Church? And if the altering of CHRIST'S Supper would have made Separation a Duty, why not the altering his Ministry?

[Page 60] I have now finish't the most valuable Part of the Controversy; what remains is little else, but a Collection of Calumnies, some of the most remarkable, I shall briefly examine. Mr. Hobart asserts, that there is no Discipline in the Church of England, unless a Shadow is a Substance, and in this Country we have less than none, if less can be; this I called unruly Talking. Upon which he makes a Remark in these Words, P. 104. Mr. Beach represents those who complain of Defects in the Discipline of the Church as her Adversaries, and would have you conceive of them as a Pack of unruly Talkers. And yet at the same Time, I never pretended that there were no Defects in the Discipline of the Church, nor ever knew any Churchman that did pretend it. All that I did, was to give you Bishop Beveridge's Account of it, that you might judge whether it were so vile as some Men pretend. I did not look upon myself at all concerned to justify or condemn the spiritual Courts, as we in this Country shall never be concerned with them, unless we chuse them. And yet to vindicate the Government at Home, and to wipe off a horrid Ca­lumny from the Laws of our Mother Country, I will venture to say again, it is unruly Talking to say, that by the Law a Clergyman is bound to admit to the Lord's Supper, Drunkards, Whoremongerers, Adulte­rers, Deists and Atheists, provided they have or may have a Commission; and if the Minister refuses, he must be fined five hundred Pounds Sterling. So that in this Case there is no Medium between Starving and Damming. This I call unruly Talking, and I hope I can make it ap­pear such to every candid Reader.

1. The Test Act here complain'd of, is the Law of the Nation, not the Church, and it requires that they who have Commissions should be Communicants in the Church. Now let it be Mr. Hildrop, or who it will, who says this Law leaves a Clergy-man no Medium be­tween Starving or Damning, he arraigns the Laws of the Nation, and charges the whole Legislature with the horrid Sin of Persecution in the highest Degree. For [Page 61]neither Heathen, nor Papal Rome in the hottest Persecu­tion, ever did worse than to leave Christians no Medium between Dying or Damning.

2. If any Clergy-man should ever suffer any Penalty, much more that of five hundred Pounds Sterling, for re­fusing to give the Sacrament to a notorious scandalous Person, how great a Man soever he might be, this Clergy-man's Suffering, cannot be owing to the Law, but to the Injustice of the Judge or Jury. For such a Minister, so repelling has the Law clearly on his Side. For the Rubrick is the Law, which runs thus, So many as intend to be Partakers of the holy Communion, shall sig­nify their Names to the Curate, at least some Time the Day before. And if any of those be an open and notorious evil Liver, or have done any wrong to his Neighbours by Word or Deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; the Curate having Knowledge thereof, shall call him, and advertise him, that in any wise he presume not to come to the LORD 'S Table, until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty Life; and he is not to suffer them to be Partakers of the LORD 'S Table, till this is done. Now this I say is the Law, and by it every Minister is obliged to repell all notori­ous evil Livers, and no to suffer them to come to the LORD'S Table. And there is no Law that difan­nuls it. And though it may happen once in an Age, that a Minister may be undone by doing his Duty ac­cording to Law; yet it is false, to say that the Law undoes him, it is the Wickedness of the Judge, or Jury, or the Malice of some great Man that starves and undoes him. And may not a Dissenting Minister happen to be undone so too?

As to our Discipline in this Country, which he says is none at all, I observed, our Clergy may be suspended by the Commissary, silenced by the Bishop, and finally imprisoned if need be. To this he makes no Reply.

And as to the Laity, we keep from the Communion all that we judge unworthy. But he says we have no [Page 62]Right to do this, but should be punished for our Pre­sumption, if we were not too far from England.

But I would observe, that as the Rubrick is the Law of the Church, and the Design of it is, that no scan­dalous Person should be suffered to partake of the LORD'S Supper, so when the Cause can't be laid before the Or­dinary, not only not within fourteen Days, but also not within fourteen Years, yet still it gives us Right, and obliges us to keep the Offender from the LORD'S Sup­per till he repent.

And to say that we must repell none from the Sacra­ment, because we can't give an Account of it to the Ordinary, within fourteen Days, is to defeat the End of the Law, and contradict the Design of it, it is such a perverse Interpretation, as would be admitted by no equal Judges.

And our Superiors at Home, are so far from resenting our Conduct in this Affair, as he pretends, that they would be highly and justly displeased with us, if we did not keep all notorious Offenders from the Communion.

He taxes me with Falshood and Profaneness, in speaking so slightily of their Discipline in the Case of Mr. Robbins of Branford, and some good People of Guilford, whom they laid under Censure; and as I was informed, excommunicated.

He says, Mr. Robbins was restored; which I never denied. What I said was this, that in Defiance of their Censure and silencing, he continued his Administrations as much as ever; and so in all likelihood would have done to this Day, if they had never took off the Cen­sure. Their Censure signified nothing.

