that ordination, only the power of absolving penitents, and of dispensing the word and sacraments; and that in such congregations as they should he appointed to. There is not the least appearance of episcopal powers, nor of any authority which is not at this day given by the Church of England to Presbyters. But in the ordination of Bishops, there is not the least restraint; the words are left general, as they were used by CHRIST in ordaining his Apostles; and all the ordinary authority, which they were originally intended to express, is conveyed by them without diminution. So that in one case, there is only a limited commission given; but in the other, a commission without any restriction or limitation, and, consequently extending to all ecclesiastical offices, which, in fact, is also intended."q

Bishop Burnet also argues correctly and forcibly upon this point. It is to be considered, that ecclesiastical orders being from the influence and operation of the HOLY GHOST, which being one, yet hath different operations for the different administrations, therefore, the concomitant actions, words, and circumstances must show, for which administration the HOLY GHOST is prayed for, since that general prayer is made for all; but the functions being different, the same HOLY GHOST Works differently in them all. Therefore, it is plain from the practice of our SAVIOUR, that there is no need of expressing, in the very words of ordination, what power is thereby given, since our SAVIOUR did not express it, but what he said both before and after, did determine the sense of those general words to the apostolical function. The whole office of consecrating Bishops, (for instance) shows very formally and expressly what power is given in those (general) words. So that a Priest being presented to be made a Bishop, the King's mandate being read for that effect, he swearing canonical obedience as Bishop elect; prayers being put up for him as such, together with other cir cumstances which make it plain what they are about; those general words are by these qualified and restrained to that sense.'

What can be the reason, Sir, when you revived this idle cavil, that you did not extend it to the ordination of Priests likewise? You must certainly know, that in the old ordinal, the word Priest was not used at the time of imposing hands; and, therefore, if the objection has any force in the one case, it has equal force in the other; and then there was no distinction made by the old ordinal between the office of a Presbyter, and that of a Deacon. Thus would the whole ministry of the Church of England be demolished at a stroke; and, let me add, the Presbyterian ministry too; as it was derived in Great Britain principally, if not altogether, from the Bishops of that Church. This, I suppose, Sir, you thought, would be carrying the matter too far. Indeed, Sir, it is too gross, a reflection upon the English

q Appeal further defended, p. 42, 43.

reformers, who are acknowledged by all the world to have been great and good men, to suppose that they would compose diffe rent offices, for the ordination of Bishops and Priests, if they believed them to hold the same office. Is it possible, that men who had any conscience, would perform the solemn farce of reinvesting the Bishop elect with the same powers which he received when he was ordained a Priest? Can any one who knows the characters of those divines, suppose that they would be so profligate as to invoke the ALMIGHTY for his blessing upon them in communicating those powers, which they had no intention of communicating, as the person was supposed to be invested with them already? Sir, this cavil carries folly upon the face of it, and must ever be considered by every man who has any pretensions to impartiality, to be as weak as it is ungenerous.

As a further proof that the reformer's maintained a distinction of offices in the Church, they expressly said, in their preface to the old Ordinal,

"It is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in CHRIST's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."

Still farther: The prayers in the old Ordinal expressly mentioned the appointment of divers orders by the HOLY GHOST. Thus, at the ordination of a Bishop, the prayer was just the same as it is now.—“ ALMIGHTY GOD, giver of all good things, who, by thy HOLY SPIRIT, hast appointed divers orders of Ministers in thy Church-mercifully behold this thy servant now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop," &c. The same declaration, that the HOLY SPIRIT appointed divers orders in the Church, was likewise in the prayers used at the ordination of a Priest, and of a Deacon.

