Rivers of Blood to procure him? Nor was this fole fupreme fpiritual Power sufficient: For, after perpetual Strugglings for the temporal Authority also, we find at last even the Emperor himfelf depofed (Anno 1073.) by the Craft and Vil lainy of a Roman Bishop, and forced to pass the Aips in Winter, diveft himself of the Imperial Robes, and glad to walk barefoot, in a woollen Frock, to beg Pardon of, and be reinvefted with his Crown from, a Bishop of Rome; and all this for no other Reason, than his exercifing a Power derived to him from his Predeceffors, of conftituting Bishops, and governing his own Dominions. Power the Church then had, with a Witnefs; nay, and when the reftored Emperor Henry happened to offend this powerful Bishop afterwards, we find his Reverence modeft enough to fend the Imperial Crown to another (Rodolph), and-undertake to abfolve the Emperor's Subjects of all Duty and Allegiance to their natural and lawful Sovereign.If, Doctor, the Succeffion was still continued every where, Gregory was furely a regular Succeffor to the Apofiles; but how a Chriftian can believe him fuch, is perhaps eafier for you to explain, than me to conceive.

But this you must fay to his Honour, that he was the first that ever, in a publick Manner, got a Bishop of Rome chose without the Emperor's Order;

F3

Order; and laid the Foundation for that Power in the Clergy, which afterwards reduced all Chriftians either to a State of Beggary or Vaffalage, from the Throne to the Cottage. And it is to this fame Power and Authority of the Church, that we owe the Diverfion of feeing, in moft of our Hiftorians, Lewis VI. of France, and Henry II. of England, (A. D. 1161.) jointly leading the Horfe on which the Twin-Pope, Alexander III. entered Tourly upon Loire! Whilft the other infallible Succeffor of St. Peter was, at the fame Time, as much reverenced by Spain and the Empire!

You seem to glory in infinuating, that the Emperors did not make Bishops; fince, as you explain yourself, (P. 13.) " Nomination or Elec❝tion was never underfood to create the Epif"copal Authority; but Ordination, an A&t pure"ly fpiritual, derived from Chrift as Head of "the Church, and exercifed under him ;-with.

out which no Perfon can act as a Minister in "the Church."

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

E

Bishop independent of fuch Election or Appointment ; becaufe, his real Power comes from thofe, 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 Majefty, confirm him in it: Without Ordination the Bishop cannot act as fuch, tho' 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 last 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 Sanction 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 Pleafure, there is the Source of all their Authority as fuch :-And, I am perfuaded, that few ftanch Churchmen would difpute this Affertion, in cafe of the Pope's Appointment; they being generally (as indeed their Arguments oblige them) well affected to his fpiritual as well as tem

potal Authority and Succeffion, 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 Constitution 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 Bfhop without Ordination: --True; nor of an Excifeman without taking the Oaths. Do the Oaths then make a Man an Excifeman, and give him his Authority? Surely, no: Since thofe, who appoint him, can difpenfe with his Neglect, and yet his Power is the fame: 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 Epifcopal Authority, and, under God, Head of our Church; there being no Ecclefiaftics in England endowed with fuch Episcopal Authority, any otherwife than is received from him,

who

who is either their spiritual Head, or they are

all Heads themselves.

You triumph mightily in the Style of the Ordinance for Ordination of Priefts; and tell us, it is there exprefly faid, (P. 14, 15.) "They are "called to be. Meffengers, Watchmen, and "Stewards of the Lord.". "And are exhorted "to fhew themfelves dutiful and thankful to "that Lord who hath placed them in so 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 Bifhops, Priefts, or Deacons, the Ordina"tion is fuggefted to be performed in pursuance

of the Directions of Chrift, who hath ap

pointed divers Orders of Minifters in his “Church.”——" And the very Words of Or"dination run, In the Name of the Father, and "of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft." And then you very judiciously afk, if, after this, (ibid.) "any Man in his Senses can doubt, whe"ther a Bishop, in conferring Orders, is not