As to the good People at Guilford, their Case (if I mistake not) was this, upon chusing a Minister, a con­siderable Part of the Congregation, declared their Dis­satisfaction in the Person chosen, and so refused to own him as their Minister. After some Time they were laid under Censure. But notwithstanding this Censure, which I suppose remains upon them to this Day, they became and continue as regular a Church as any in the [Page 63]Goverment. In mentioning this Case, I called them zealous Souls, which I did from a personal Acquaintance I had had with some of them, who appeared to me to be very honest, and as zealous as any Set of Men at all, and told me with Tears in their Eyes, that they would not have exposed themselves to so much Trou­ble and Difficulty, had it not been for Conscience sake. And I must confess that it appeared to me amazing, (though I was then a Dissenter) that so many serious, grave and religious People, for a small and common Error, should be all without Mercy given up to Satan. This Expression it seems has raised his Anger to a very high Pitch. He calls it B [...]squing the holy Scripture, and Infidel like, and I know not what. But I hope the bare stating the Case will justify me. To shew what mischievous Wretches the Ministers of the Church of England are in this Country, he frequently repeats that Calumny that we receive to our Communion, such scan­dalous Persons as they have laid under Censure, and would have it believed that this is our common Prac­tice. P. 112. Now if he had known any one Instance of this Nature, I'm persuaded that he who deals so much in Scandal would have published it. For my Part I know of no such Thing. And notwithstanding his swaggering so much of their Discipline that in the seve­ral Towns where I am concerned, and among many hundreds of People, I know of but one Person under their Censure, and given to Satan. And this Man has ever had a good Character, and for many Years has been a Messenger of one of their Churches, and a Mem­ber of their Ecclesiastical Councils, but he happened to fall into that abominable Sin of saying that his Minister preached false Doctrine. Now the false Doctrine was no worse than this, that the Sins of a Child of GOD, were better Evidences of his good Estate than external Duties, &c. And his disliking and condemning such Doctrine in his Minister, was all the Scandal that I could ever hear that he was charged with, and I have seen the Charge drawn up against him; and yet to [Page 64] Satan he was given. Now if this Man had desired Admission to our Communion, as he never did; yet to prevent Obloquy I should not have received him, until I had consulted with my Superiors, and taken their Directions. Whoever reads Mr. Hobart and finds the Practice of receiving those whom they Censure so often, and so awfully charged upon us, must needs con­clude, that they drive on a mighty Trade of censuring and excommunicating their People for Immoralities, and we as constantly receive to our Communion those whom they resigned to Satan. And yet every Body in these Parts knows that there is not one Word of Truth in it. What can be more unjust than such Slan­ders, unless it be what follows? P. 112. He says thus, That the Practice of Religion declines, and that Irreligion and Profaneness grow upon us in all Places where the Church prevails, you all know in your own Consciences that it is true; and Mr. Beach himself has not the Hardiness to deny it. If I have not Hardiness, I'm sure he has a very large Stock of it. I have known some Men who in a violent Passion, have Hardiness enough to say any Thing that is Spightful and Ill-natured, although there is no Truth in it. To be sure, what he says I had not the Hardiness to deny, I really did deny at the same Time. The Generality of waspish People after a short Fit of Anger, grow calm; but the longer Mr. Hobart writes, the more fierce and out-ragious he grows. He says, P. 112. All my Argument seems as if it were designed to prove that the worst Religion commonly does produce the best Men. To which I reply, when a Man is trans­ported with Passion, Arguments and Things seem quite different from what they really are. And if Mr. Hobart will put off Wrath and grow cool, my Argument will appear in a very different Light. And certainly he does not well to be so very angry, because he found himself unable to answer it. My Argument as he calls it, is this, we cannot know whether the peculiar Tenets of any Sect of Christians are true or false, merely by the good or bad Lives of the Professors of that Sect, E. G. [Page 65]You cannot certainly determine, whether the peculiar Tenets of the Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians or Church Men are true, by observing their Lives, be­cause they all agree in holding the omnipotent Mo­tives to a holy Life, contained in the Gospel. And be­cause some Men who have unhappily fallen into such Heresies as Arrianism and Socinianism have lived ex­cellent Lives, it is therefore very dangerous to make this our Rule to judge by. Now I don't find, that Mr. Hobart is able to confute this, but instead of that, falls to his wonted Practice of Railing, and says, I seem to design to prove that the worst Religion commonly makes the best Men. Whereas I was not speaking of different Religions, but only of different Opinions in the same excellent Religion. And though it may again provoke his Anger, I will venture to add, although he Boasts much of their Discipline, as though it were the main Pillar of Religion, yet the Quaker Discipline does vastly excell the Presbyterian in Strictness; and they censure ten at least, to the Presbyterians one; and yet I suppose he won't think that a good Reason to turn Quaker.

In saying these Things, I do not take it for granted, as he says, that the Practice of Religion decays, as the Church grows.

I am persuaded, that solid Christian Virtue, as well as Knowledge increases as the Church gains Ground in the Country; and Thousands of People are really bet­tered by it in their moral Character. If he knows none that are so, I think I do. I should be ashamed of this kind of Disputing, if he had not compelled me to it. In a Word, there is nothing in the Church of England, that can hinder us from being as eminent in true Piety, as we can possibly be in any Church on Earth. And therefore whether it be true, or false, that there are many loose People who pretend to be Churchmen, yet it is nothing to the Purpose: For other Men's neglect­ing or abusing the best Means of Piety, need be no Hindrance to my making a good Improvement of them.

[Page 66] I come now to examine what he has said of the Con­duct of the Venerable Society. Which he begins with an Introduction in these Words, P. 113. I suppose no­thing in my former Address is more resented by my Antago­nists, than what I said on this Head; and they have their Reasons for it; for it must be owned, that Interest is a very tender Point with most Men. — Their Interest and a very considerable one, evidently lay at Stake. — Now what such ill-natured and unmanly Flouts can prove, I do not un­derstand; unless it be the Author's Uncharitableness and Censoriousness, he must needs judge our Hearts by his own, otherwise he could not conclude that Interest is dearer to us than the Truth of CHRIST. Besides, this malicious Aspersion is perfectly groundless; for Mr. Caner whom he in particular charges with it, has no Interest at all at Stake, nor any Concern with the So­ciety, and Dr. Johnson and I could at any Time advance our Interest by leaving New-England; so that if we were ever so wicked Men, this Reproach is certainly groundless. And to slander the Devil, is unmanly. Jude 9. Michael the Archangel when contending with the Devil, durst not bring against him a railing Accusation, but these speak evil of those Things which they know not. However, in Gratitude towards that venerable and cha­ritable Corporation, I shall say a few obvious Things in answer to his virulent Aspersions. What he chiefly insists upon is, that the Society ought not to send Mis­sionaries to such Places where there are Protestant Mi­nisters of any Denomination, at least no till the Hea­then are all converted, and all such Places as have no sort of Protestant Ministers are supplied. This is the grand Point which he contends for, and pretends he does it out of a Principle of Charity to the Souls which are perishing in Darkness. I think this is the Sum of his Discourse in both Addresses. This I confess has a plausible Appearance; but I think a very pernicious Tendency. For,

1. There are now so many Colleges and Shepherd's Tents, and so many Teachers of various Opinions, all [Page 67]called Protestant Ministers, that there is scarce a Place on the Continent settled by his Majesty's Subjects, where there is not a Protestant Minister of one Kind or another settled amongst them. So that if the So­ciety must not send Missionaries where there are Pro­testant Ministers, they must very soon send none to this Continent; For wherever the Society erects a Mission, there the Dissenters soon open a Meeting.

I will not say, there is no Place, where it is other­wise; but this is true of all Places that I know; and if it be otherwise in a few Places now, I am persuaded it will not be so long. If therefore Mr. Hobart's Reason­ing takes Place, the Society must withdraw all their Missions from this Continent, and leave many Thou­sands of Church People to turn Sectaries, any Thing or Nothing: which will certainly be the Consequence. Which whether it can consist with their Charity I leave.