Now it is a consequence obvious to common sense, that when a committee was appointed for the express purpose of composing distinct offices for the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons-when three distinct offices were actually composed-when in the preface to these offices, three distinct orders were particularly enumerated; and when in the prayers of each office, it is expressly declared, that divers orders were appointed by the HOLY GHOST; and, lastly, when in the service for consecrating a Bishop, it is explicitly said, that the elect is to be admitted into the office of a Bishop-when, I say, these things are considered, it is obvious to common sense, that the reformers believed that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by apostolic institution, or else they were the most odious hypocrites that ever disgraced the Christian Church. I do not see, Sir, how it is possible for you to avoid adopting one part or other of this alternative.

It is really a curiosity in the region of controversy, that you,

See BRETT on Episcopacy, p. 159, and BURNET, Hist. of Ref. Vol. II. p. 144.

Sir, and Dr. Chauncy, in this country, and Mr. Neal, and others, in England, should have recourse to so pitiful a cavil, as to infer from the word Bishop not having been used at the imposition of hands, that, therefore, there was no intention of conveying any authority beyond what the Bishop elect was invested with, when he was ordained a Priest; when the objection of the whole body of Puritans to these offices was, that they do make the office of a Bishop superior to that of a Priest. In their Short Table of sundry Exceptions, &c. p. 99, they place it under the article of defects in the public service, that "the Priest receiveth in his ordination no authority to govern the flock, and exercise the discipline of CHRIST, but only to preach and administer the sacraments;" whereas, in the office for consecrating a Bishop, that power is expressly conferred-" Be to the flock of CHRIST a shepherd, not a wolf-be so merciful, that ye be not too remiss; so minister discipline, that ye forget not mercy." Under the head of untruths, they rank the preface to the Ordinal, in which the three orders are expressly mentioned; and, to crown all, they rank under the head of Popish errors, that "Deacons, Priests, Bishops, and Archbishops, are made several orders and degrees of ministry." [By the way, Archbishops were never considered a distinct order; nor were they ever ordained to that office; and that the Puritans must have known very well.]

66

I think, Sir, I may now, with great propriety, address you in the words used by Bishop Madox, in reply to Mr. Neal, upon the same point. Nothing, sure, but the impossibility of supporting your scheme, and proving the parity of Presbyters and Bishops any other way, could have put you upon this method of attempting it. You, indeed, have 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 any 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 alleged, been no more than a Chairman, a Moderator, or temporary President of a presbytery; no instances of many Bishops for 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, other methods were to be tried, 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 were Presbyters, and nothing more, not only the order, but the very office the same."

& See MADOX against NEAL

Will you, Sir, take Bishop Burnet's account of the opinions of the reformers upon this point? "In the ancient Church," says he, "they knew none of those subtilties which were found out in the latter ages. It was 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 inquire, 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 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 there could be no office higher than that which qualified a man to so mighty a performance.But as they designed to extol the order of Priesthood, so the Canonists had as great mind to deprèss 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." After several other observations, Burnet says, " These are the very dregs of popery;" and then concludes with these strong words: So partial are some men to their particular conceits, that they make use of the most mischievous topics when they can serve their turn, not considering how much farther these arguments will run, if they ever admit them."u

It now, Sir, appears beyond all reasonable contradiction, that the compilers of the old Ordinal acknowledged three distinct orders in the Church, as the preface to the Ordinal evincesthat they declared there were, by divine appointment, divers orders of ministers-that they composed a distinct office for the ordination of each order-that there could be no dispute to which of these orders the person ordained was admitted, nor what were the peculiar duties of his office-and that all this was approved of, and consented to by the Bishops and clergy, and established by the King and Parliament. Still it must be admitted, that adding the words for the office and work of a Bishop" in the one office, and "for the office and work of a Priest" in the other, completely removed the objection which the Puritans and Papists made to these offices; and entirely freed those candid inquirers after truth from that unhappy necessity, which they thought themselves under, of obscuring what was sufficiently clear to unprejudiced minds. But notwithstanding all this clear and decisive evidence, we u Hist. of Ref. Vol. I. p. 366.

MADOX against NEAL, p, 64, 65.