A Presbyterian, then, considers Episcopal ordination as absolutely essential to the exercise of a valid priesthood; refusing to wait upon the ministrations of any man who has not been commissioned by a diocesan Bishop.

But let us proceed to the Ordinal itself. And here we are immediately struck with the fact, that it prescribes three distinct offices; one for the ordination of Deacons, one for the ordination of Priests, and one for the ordination of Bishops. When a Deacon is raised to the office of Priest, he receives a new commission: when a Priest is raised to the office of Bishop, he receives a new commission.

A Presbyterian, then, is one who believes that a Presbyter is made a Bishop by being again ordained.

Still further-The first prayer in the office for ordering Deacons, commences thus: "Almighty God, who, by thy Divine Providence, hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church."

The same kind of language occurs in the office for ordering Priests: "Almighty God, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church."

In the office for the consecration of Bishops, we have the very same words: "Almighty God, giver of all good things, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers orders of uunisters in thy Church."

Is it possible to find language more full, or more explicit? Three orders of ministers have existed from the Apostles' time-these orders are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons-Almighty God, by his Holy

Spirit, did institute them: And to preserve the distinction, thus divinely established, no man is to be esteemed a lawful minister unless Episcopally ordained. Still, the reformers who drew up the Ordinal, you tell us, were "Presbyterians in principle;" not one of them entertaining the "thought of placing Episcopacy upon the footing of divine right."

But how do you establish your assertion, that the reformers of the Church of England were Presbyterians in principle? Do you refer your readers to the Ordinal which these venerable men composed, and endeavour to prove, by a critical examination of its contents, that it speaks the language of parity? Very far from it! The Ordinal contains the matured and final opinions of the English reformers on the subject of the ministry: they composed it as a permanent standard of practice for the Church; and, accordingly, it has continued to be her guide from the Reformation to the present day.

Aware of the difficulty which the Ordinal throws in your way, you resolved to surmount it by a bold assertion. Thus you speak in your first Series of Letters: "Those who wish to persuade us that the venerable reformers of the Church of England held the divine right of Diocesan Episcopacy, refer us to the ordination service drawn up by them. But those who insist on this argument, forget that the ordination service, as it now stands, differs considerably from that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates. If I mistake not,

that service, as it came from the hands of the reformers, did not contain a sentence inconsistent with the opinions which I have ascribed to them. Above an hundred years afterwards, in the reign of Charles II. this service was revised and altered."*

You could not venture to be positive. "If I mistake not." And not only do you substitute hypothesis in the place of fact, but you give us no authority for what you say. Thus we are to take your conjectures for established truths. The fact is, that the Ordinal was not altered, in the reign of Charles the second, in any thing at all material.†

* Letters, p. 224, 225.

The act of Parliament for drawing up an Ordinal, passed in the year 1549, not long after the accession of Edward VI. to the throne. It begins thus-" It is requisite to have one uniform fashion and manner for making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." We see, therefore, that the act of Parliament, under which the Ordinal was drawn up, expressly recognizes the distinction in the orders of the ministry. Accordingly, in the preface to the Ordinal, and in the prayers of the ordination offices, divers orders of ministers are formally declared to be of divine institution.

In the Ordinal set forth in Edward's reign, the words in the office for consecrating a Bishop are-" Take the Holy Ghost, remember that thou stir up, &c." The words in the present Ordinal are—“ Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop."

The alteration was made in consequence of a cavil of the Papists, in which they were joined by the Puritans, that the word Bishop not being used, it was impossible to determine to what office the person, on whom hands were laid, was intended to be consecrated. Perhaps a more ridiculous criticism was never employed. The two offices for consecration of Bishops and of Presbyters, are perfectly distinct. A person who had been ordained Presbyter according to the one form, if raised to the office of Bishop, was again consecrated according to the other. It could not but be known to what office an individual was ordained; there was, literally, no possibility of mistake in the case. But factious men are ever ready to dispute, and make trouble. Accordingly, the Papists raised the difficulty, which has been just mentioned,

Every word which I have quoted stood in the old Ordinal precisely as it stands in the present: the prayers of the ordination offices were exactly the same. This was stated by Dr. Bowden and myself in our reply to your first publication. We called upon you to establish your assertion, that the Ordinal had been materially changed in the reign of Charles II. To all this you make no reply, passing by the whole subject of the ordination offices of our Church, although they are the very hinge on which the particular point in controversy turns, without a word of notice.

Well-you asserted that the ordination service was materially changed in the reign of Charles II.-we denied your assertion, and called for your proof. In your reply you produce no proof, but leave the subject entirely unnoticed. Your assertion, relative to a change in the Ordinal, then, is to be considered as given up. But still you persevere in making Presbyterians of the English reformers. ·

Let us, then, draw out your account of a Presbyterian into a full definition.

He is one who believes that Almighty God, by his Holy Spirit, did institute divers orders of ministers; that these orders are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; that to the highest of these the power of ordaining exclusively belongs; and that no per

and the Puritans were not ashamed to join them in it. The alteration was introduced to take away all pretence for the cavil. This subject is very fully explained by Dr. Bowden, in his second volume on Episcopacy, Letter XIV.

son can be considered as a lawful minister of Christ without having received Episcopal ordination or consecration.

Instead of endeavouring to ascertain the opinions of the reformers in question, from those public forms of ordination which they established for the permanent regulation of the practice of the Church, you perplex and confuse the reader with a mass of extrinsic evidence.

You quote "The Institution of a Christian Man," and "A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man;" two books which were composed and published by the English reformers several years before the Ordinal appeared-You refer to the conduct of Archbishop Cranmer upon the death of Henry VIII.-You introduce an extract from the Questions and Answers of "a select Assembly of Divines," called for "the resolution of several questions relative to the settlement of religion."—All this is of a date prior to the year 1550, in which the forms of ordination and consecration were solemnly fixed in the Church of England.

You go on to derive evidence from events subsequent to the period above mentioned; referring us to an act passed in the thirteenth year of the reign of Elizabeth; to the conduct which the English reformers observed towards some eminent foreign Divines, particularly Calvin; and to the license granted by Archbishop Grindal to John Morrison, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland.

Now, Sir, on all this I have two observations