I readily agree with him, that it is not the Design of the Charter that the Society should send Missionaries to convert Presbyterians to the Church: and I am far­ther of Opinion, that it is a base Reflection in him to say they do so. For they never send a Missionary where there is a Protestant Minister of any Denomina­tion, unless there be likewise a Number of Church People who earnestly desire a Minister, and yet can't afford a sufficient Maintenance. They never send Mis­sionaries to convert Protestants to the Church of En­gland; but to minister to Church People; and if Dis­senters by that Means are added to the Church, they are not ashamed to own, they do not think by this any Evil is done. This is the Truth and all the Truth. And therefore it is a scurvie Reflection, when he says that the Society and their Missionaries do just as the Bishop of St. David's says, the Romish Society de Propaganda Fide do; only changing the Word Pope for Bishops. P. 132.

I grant, there was a Time, when, as Dr. Bray says, there was little or no Occasion of sending Missionaries to the Massachusetts or Connecticut, because there was then few or no Church People who wanted a Minister, [Page 68]yet now the Case is very much altered, and as there are some Thousands, so they are like to increase, not­withstanding all Opposition. I think he is mistaken in supposing that the Church would have come to no­thing before this Time, if the Society had not upheld it; for though we acknowledge their Charity with the sincerest Gratitude; yet I believe, unless we had met with as severe a Persecution, as the Protestants do in France, it would have subsisted and grown. For the People in this Country are naturally inquisitive, and the Dissenting Religion always changing and fluctuating, and the Writings of the Church coming in to the Coun­try and exceeding all others, the most ingenious Peo­ple would from Time to Time become in Heart Church­men, though they had not an Opportunity to join with the Church. This was the Case of several before ever the Society opened a Mission in Connecticut.

In answer to what I had said of the Society's being ready to improve all Opportunities to convert the Heathen, he says, P. 142. he will mention one particular Instance of the Society's neglecting a fair Opportunity of christianizing the Heathen, which is the Scheme of the late Reverend Mr. Serjeant for erecting a Boarding School, for the Education of Indian Children, &c.

Now as to this, I will venture to say, that had Mr. Serjeant applied to the Society, and offered to be their Missionary to these very Indians, they would certainly have received him joyfully, and have supported him in that Mission Liberally. But as there never was any such Motion made to them; so I can't see with what Justice they can for this be charged with neglecting the Heathen. Is it a Crime in the Society, that by Orthodox Clergy, they don't think is meant all sorts of Dissenting Ministers or Teachers, and consequently don't incline to maintain them? Indeed he undertakes to prove that by Orthodox Clergy, in their Charter, is meant all kind of Ministers except Romish Priests. P. 143. All Calvinist Ministers at least. But every one who understands English, knows that the Words Clergy [Page 69]and Orthodox Clergy in England, no more means Dissent­ing Ministers of the Presbyterian, Independent, or Bap­tist Persuasion, than the Word Bishops denotes Presby­terian, Independent, or Anabaptist Bishops; though they all esteem themselves the only true Bishops, and the only Orthodox Clergy.

He further argues, that King William who granted this Charter was a Calvinist. But I answer, he was no Dissenter, but being the Head or Protector of the Church of England, he used the Word in the same Sense as the Church uses it. And such a Calvinist as he was, he gave a Salary to support a Minister in the first Church of England Congregation in New-England. And as to what he says of Dr. Macsparran, he is mis­taken, for the King in Council never did declare Dis­senting Ministers to be Orthodox Clergy in the legal Sense; it was only in the Dissenters Sense, or what was supposed the Sense of the Donors of the Land in Dis­pute. And when the Story is rightly told, it will ap­pear, they had but little Occasion for giving publick Thanks to Almighty GOD upon that Account as some of them did. He adds, that the Society understood it so. But I add they never did so understand it, and accordingly never did send a Dissenter upon the Mission. Neither does the Words Calvinist Minister, denote a Dissenting Teacher as Mr. Hobart imagines.

Mr. Hobart seems so full of Compassion towards the poor Indians, that he would have us all quit New En­gland, and go amongst them, although we have no manner of Prospect of Success, but were sure to be knocked on the Head, or shot to Death for our Pains. For says he, 'Tis a poor Shift indeed to pretend that the Indians Aversion to Christianity excuses the Society from making any Attempts to convert them to it. Had the A­postles and primitive Christians been of Mr. Beach 's Mind in this Case, Christianity had probably never made any Pro­gress in the World. P. 139.

I answer, the Case of the Apostles differed widely [Page 70]from ours, they had Miracles to awaken the Attention of the most stupid or obstinate, and therefore might expect Success where there was no previous Inclinati­on to hear or receive them. They might with good Reason have gone into such a Country as Spain now is, notwithstanding the Inquisition; and have Preached free­ly against Superstition and Idolatry; but I don't see that any sober Minister how zealous soever, no, nor so great an Enthusiast as Mr. Whitefild does think that he has at this Day a Call to do so: or should be likely to do any Good in such a mad Undertaking.

Mr. Hobart goes on in his usual Way of Fleering, and says, I hope Mr. Beach does not mean, that so long as the Indians have an Aversion to Christianity, the Society are ex­cusable in letting them alone; but if once they should em­brace it in the Form of Presbyterianism or Independency, it would be Time to send Missionaries to convert them to the Episcopacy and Liturgy of the Church of England. P. 139.

No, no, Mr. Hobart, I don't mean any Thing like that, and you know I don't. All I desire of you is, that when we endeavour to instruct them in the Christian Religion, you would not try to prejudice them against us, as some have done. When I first came into this Mission, I made an Attempt to instruct the Indians near to Newtown, being about 20 Families: but after a short Trial I found that I labour'd in vain, and they refused to hear any Thing about Religion from me, and to shew how much they defied the Thoughts of the Church of England, they would call me Churchman, Churchman, out of Contempt, which they had learned from the neighbouring Dissenters. And some of these poor Creatures with whom I had cultivated some Intimacy, advised me to give over my At­tempt; for the English they said, had told them, that if they received me for their Minister, they must main­tain me, and I would in Time get their Land from them. Pretty much as Mr. Hobart strives to prejudice the good People of New-England against the Church, by telling them of an intolerable Yoke that it will [Page 71]bring them under, if they come into it; that they must pay Tithes and maintain the dignify'd Clergy in En­gland, &c. As I esteem it a greater Good to convert one Infidel to Christianity, than an hundred Dissenters to the Church; so it would have been a vast Pleasure to me, if I might but have succeeded in this Design. And though he reproaches the Society for neglecting the Indians at Stockbridge; yet I am persuaded if they should open a Mission there, (as I am confident they would if desired,) and send one of us to instruct those Indians, Mr. Hobart would dislike it as much as he does our continuing among the English. And if so, it will seem that his Charity to the Indians Souls, is like Judas his Charity to the Poor, who said, why was this Waste? It might have been sold for much, and have been given to the Poor, not that he cared for the Poor. — Envy some­times wears the Mask of Charity.

