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 or ders 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 dis

* See Brett on Episcopacy, p. 159, and Burnet, vol. ii. p. 144. VOL. II. D.

graced the Christian church. I do not see, Sir, how it is possible for you to avoid adopting one part or other of this alternative.

T

"

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

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 1500 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 * See Madox against Neal.

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.

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 per

* Madox against Neal, p. 64, 65.

formance. But as they designed to extol the order of Priesthood, so the Canonists had as great 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." 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.”*

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 evinces that 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

Hist. Reform. vol. i. p. 366.