Purely metaphyfical this diftinction, indeed! But, however it may found, is it any more than mere jargon? The bishop is not a bishop by appointment from the head of our church; but is a bishop independent of fuch election or appointment; because, his real power comes from those, who, in obedience to that appointment, ORDAIN him fuch! Merry enough! An officer, in any kind, has not his power from the king who appointed him to the poft; but from thofe, who, under his majesty, confirm him in it: Without ordination the bifhop cannot act as fuch, though the king has named him; no more can the other, without being invested by inferior hands to him who nominates him to the poft. Befides, why muft the whole power of a bishop proceed from his ordination, when it is no more than the laft act of form to confirm his election? Is not his nomination the means or occafion of all that follows? Does not that cause the others? Why then must the latter be independent, and of a different fanction from the former, when it is a mere confequence of it? The head of the church I used to esteem the head of bishops; and cannot help ftill thinking, that where the real power lies of making bishops (however you feem to diflike the term) at pleasure, there is the fource of all their authority as fuch-And, I am perfuaded, that few flanch churchmen would dispute this affertion, in cafe of the Pope's appointment; they

being

being generally (as indeed their arguments oblige them) well affected to his spiritual as well as temporal authority and fucceffion, and fond of his independency on temporal princes, the tempting and beloved aim of all our wrangling leaders. For what can be more plain than this, even in your own words, Doctor? You tell us, that kings and emperors did not make bishops, and that their ordination only is understood to conftitute them fuch.-Whether this is agreeable to the conftitution of the church, of which you are fo zealous a member, I leave the world to judge!

You tell us, (P. 14.) that our laws know of no fuch thing as a bishop without ordination:

True; nor of an excifeman without taking the oaths. Do the oaths then make a man an exciseman, and give him his authority? Surely, 'no: fince thofe, who appoint him, can difpenfe with his neglect, and yet his power is the same: A bifhop poffibly may act without ordination, but not without appointment. In a word, you know, that the king is head of our national church; and that all the power a bishop has, more than a prieft, flows from him, as fountain of our episcopal authority, and, under God, head of our church; there being no ecclefiaftics in England endowed with fuch epifcopal authority, any otherwise than is received from him, who is either

their spiritual head, or they are all heads themfelves.

You triumph mightily in the style of the ordinance for ordination of priests, and tell us, it is there exprefly said, (P.14, 15.) “They are called "to be meffengers, watchmen, and ftewards of "the Lord.". "And are exhorted to fhew them"felves dutiful and thankful to that Lord who hath "placed them in fo high a dignity.”—Whatever divine sense you would, by your great emphafis, have us put on the words, that Lord who hath placed them, I believe many would be apt, on fuch an occafion, to extend their eyes no farther than the lord bishop.

In the fame exalted voice you immediately add, (P. 15.) that in every office, "whether "for bishops, priests, or deacons, the ordination "is fuggefted to be performed in pursuance of the "directions of Chrift, who hath appointed di66 vers orders of minifters in his church.""And the very words of ordination run, In "the name of the Father, and of the Son, "and of the Holy Ghoft." judiciously afk, if, after this, "in his fenfes can doubt,

And then you very (ibid.) " any man whether a bishop,

"in conferring orders, is not confidered by "the law, as executing a commiffion under "Chrift?"

The answer to this is fo very obvious, that it is almost trifling to add any other words than

your

your own to confute them. What has

any man to do with what is fuggefted in the office of ordination, that confiders who fuggefts it? Have not all men an equal right to fuggeft, that, when they appoint a minifter of Chrift's church, they do it in purfuance of his directions; and, in the name of amazement, what is proved by tacking to the end of all you do, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? Was ever fuch an argument used by any man but yourfelf! How can this poffibly, as you most furprisingly infinuate, prove what the law thinks of your ordination? Pray, Doctor, in your next performance, think of the fenfe of what you write, before you publish it: And, as you labour for the information of the weak and unlearned, let us be able at least to draw fome meaning or other from what you fay, or our edification will be but very little.

In the next place, to prove every thing you have afferted, you cite the following words from the 37th article, viz. (P. 15.) “We give not to our "princes the adminiftering either of God's word or

of the facraments; the which thing the injunctions alfo lately fet forth by Elizabeth our queen, "do most plainly testify." The use you make of this is most notoriously ft nined and unnatural ; when you affert that it is p affert that it is pn from hence, that, as princes are not entrusted with the adminiftration of the word and facraments, therefore they

ес

cannot

cannot commit it to others; and yet you allow our princes to be the appointers of bishops, who entruft others with it. And is not this, without evafion, in the moft extenfive fenfe, committing the truft of the miniftry of the whole church to the prince; fince no man can adminifter the word and facraments therein, unless licensed by those whom the prince qualifies for that purpose, by making him a bishop, under himself, in that church, of which He is the head.-Our church is no way on a foot with that of the antient Jews (unless in relation to the tythes of the Levites :) and their church can never be a pattern for ours, till our priests are appointed first by God, and then take their function by birth. Queen Eliza-" beth, you prove from the fame article, challenged no other prerogative than what God in Scripture gave to all godly princes. This makes nothing to your purpose; nor can I fay any more to fuch a general charge, than that their typical ceremonies were established by Mofes and Aaron, in a very particular manner: but our church is wholly model'd on a more fpiritual foundation, by Christ, without one of the offices or ordinances about which we are now disputing.

(P. 17.) As the article refers to the injunctions "of Queen Elizabeth, to the injunctions let us go :" [With all my heart, Doctor; but pray take me in your hand :] "where we find the fame thing affert"ed as in the article, viz. that the queen chal"lengeth