Mr. Hobart represents it, as though wherever the Church comes, it destroys the Practice of Religion, and brings an Inundation of Wickedness — and yet that if we would go and set up this same wicked Church, almost any where out of New-England, he says, it would be an inlarging the Redeemer's Kingdom, and a bring­ing many Souls to Glory; which is such a monstrous Inconsistency, that one would be tempted to think, that if we might but be banished, or starved out of New-En­gland, Mr. Hobart does not much care whose Kingdom we inlarge.

And seeing he is so extreamly urgent for us all to leave New England, and go some where among the In­dians, and yet does not pretend that he can tell us where we may go, to be received by them and live among them; it looks therefore as though he had so much Love and good Will to our Souls, as to wish us all the great Happiness of going to Heaven by the Way of Martyrdom.

I shall conclude this Head when I have made one or two Remarks.

• 1. It is impossible with any Degree of Modesty to arraign either the Wisdom or Faithfulness of the [Page 72]Society, upon the Account of their not sending Missi­onaries to this or that Place; unless we knew their Affairs and in what Degree the People who seem to be neglected, were worthy of a Missionary, as well as the Society do; which certainly Mr. Hobart does not.
• 2. Every Benefactor to the Society is allowed the Privilege to appropriate his Benefaction to the instruct­ing the Heathen, if he pleases; so that it shall be put to no other Use. Accordingly some do confine their Be­nefactions to the instructing the Negroes, some to the purchasing Bibles to be sent to one particular Missi­onary, &c. and every ones Desire is punctually com­plied with. And therefore Mr. Hobart's representing the Society as being false to their Trust and defeating the Design of the Donors, is very unjust.
• 3. As the Benefactors certainly know, where the Missionaries are sent, so it must be presumed, that it is their Desire that their Donations should be put to that Use, to which they are now applied. Nay, that they would withdraw their Subscriptions and Benefactions if they were not so used.

Mr. Hobart tells us, that in Queen Anne's Reign, when High-Church was rampant, and the Protestant Religion lay gasping at her Feet — it was at this unhappy Season, that the Society diverted from their original Design, and ingaged in the Party Business of promoting the Church of England and Presbyterians.

And yet in the same Page, before he has got to the Bottom, he forgets himself, and says, it was when Mr. Cutler, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Brown went for Orders. This says he, turned the Attention of the Society from those Places in which they were before propagating the Gos­pel, and put an End to their Schemes of inlarging the Redeem­er's Kingdom by bringing the Heathen into it.

Now as both these Assertions cannot be true, seeing they make an absolute Contradiction, so there is not one Word of Truth in either of them. For the Soci­ety since that Time have been so far from laying a­side their Scheme of enlarging the Redeemer's Kingdom by [Page 73]bringing the Heathen into it, that they have done ten Times as much both in converting Negroes and In­dians since, than ever they did before. And at that Time which he says, was especially fatal to Christianity, the Society erected but one single Mission in New-En­gland in which Dr. Cutler now serves. An astonishing Thing indeed, that the assisting of that one poor Con­gregation in Boston, should prove the FATAL Over­throw of Christianity, and put an End to any further inlarging of the Redeemer's Kingdom! It is true, since the first Mission was opened in Connecticut, which was not at either of the Seasons mentioned by Mr. Hobart, the Church has been growing here, and all Opposition and Discouragements seem still to increase it. Which methinks should make its Adversaries suspect, that it may be that Plant which our heavenly Father hath planted, and therefore cannot be rooted up. And certainly it would be no Disparagement even to the Wisdom of Mr. Hobart, to reflect upon the Advice of Gamaliel, Acts v. 38. Now I say unto you, refrain from these Men, and let them alone, for if this Counsel, or this Work be of Men, it will come to nought. But if it be of GOD, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against GOD.

If instead of publishing so many defamatory Untruths against the Church People in general, against the Soci­ety, nay, and representing that excellent Princess Queen Anne, as a most mortal Enemy to the Protestant Reli­gion, for which he has no Grounds, but only because she was not able for some Time before she died, to at­tend to the publick Business; I say, if instead of pub­lishing such virulent Untruths, he had fairly reasoned against our Tenets, he would certainly have consulted his own Innocence better, although he had not gained so much Applause among the Bigots and High fliers of his Party. As for that Calumny which Mr. Hobart has pub­lished of Dr. Johnson and his Son, viz. that they were guilty of the Sin of Sacrilege in taking the Society's Pay, a Year or two for no Services done; this is an ab­solute [Page 74]Forgery of his own: as is made very evident by the Dr. in his Vindication of himself and his Son in his Letter to the Publisher of the Post-Boy of June 24, 1751, ^† in which he says, ‘My Son was 2 or 3 Years in doubt which of the two Professions to follow: during which Time he was appointed Catechist, and constantly officiated at Ripton, or Stratford in my Absence, ac­cording to Agreement, til he finally concluded to follow the Law. — Upon which he immediately on March 25, 1748, wrote his Resignation to the Soci­ety; and I have by me from the Secretary an An­swer dated June 23, following, wherein are these Words," "I will acquaint the Society at the next Board with Mr. Johnson 's Resignation of the Catechist's Place, and heartily wish him Success in whatever Profession he designs.’ — In the same Letter he also vindicates the School there from Mr. Hobart's Calumny, and I doubt not but as good an Account if there were Opportunity, might be given of all the rest of his slandrous Stories and Insinuations. — As to the Rev. Mr. Caner, in parti­cular, I believe any impartial Person that shall compare his Vindication of himself with this pretended Answer, will judge, that his, except a little idle quibbling, is in effect, only urging the same Things over again; notwithstanding which, I can't but think his Vindication will be thought yet to stand good; as well as Dr. John­son's Preface, notwithstanding all he has pretended to answer to that. — At least we are content to leave all that are disposed to do us Justice to compare and judge between us.

As many of Mr. Hobart's Calumnies are formed upon an inadvertent or else a wilful Misrepresentation of the Society's yearly Abstracts, I will here once for all, state the Truth of this Matter, that every honest Man may see the Injustice Mr. Hobart is guilty of, whether he [Page 75]will own it or not. As it is impossible for the Society to foresee what Accidents may happen in regard to the Death or Removal of their Missionaries; it is their Practice in stating their annual Accounts to charge themselves with every Salary by them at any Time, granted to Missionaries, Catechists, or School-Masters, till such Times as they have agreed to drop any such Mission or School by them erected. By this Means every one concerned, may see what is their ordinary annual Expence, which they are liable to pay, though perhaps by Reason of the Death or Resignation of some of their Missionaries or Catechists, the whole of it may not actually be drawn out of the Treasurers Hands that Year. Thus for Instance, Marblehead is now vacant, and has been so for about two Years, and yet the Place is kept upon the Abstract, and the Society charge them­selves with £ 60 per Ann. to that Mission, though nei­ther is any Thing paid, nor is there any Missionary there to demand it. And the Reason is, that the Society in­tend to re-establish that Mission, as soon as a proper Person appears to discharge the Duties of it.

