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 have not yet come to the close of this part of the discussion. As a further argument in proof of your point, you observe, that "when these great reformers went further than to compile temporary and fugitive manuals; when they undertook to frame the fundamental and permanent arti cles of their church, we find them carefully guarding against any exclusive claim in behalf of diocesan Episcopacy. If they had deemed an order of Bishops superior to Presbyters, indispensably neces sary to the regular organization of the church, and the validity of Christian ordinances, can we sup pose that men who showed themselves so faithful and zealous. in the cause of Christ, would have been wholly silent on the subject? And above all, if they entertained such an opinion, would they have forborne to express it in that article in which they undertook formally to state the doctrine of their church with respect to the Christian ministry? That article (the 23d) is couched in the following terms: It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public 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 public authority, given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." You say that, "here is not a syllable said of diocesan Bishops, or of the necessity of Episcopal ordination; on the contrary, there is most evidently displayed a studious care to employ such language as would embrace the other reformed churches, and recognize as valid their ministry and ordinances."*

To this I answer, 1st. The question between us is not, whether the reformers of the church of England believed that Presbyterian ordination is valid, where no other can be had, but whether Episcopacy is of Apostolical and divine institution? That they helieved it is, has been proved beyond all reasonable contradiction; and that the 23d article does not contradict that opinion, is perfectly clear.

- 2d. It was not the business of the reformers to say in the above article, that the divine institution of Episcopacy necessarily precludes from the cha racter of churches, those which have not the order of Bishops. They said enough when they declared, that "it is evident from Holy Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' times there have been these orders of Ministers in the church,

U

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and when they said, that " no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon in the church of England, or suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination.".

3d. It is clear, beyond all controversy, from the above declarations, that the reformers maintained the apostolical institution of Episcopacy; and, therefore, when they say, in the 23d article, that "it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same;" the words before he be lawfully called and sent, must necessarily be interpreted by the words in the preface to the ordinal, viz. No man shall be accounted or taken for a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, except he be called according to the form hereafter following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or ordination. Here it is evident that the reformers consider none as lawful Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, without Episcopal ordination; at the same time they say nothing about Presbyterian ordination, leaving it to shift for itself upon the plea of necessity, or any other plea its advocates may advance in its favour. This, considering the danger to which the whole reformation was exposed, was a mark of

prudence; but I think no impartial and candid man .can consider it as affording the smallest proof, that the reformers did not consider Episcopacy as of divine institution, and Presbyterian ordination as ir regular, and totally destitute of Apostolic sanction

I know it has been said, although you do not say it, that by the word lawful is meant, according to the law of the land. But I do not see how that can be; for the King and Parliament, who alone have authority to make laws, did not draw up the offices and articles of religion, but the Bishops and clergy assembled in convocation, who have ever been es teemed the proper expositors of the law of God. When the clergy, therefore, declare any thing to be lawful or unlawful, they must necessarily be understood, according to the law of God. For the judges, not the clergy, are the proper expositors of the law of the land. This evasion, therefore, is totally inadmissible.

Lastly. It might as well be argued by the advocates for lay ordination, from there being no mention of Presbyters in the 23d article, that the church of England does not require so much as Presbyters to lay on their hands in ordination, as that she does not require Bishops to lay on their hands, because nothing is said in that article about diocesan Bishops. The argument, in respect to the former, is just as conclusive as in respect to the latter. But this proves too much; and, therefore, by a rule of logic, proves nothing.

I shall close this head, and this letter, with noticing your quotation from Bishop Burnet. The quotation amounts to this, that the reformers did not magisterially pronounce a sentence of invalidity, upon the orders of the reformed churches upon the continent. That is very true. It was not their business to do so in direct and pointed terms. But let any man consider the genuine consequence of the declaration of the reformers. They say there were three orders instituted by the Apostles-Bishops, Priests and Deacons. That to Bishops belongs the right of ordaining; and that none shall be considered lawful Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, unless they have been Episcopally consecrated or ordained. Let any one, I say, consider the genuine consequence of these declarations, and then if he can see any thing in the article of a comprehensive nature, I shall not be so hostile to his repose, as to attempt to deprive him of the comfort he can derive from it.

When, Sir, you quoted Burnet, why did you not give us the last words of the passage which you adduced? Those words are" Necessity has no law, and is a law to itself." From this it is evident, that he predicates all that he says upon necessity. Read the whole that he says upon the Article, and you will see that all his observations rest upon that ground.

To conclude: It is very evident from what has appeared in this letter, that Burnet fully believed