so much as will answer my purpose. After premising the object of the act to be concord and unity, it proceeds to say-" It is requisite to have one uniform fashion and manner for making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or Ministers of the church. Be it, therefore, enacted by the King's Highness, with the assent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and the Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that such form and manner of making, and consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other ministers of the church, &c."*

From this act it is evident, that the formation of different offices for different orders, was contemplated. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose, that the intention of the act was fulfilled, and that different offices were actually framed for different orders. This was, in fact, the case.

But those who are ever looking out for some slight defect, upon which they may ground an objection, have said, that in the Ordinal set forth in Edward's reign, the words for conveying the Bishop's character, are not the same as in the present Ordinal. Thus, in the latter, the words are-Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop, &c. But in the former, the words were-Take the Holy Ghost, remember that thou stir up, &c. Here, say they, the word Bishop was not used, and, therefore, it could not have been determined to * Eccles Hist. vol. ii. p. 288.

what office the person on whom hands were laid, was designed.

This, Sir, is one of the weakest and most idle cavils I have ever seen. It was first started by the Papists; and the Puritans, although folly is marked upon "the head and front" of it, were not ashamed to repeat it. Collier, in answer to it, observes,* that "although the word Bishop is not used, (at the time of imposing hands) yet there is a plain dis, tinction in other parts of the office. For instance, there is an express declaration of two Bishops, that the person present is to be consecrated to their own order. There are more questions put to him by the Archbishop, than are mentioned in the office for ordaining Priests; some of which suppose a supe rior authority in his character, and that the exercise of discipline, and the government of a diocese, are branches of his function. The Archbishop, and two other Bishops, lay their hands upon the head of the elect; whereas, at the ordination of a Priest, this rite is performed by the Diocesan with some Priests assisting." It is, therefore, not to be denied with any appearance of reason, that the first and second Ordinal are precisely the same as to intention, distinction of office, and conveyance of authority.

As a further proof that a new office was conferred by the old Ordinal, I would observe, in the words of Dr. Chandler, that, "in the ordination of Pres

* Ecc. Hist. vol. i. p. 291.

byters, a distinction of their office from that of Bishop, immediately follows. They are declared to have, and the declaration implies that they have, in virtue of that ordination, only the power of absolving penitents, and of dispensing the word and sacraments; and that in such congregations as they should be 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."*

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 gene

Appeal further defended, p. 42, 43

ral 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 circumstances 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 Eng land 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 reformers, who are acknowledged by all the world to have been great and good men, to suppose that they would compose different 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 golemn 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 fáce 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 reformers 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 Apostle's time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."