In like Manner the Society are not solicitous, to drop the Name of any Person employed by them from the Abstract, immediately upon his Discharge, provided they intend to replace another in his Stead, but often­times wait till a new Appointment determine who is to succeed. Thus Dr. Johnson's Son was not only conti­nued upon he List, but is still continued, and perhaps may be continued, till some other Person is appointed to succeed him, though he has received nothing from the Society since the 25th of March 1748, but then the Salary allowed for the Place where he formerly offici­ated, is annually carried forward to the succeeding Years Account, under the Article of Money, remaining in the Hands of the Treasurer. — The short is, the So­ciety's Design is to exhibit to their Benefactors, not so much the precise Sum actually paid every Year, which sometimes considering the Death of Missionaries at a great Distance, or other such Accidents may be very [Page 76]difficult if not impossible; as to give an Abstract of the annual Charge to which they are liable, and which they have taken upon themselves to make good, if regularly called for. Nor is there any Injustice done here to the Benefactors, or to any one else, since (as I observed before) the Surplusage if any such there be, is brought into the next Year's Account, as Money remaining in the Treasurer's Hands.

From hence now any unprejudiced Person, may see what Injustice Mr. Hobart has been guilty of towards Dr. Johnson and the Society in charging them in such a bold unwarrantable Manner, without truly understand­ing the Affair of which he was writing. I will not hastily charge him as wilfully misrepresenting the Case, but surely he should have taken better Care to inform himself rightly, before he pretended to lay so heavy and grievous a Charge. Nor can I think that he will be able to vindicate himself in this particular, as a can­did Writer or an honest Man, unless he publickly re­tracts this abusive Calumny.

Among other Slanders, he says, P. 148. It is credibly reported, that those who have signed Petitions for Missiona­ries, have (to appear like Persons of some Consideration) been some Times dignified with Civil or Military Titles which they had no Right to. — Now as to this,

I remember very well about forty Years ago, I heard this credible Report among the Boys at Stratford, the Church People had just then sent a Petition to the So­ciety for a Minister, and a certain Boy, whom I can name reported, as Mr. Hobart says, that some of them in signing this Petition gave themselves the Title of Justices of the Peace, others Captains, some Majors, and one Man, esteemed the very poorest among them, cal­led himself Colonel. I have not heard this credible Re­port since, till now that it is published by Mr. Hobart. And a great many such credible Reports would have pe­rished in eternal Oblivion, had not this great HISTO­RIAN revived, and brought them to Light. But now as to the Credibility of this Report, (which like the Nag's [Page 77]Head Consecration, has now slept about 40 Years.) The first Church People in Stratford, whatever their moral Character might be among their Enemies, were certainly Men of good Sense and Knowledge, their Enemies be­ing Judges. And is it credible, that they would use such a foolish, and more than childish Method to im­pose upon the Society! Especially when they did no­thing, but by the Direction and with the Mediation of Colonel Heathcote and Governor Hunter. Is it credible, that these Gentlemen would countenance such a foolish, and wicked Project, when they had both been at Strat­ford, and conversed with these Churchmen all together? as they informed the Society. ^* Besides all this, the So­ciety's History confutes this credible Report, it gives us the Character of the Church People at Stratford at that very Time, thus, ‘The first People who strove to have the Church Worship settled here, (Stratford,) were about 15 Families, most Tradesmen, some Husband­men, who had been born and bred in England. Here you see are no civil or military Titles.’

Indeed the Society by long Information from all Parts of this Country, have a more perfect and uni­versal Knowledge of the State of Religion in it, and of the Manners of the People, than either Mr. Hobart or I have. And his Arguments, they had well weighed, above 40 Years ago, as is evident from their History.

But to return to his credible Report, every one who has Malice and Impudence enough to invent any dis­graceful Story of the Church People, especially of their Minister, is with such as Mr. Hobart, esteemed a credi­ble Reporter. I have had many such credible Reports raised of me. It has been as credibly reported, that I get so so drunk at the holy Communion that I can't go home, but lie and sleep in the Streets. And when his History of the Episcopal Separation with which he threatens us, comes out, it will no Doubt be filled with many such credible Reports.

[Page 78] If what Mr. Dickinson says, is just, P. 168. When a Person has Tryal of cruel Mockings, and has his Name cast out as evil, for keeping a good Conscience, and doing his Duty; it is as really Persecution, as if he suffered Bonds and Impri­sonments. If it be so, the Church People in this Coun­try have had a large and full Cup of Persecution. But of late, (if my Observation don't fail me) this Bitter­ness is happily abating, and Charity and mutual good Offices and Friendship are increasing among us; I hope Mr. Hobart with all his credible Reports, will not be able to revive and rekindle that bitter unchristian Spirit of Envy which was almost extinguished. Mr. Hobart's Artifice is well described by the Spectator, No. 125. ‘There is, says he, one Piece of Sophistry practised by both Sides, and that is the taking any scandalous Story that has been ever whispered or invented of a private Man, for a known undoubted Truth, and raising Speculations upon it. Calumnies that have never been proved, or have been often refuted, are the ordinary Postulatums of these infamous Scrib­lers, upon which they proceed as upon first Princi­ples granted by all Men, though in their Hearts they know they are false, or at least very doubtful, when they have laid these Foundations of Scurrility, it is no Wonder that their Superstructure is every way answerable to them. — It is the restless Ambition of artful Men, that thus breaks a People into Factions, and draws several well-meaning Persons to their In­terest by a special Concern for Religion. How many honest Minds are filled with uncharitable and barba­rous Notions out of their Zeal for Religion? What Cruelties and Outrages would they not commit, against Men of an adverse Party, whom they would honour and esteem, if instead of considering them as they are represented, they knew them as they are? Thus are Persons of the greatest Probity se­duced into shameful Errors and Prejudices and made bad Men, even by that noblest of Principles the Love of Religion. I cannot here forbear mentioning [Page 79]the famous Spanish Proverb. If there were neither Fools nor Knaves in the World, all People would be of one Mind.’

How exactly this Desciption agrees to Mr. Hobart's Piece, I shall no further determine, than to observe, that he has either collected or invented a Number of Facts, some of which are mere Fiction and Romance, and have no Truth at all in them, others he has very much disguised and misrepresented, and from these Postu­latums he has reasoned and drawn Inferences until he has proved us to be the most foolish and wicked Set of Men, the Bane and Pests of the Country, the Mur­derers of Souls, nay, and of Religion itself, so that we ought to be the Scorn and Abhorrence of all Mankind.

