confidered by the Law, as executing a Commiffion under Chrift?"

The Anfwer to this is fo very obvious, that it is almoft trifling to add any other Words than your own to confute them. What has any Man to do with what is fuggefted in the Office of Ordination, that confiders who fuggefts it? Have not all Men an equal Right to fuggeft, that, when they appoint a Minister of Chrift's Church, they do it in Purfuance of his Directions; and, in the Name of Amazement, what is proved by tacking to the End of all you do, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft? Was ever fuch an Argument used by any Man, but yourself! How can this poffibly, as you most furprisingly infinuate, prove what the Law thinks of your Ordination? Pray, Doctor, in your next Performance, think of the Sense of what you write, before you publish it: And, as you Jabour for the Information of the Weak and Unlearned, let us be able at leaft to draw fome Meaning or other from what you fay, or our Edification will be but very little.

In the next Place, to prove every Thing you have afferted, you cite the following Words from the 37th Article, viz. (P. 15.) “We give not

to our Princes the miniftring either of God's "Word or of the Sacraments; the which Thing "the Injunctions alfo lately fet forth by Eliza"beth our Queen, do moft plainly teftify." The Ufe you make of this is most notoriously ftrained and unnatural; when you affert, that it is plain from hence, that, as Princes are not entrufted with the Administration of the Word and Sacraments, therefore they cannot commit it to others; and yet you allow our Princes to be the Appointers of Bishops, who entruft others with it. And is not this, without Evafion, in the most extensive Sense, committing the Trust of the Ministry of the whole Church to the Prince; fince no Man can adminifter the Word and Sacraments therein, unless licensed by those whom the Prince qualifies for that Purpose, by making him a Bishop, under himself, in that Church, of which He is the Head.-Our Church is no way on a Foot with that of the antient Jews (unless in relation to the Tythes of the Levites :) And their Church can never be a Pattern for ours, till our Priests are appointed first by God, and then take their Function by Birth. Queen Elizabeth, you prove from the fame Article, challenged no other Prerogative than what God in Scripture gave to all godly Princes. This makes nothing to your Purpose; nor can I fay any more to fuch F6

a general Charge, than that their typical Ceremonies were established by Mofes and Aaron, in a very particular Manner: But our Church is wholly model'd on a more Spiritual Foundation, by Chrift, without one of the Offices or Ordinances about which we are now difputing.

(P. 17.) "As the Article refers to the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, to the Injunctions "let us go:" [With all my Heart, Doctor; but pray take me in your Hand:] "Where we * find the fame Thing asserted as in the Article, "viz. That the Queen challengeth no Autho

rity or Power of Miniftry of divine Service

(i. e. the Word and Sacraments) in the Church "nor any other Authority than that which * was challenged-by King Henry VIII. and * King Edward VI."-Your telling us, in Explanation of this, that King Henry, in his Letter to the Clergy of the Province of York, fays, That the Miniftration of the Sacraments was by Chrift committed to Priefts, bears but little Weight, when we have read the indifputable Answer in the Commiffions taken out by the Bifhops in that and the following Reign (which appear to be too glaring even for yourself to over-look) acknowledging, "That all Jurifdiction, Ecclefiaftical as "well as Civil, flowed from the King as its ori

"ginal Source, and that they held their Bishopricks "only during the King's Pleasure."-Those who made this Acknowledgment, certainly were Bishops upon thefe Conditions; and confequently unable to tranfmit any other Authority to their Succeffors than what they poffeffed themfelves, which would deprive our present Bishops of any Power, befides what came from the King; even fuppofing (as you would fain have it believed) that Ordination alone makes a Bishop. This is fo very full, that all farther Difpute seems unneceffary: However, fince you lay fo much Stress, by a Regiment of ftaring Capitals, on fome Words in the Inftrument taken out by Bishop Bonner, I will have them to look at in your own Drefs, viz. We license you to do in our Stead, in our " Name, and in our Authority, whatsoever Things "do in any Ways appertain to the Episcopal Au"thority and Jurifdiction, EXCEPT AND "ABOVE THOSE THINGS WHICH WE "ACKNOWLEDGE TO HAVE BEEN "COMMITTED TO YOU OF GOD BY

THE TENOR OF THE HOLY SCRIP"TURES." If you would give me Leave to alter the Face of this, and put the first Sentence in Capitals, it would then ftand much fuller to my Purpose than it now does to your's: For, by a Bishop's being commiffioned to do his Office

in

in the KING's STEAD, and in the KING'S NAME, he certainly ordains a Prieft in the King's Stead, and in the King's Name; that, I think, being Part of his Office; and consequently the Priest so ordained, has his Authority really from the King, and not from the Bishop, otherwife than as an Inftrument in the King's Hand. I can by no means agree with your faying, That if there be any Senfe in thefe Words, it is, that Bishops have an Authority vefted in them by Chrift, diftinct from any they can receive from Christian Princes: Because you will hardly affert, they have it immediately from Chrift, but fucceffively from the Maker of Bishops; either the Pope, King, &c. according to the Cuftom of different Nations.-Your ftriving to lofe the Senfe of thefe Words, (P. 20.) We license you to ORDAIN, and telling us, Bifhop Burnet was mif taken when he represents the King to be the Fountain of all Power, is much below a Gentleman of your Rank; and your wrefting the Word Power into Jurifdi&tion, and Jurisdiction into Magistracy, and Magistracy into Civil Effe, and Civil Effect into nothing, is fomething fo novel and unanswerable, that, I believe, I had better avoid a Reply, left we should both give equal Occafion to be laughed at.-But, however, I agree with your learned Conclufion, (P. 21.)

"That