Here it may not be improper to examine one In­stance of Railing, which he would have it thought that I am guilty of; which is this, In answer to his saying, that our Conformity to the Church Worship is not to be esteemed an Act of Obedience either to GOD, or the King, I said, that I feared, that such as he disobeyed both God and the King, in particular, in that they re­fused to pray for the Royal Family, according to the Form injoined by the King. For they think it unlaw­ful to use a Form of Prayer, imposed by the highest Authority on Earth; and so make Conscience of diso­beying GOD and the King.

This put Mr. Hobart into such a violent Passion, that as he tells us, he quite trembled, he cries out, is this the Man that began his Book with those solemn Expressions, which consider'd in this Connection, I tremble to repeat.

This he says, is one of the heaviest Charges he ever knew brought against any Man, it is horrid almost beyond Concep­tion, for my Part, I cannot conceive any Man on Earth so bad, and I doubt whether human Nature is capable of so great a Degree of Wickedness. P. 39. In this Strain he runs on, several Pages together. Now that the Rea­der may judge whether I deserve such Treatment for this Expression, 1. I would observe that it is agreed, that our Governor did send the King's Command to [Page 80]every Dissenting Minister in this Colony, in all Prayers for the Royal Family to use these individual Words, Fre­derick Prince of Wales, &c. 2. It is notorious Fact that Dissenters do make Conscience of refusing to use, or to submit to a Form of Prayer, enjoyned by the highest human Authority. I hope I need not prove to a Dis­senter, that it is their grand Principle, that though a Thing or Form of Prayer be in itself ever so indif­ferent or innocent, yet if it once comes to be enjoined or commanded in Religion by human Authority, they are then obliged in Conscience, not to yeild to use it or submit to the Imposition. Now this making Conscience of disobeying the King, when he commands innocent and lawful Things, I verily believe is likewise a disobey­ing GOD, who has commanded us to obey the King. And I would to GOD, I might have no greater Guilt upon my Soul, when I come before my eternal Judge, than I have contracted by this Expression. I did not suppose, that the Dissenters thought that they disobeyed GOD in this; For it is a Contradiction, and impossible to be moved by Conscience to do what I know or be­lieve to be contrary to GOD's Will, for Conscience im­plies a Belief that it is GOD's Will that I should do so. But my meaning evidently was, that Differenters make Conscience of not doing what they ought to do; un­der the Opinion that GOD has forbidden them to do it, e. g. GOD has commanded them to obey the King, but they think they are bound in Conscience to diso­bey him, if he enjoins any indifferent Thing in Reli­gion. Mr. Hobart pretends that the King did not send this Command to the Dissenters. But I answer, then our Governor is mistaken, and it must be because the King knows, that Dissenters make Conscience of diso­beying him, or he does not at all value their Prayers. But let that be as it will, what I insist upon is this, that if the King had laid such a Command upon them, and they keep to their Principles, they would disobey him out of Conscience, and that I believe is di [...]ing GOD. And therefore the horrid Representa [...] of [Page 81]me, that Mr. Hobart has made, for saying, so, is most unrighteous and abusive. However, I will not say of his praying for me upon this Occasion, as he does of my praying that GOD would forgive him, viz. that it is but a Mockery. No, but I say Amen to it, and thank him for it, and am glad that he found and Inclination in his Heart to pray for me, though I fear it was not without too much Wrath.

And now as to that Question, why Church People here cannot support their Way of Religion, as well as the Presbyterians theirs? I answer, because we have not the like Assistance from the Government. When a Congregation of Presbyterians first set up their Wor­ship in any Place, the Government lays a Tax on all the Land in the Parish for the building their Meeting-House and settling their Minister, from which neither the Church People nor Minister is exempted; their Co­lony Rates are likewise given them, &c.

To which Mr. Hobart replies, P. 135. What a peculiar Burden is this? Was ever any poor People so oppressed before? And thus he goes on canting and fleering, and says he, the Oppression which Mr. Beach groans under, seems al­most to make this wise Man mad. This I confess is un­mercifully Arch and Witty! And perhaps it may pass for solid Reason, and do great Execution, because it will raise a stout Horse-Laugh, which is the Victory of a Banterer. But it does by no Means convince me. He knows I don't complain, that Churchmen pay Colony Rates; but I say we don't enjoy those Favours and Privileges, which our Neighbours do, and this he knows to be true. Nay in some Respects Churchmen are de­nied the Privilege of Englishmen, and treated as Slaves, not being allowed to vote, but must be taxed by our Masters according to their Pleasure. I omit the Affair of the Parsonage, it being more proper for the Law. And as to the Church of England's being strictly and legally established in this Country, it having always ap­peared to me disputable, I leave it to be disputed by Lawyers, and build upon no Foundation, but what is [Page 82]clear and certain. He pretends, that I falsify when I intimate, that a Churchman in Reading would save Money by turning Dissenter. But as I have a better Opportunity to understand this Affair than he, so I know that several Churchmen here would have saved some hundred Pounds, if they had turned Dissenters. I grant indeed, that as the Government is not pleased to im­power us to raise Taxes among ourselves, but we do all by Free-Will, so some few it is possible may make an Advantage by it. But whose Fault is this!

He represents us as being generally Men of little or no Religion, and few in Number, and poor, and yet complains because we have built five Churches in the two Towns of Stratford and Fairfield; which methinks, don't seem to hang very handsomly together; for the less Religion People have, the less Cost and Pains they will be at for the Worship of GOD.

Mr. Hobart says to us, P. 159. If your Separation from us is not certainly right, it is certainly wrong. In this he is certainly mistaken. For we are under no Tie of Con­science whatsoever, to worship GOD in the Dissenting Way? No Law of GOD or Man requires it. If the Church be not established here, besure no other Way is. No Law of this Government forbids the Worship of the Church, or if it did, it must be null and void from the Beginning, such a Law being inconsistent with the Charter. And therefore certainly it is no Sin to join in the Church Worship. And consequently if the Wor­ship of the Church appears a more excellent Way, or if I am doubtful whether the New-England Bishops, be really lawful Bishops, it is not only harmless and safe, but my bounden Duty to join with the Church. If any Dissenter is doubtful, whether it was right to se­parate from the Church of England, I must say with Mr. Hobart, I apprehend an easy and satisfactory Answer may be given. Which is, if you are doubtful whether it was right to separate from the Church, that very Doubt is enough to convince you, that it is wrong for you to keep out of the Church.

[Page 83] He says, P. 160. Every Man is undeniably under some Obligation to the Church of which he is a Member.

Mr. Hobart in all his three Pieces about Schism has slily taken a notorious Untruth for his Postulatum, and built all his Discourse upon it: viz. that the Churches of New-England are One uniform Church, like the Esta­blished Church of England, so that for a Dissenter here to become a Churchman, is the same as a Churchman's turning Dissenter in England, which is a poor begging the Question, and has no Truth in it, as I shall now show. It is certain and notorious, that the Dissenting Churches in this Country differ as really, and as much from one another, as many of them do from the Church of England. And if you should say the Difference is not so great, yet I say Degrees alter not the kind. In some Meetings, they use the Lord's Prayer, read the holy Scriptures, the Minister keeps very much to one Form of Prayer, and preaches Arminianism, in other Meetings, there is nothing of all this. In some Meet­ings the Terms of Communion are very rigid, none are to be admitted, unless they make a Relation of their Conversion, in others there is nothing like it, and many abhor it. In some they will gladly admit a Churchman to their Communion; in others they will not, unless he makes of Recantation and enters into a particular Church Covenant. But a few Years ago the Ministers of some of the most eminent Churches dare not ven­ture to baptize out of their own Meeting-Houses, out of their own Town they had no Power, upon any Occasion whatever. But to say no more of the Va­riety, suppose I am baptized in, and am a Member of any Meeting in Connecticut, I suppose all will allow, that I may join with any other Presbyterian or Inde­pendent Church in Connecticut; although these two Churches do as really differ from each other, as either of them do from the Church of England; why then may I not as lawfully join with the Church of England? I hope my being baptized in a Meeting, does not oblige me to be at peace with all, but only with the national Church.

[Page 84] Again, if I was baptized in, and became a Member of the Church of Connecticut or Stratford, why is not the Church of England as much a Part of the Church of Connecticut, or of Stratford, as any other Church is? I must confess I cannot see any Thing in this Plea, but a mere Scare-crow to affright weak People. For if this Government had ever so good a Right to establish, yet they really have established no Way of Worship, but have left every Society to do what is right in their own Eyes. So that every Congregation may pray by Book, or without Book, just as the Minister and People can agree, and therefore I am no more an Offender against Connecticut Constitution, for using the Liturgy, than Mr. Hobart for neglecting it. And seeing most of the Churches of this Government have always been altering, improving and reforming till some of them have got to be almost, if not altogether Presbyterians, I can not see, why I might not reform and amend too, as well as my Neighbours, without incurring the awful Guilt of Schism. And pray, whom are we Churchmen Schismaticks from? From the Church of Connecticut, or the Church of New-England? That cannot be; for there is no such Church; But here are Scores or Hun­dreds of Churches, all differing, both in Doctrine, Dis­cipline and Worship, not only from one another, but even from themselves in the Compass of a few Years. And therefore I don't understand with what Propriety he stiles us a Separation. For I'm no more a Separate from him than he is from me. My Congregation are no more Separatists from his, than his is from mine. The Presbyterian Congregation in Reading, are as much Separatists from us, as we are from them, we are no more obliged by any Law of GOD, or Man, to go to them, than they are obliged to come to us.

I suppose, Mr. Hobart would say, that the Presby­terian Churches were set up first, and therefore we ought to yeild to them. But this is not true; and if it were true, it would make the Presbyterian Congre­gation in this Place Schismaticks, for the Episcopal [Page 85]Church was here first settled, before there was any other Church. And as to this Country in general, the Church People, both Ministers and People came as soon as the Independents; and were some of the Patentees. And the Independents overpowering them, and banishing them, did not deprive all Churchmen of a Right to breathe in New-England Air.

And what if Sir Edmund Andross and his Company were as Arbitrary as the Grand Turk, and as void of all true Religion as the Devils, as he represents them, What is that to our Case? Does not your own His­torian tell you, that some of the first Patentees were Churchmen, and set up that Worship, and refused to part with the Religion of their Mother Country, and for the were banished? And yet Mr. Hobart allows that a Colony transplanting themselves carry the Religion of their Mother Country with them. If so, I'm sure every Churchman who comes from England, had a good Right to keep to the Worship. And as Church People had at first at least as good a Right to set up the Church Worship, as the Brownists and Congregationalists had to set up their Way, so we never lost this Right, though for some Years unjustly kept out of it while there was no King in Israel, and every Man did what was Right in his own Eyes.

Nay, let us put the Case that never any Churchman or Presbyterian had set Foot on New-England Shore, but as the Brownists and Independents first set up their Way, so they had continued without Variation to this Day, had this been the Case, I ask whether it would be sinful or schismatical for some, or all of these to turn Presbyterians, and set up that Way?

I suppose, Mr. Hobart or any Presbyterian must allow, this would not only be lawful, but a happy Change, and glorious Reformation, although they had all been baptized and owned their Covenants, in Independent Churches, nay, although Independents live as good Lives as Presbyterians, and have a stricter Discipline, and are more rigid in their Terms of Communion. [Page 86]And if this be granted, as certainly it cannot be de­nied by a conscientious Presbyterian, then it unavoidably follows, that if there never had been a Churchman in New-England till this Day, yet it would be no Schism, no Transgression of any Law of GOD for those who have been educated in the Presbyterian Way, and have been Members of their Churches to set up the Wor­ship of the Church of England. All the Dispute is, whether it is not a much better or more excellent Way? If it be, it is a glorious Reformation for Presbyterians to become Churchmen.

Mr. Hobart would account it a commendable Thing for a Member of a New-Light Church, notwith­standing the Obligations he is under as a Member, to separate from them, and to join with the Old Lights? Why then may not we esteem it a commendable Things, for either old Lights or new, to join with the Church of England? For they all originally schismati­cally left the Church of England.

He says indeed, that they only left the Corruptions of the Church. And just so we only leave the Corrup­tions, Errors and Disorders of the Dissenters. But so far as they are right, we are ready at all Times to join with them.

In the Conclusion he puts several awful Questions to our Conscience, all grounded upon the false Represen­tation of Facts, he had made before. Which though numerous for the better Show, yet really amount to no more than this, viz. if our asking the Society to assist us, has occasioned their neglecting the Heather, then we are the criminal Causes of their eternal Dam­nation. And whether we had not better all turn Dis­senters? and whether it is not morally certain if we would do so, that the Event would be the Conversion of a Multitude of Pagans?

To which I reply, we must not do a certain Evil to obtain an uncertain Good. For me to turn Dissenter, is to sin against my own Conscience. I can part with my Money, and I hope with my Life: but I can't part with my Religion.

[Page 87] And as to the Conversion of the Heathen, I'm so far from being morally certain, that my turning Dissenter would be the Means of the Conversion of one Heathen to Christianity, that I cannot see the least Probability of it. I am morally certain that if the Society knew of any Place besides those they now take care of, where there is a moral Certainty, that a Mission would be successful, they would most gladly embrace such an Opportunity to convert the Heathen; and rather than the want of Money should hinder, we would chearfully part with their Favours to us. This Money may perish with him, who thinks it is more valuable than the Salva­tion of Souls. And I think we may safely conclude, that we are not the criminal Causes of putting a Stop to the inlarging of the Redeemer's Kingdom; for we are most heartily willing for the Promotion of it, not only to part with the Society's Charity; but with our own Estates also.

But then we don't think it proper, to take Mr. Ho­bart's Advice, and for a mere Dream of I know not what to be done among Pagans, and no Body knows where to leave the Church and loose the Means of Grace, which through the Society's Goodness we now enjoy.

How it can be a criminal Hindrance to the Inlarge­ment of the Redeemer's Kingdom, for us to ask the Society's Assistance, I can't understand, since we know that they are vastly more forward to send Missionaries to the Heathen, when there is a Prospect of Success, than to us; as their Wants are more pressing than ours, and Mr. Hobart's so often asserting the contrary is mere Calumny.

And when we apply to the Society, we only desire them to judge, whether it be more agreeable to their pious Designs, to grant, or to deny our Request. And they are the properest Judges where their Missionaries are like to do the most good.

I have now examined every Thing which I esteem material in this Piece, and some Things perhaps too [Page 88] trivial: And after all remain of Opinion, that he has offered nothing that can justify me before GOD or Man, if I should according to his Desire turn Dissenter. If I mistake not, his Piece is mere vehement Declama­tion grounded upon Untruths, Misrepresentations, and Calumnies. However, as every one has a Right to judge for himself, I don't expect or desire, that my Judgment should influence and Body else.

As I have remarked upon Mr. Hobart's Performance, with an honest Freedom: so any one is welcome to find what Fault he pleases with my Opinion, provided he treats me with Truth and Justice; which I'm sure Mr. Hobart has not done.

I shall now conclude with an Appeal to my Presby­terian Neighbours, who are competent Witnesses, whe­ther several heinous Crimes laid to my Charge are true. Mr. Hobart has charged us one and all with the Blood of Souls, yea, with the Blood of Religion itself, P. 160. because we so readily receive those whom they for Scandal have laid under Censure; this he has repre­sented as our common Practice. Now no Guilt can be more amazing than the Murder of Souls, and the Mur­der of Religion itself. Damnation is very dreadful, but a double Damnation is due for the Murther of Souls, and of Religion. And yet how often has he repeated this Charge? Now you my Brethren and Neighbours, are Eye Witnesses of our Conduct, you can certainly tell whether these Things are so: To you I Appeal against this Accuser, did I ever receive to our Commu­nion one Person, Man or Woman, whom you had cen­sured or cast out from your Communion? You all know for certain, that there never was any Thing of this Nature done. Nay, some of you have complained that I have been too rigid towards those who have been so unhappy as to fall into a gross Sin, in that I do not readmit them to Communion immediately upon their acknowledging their Sin, but wait some Time for their Amendment.

Again, do I ever, as he charges me, foment Divisions [Page 89]amongst you, or disturb your Civil or Ecclesiatical Affairs? Is it possible to meddle less with other Men's Affairs, or to live more peaceably and inoffensively than I do?

When he asserts, that such and such Things are cre­dibly reported of us, e. g. as that we dignify ourselves with Civil and Military Titles, which belong not to us, when we sign Petitions to the Society, you must know that they are so far from being credible, that they are incredible and malicious Slanders.

And since you see with your Eyes, that these horrid Charges and Accusations are groundless Calumnies and Slanders, (and I believe the same Appeal may be made by all my Brethren, as I have now made) I desire it of you, as a Piece of common Justice, that you would not countenance or encourage such Railers, and Propagators of injurious Falshoods. For it is a Sin to love and hug a Lie, as well as to make it. Whenever I have heard you of the Presbyterian Persuasion abused and misrepre­sented by malicious Persons, I have esteemed it but just, to vindicate you so far as I knew you to be wronged. And it is but just that we should expect the same Treat­ment from you. Honest Men of all Sides should com­bine to discountenance the Propagators of Scandal, though of their own Party. For this wicked Practice is not only a great Injury to the Person defamed, but it alienates and sours the Tempers of People who are obliged to live together, and fills them with Spleen and Rancour to such a Degree, as their Regard to their private Interest would never do.

And however you may boast of your Piety, there is really no more Religion amongst you, than there is Love. Love or Charity is but another Name for Holiness. And GOD is Love. And though Mr. Hobart is pleased to censure the generality of the Church People as having [Page 90]little or no Religion; yet so little as we have, if any of us should abandon himself to Slander in such a Manner as he has done, I am confident our People would be per­fectly ashamed of his Writings.

The very Devil has his Name from Slandering and false Accusing; and no Sin in the holy Scripture is more severely threatned than this, Psal. xv. 1. The Question is put, Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy Hill? Part of the Answer is, He that backbiteth not with his Tongue, nor doth evil to his Neighbour, nor taketh up a Reproach against his Neighbbour. In the New Testament it is expresly declared, that Re­vilers shall not inherit the Kingdom of GOD, 1 Cor. vi. 10. St. Paul declares that Railers or false Accusers are as worthy of Church Censures as Drunkards, 1 Cor. v. 11. If Discipline were so carefully used among Pres­byterians as Mr. Hobart pretends, he would certainly feel the Smart of it himself.

But as for you my Brethren and Neighbours, I hope better Things of you; I hope you will not suffer your Minds to be soured with his Leaven. That we should be all of one Opinion is rather to be wished for, than expected; but that we should treat each other fairly, that we should not speak evil one of another, but pro­mote each others Comfort and Happiness, is what we all acknowledge to be right. No Difference of Opinion can excuse us, if we violate the common Rules of Jus­tice and Humanity. Mala. xi. 10. Have we not all one Father? hath not one GOD created us? why do we deal treacherously every Man against his Brother. Let us love as Brethren, let us follow Peace with all Men, and the GOD of Love and Peace will be with us.

And though you, or we, may at last be found to have lived in some Mistakes; yet, if it shall appear, that we have uprightly endeavoured to know and do GOD'S [Page 91]Will; I hope such unavoidable Mistakes will not be im­puted to you, or us, to our Condemnation; but through GOD's infinite Mercies, and CHRIST'S all-sufficient Merits, we shall rejoice together in eternal Love and Peace. Which is the earnest Prayer of your Souls sincere Friend,