Page 333. ""Tis plain, all the power the bishops have, is derived from the people, &c." In general the distinction lies here. The permissive power of exercising jurisdiction lies in the people, or legislature, or administrator of a kingdom; but not of making him a bishop: as a physician that commences abroad, may be suffered to practise in London, or be hindered; but they have not the power of creating him a doctor, which is peculiar to a university. This is some allusion; but the thing is plain, as it seems to me, and wants no subterfuge, &c.

Page 338. "A journeyman bishop to ordain for him." Does any man think, that writing at this rate does the author's cause any service? is it his wit or his spleen that he cannot govern?

Page 364. "Can any have a right to an office, without having a right to do those things in which the office consists?" I answer, the ordination is valid. But a man may prudentially forbid to do some things as a clergyman may marry without licence or banns; the marriage is good; yet he is punishable for it.

Page 368. "A choice made by persons who have no right to choose, is an error of the first concoction." That battered simile again! this is hard. I wish physicians had kept that a secret, it lies so ready for him to be witty with.

Page 370. "If prescription can make mere nullities to become good and valid, the laity may be capable of all manner of ecclesiastical power, &c." There is a difference; for, here the same way is kept, although there might be breaches; but it is quite otherwise, if you alter the whole method from what it was at first. We see bishops there always were bishops: it is the old way still. So a family is still held the same, al

though we are not sure of the purity of every one of the race.

دو

Page 380. "It is said, that every nation is not a complete body politic within itself, as to ecclesiasticals. But the whole church, say they, composes such a body, and Christ is the head of it. But Christ's headship makes Christians no more one body politic, with respect to ecclesiasticals, than to civils. Here we must show the reason and necessity of the church being a corporation all over the world: to avoid heresies, and preserve fundamentals, and hinder the corrupting of scripture, &c. But there are no such necessities in government, to be the same every where, &c. It is something like the colleges in a university; they are all independent, yet joined, are one body. So a general council consisteth of many persons independent of one another, &c.

However, there is such a thing as jus gentium, &c. And he that is doctor of physic, or law, is so in any university in Europe, like the Respublica Litteraria. Nor to me does there seem any thing contradicting, or improper in this notion of the catholic church; and for want of such a communion, religion is so much corrupted, and would be more, if there were not more communion in this than in civils. It is of no import to mankind how nations are governed; but the preserving the purity of religion is best held up by endeavouring to make it one body over the world. Something like as there is in trade. So to be able to communicate with all Christians we come among, is at least to be wished and aimed at, as much as we can.

Page 384. "In a word, if the bishops are not supreme, &c." Here he reassumes his arguments

for popery, that there cannot be a body politic of the church through the whole world, without a visible head to have recourse to. These were formerly writ to advance popery, and now to put an absurdity upon the hypothesis of a catholic church. As they say in Ireland, in king James's time they built mass-houses, which we make very good barns of.

Page 388. "Bishops are under a premunire, obliged to confirm and consecrate the person named in the congé d'élire." This perhaps is complained of. He is permitted to do it. We allow the legislature may hinder, if they please; as they may turn out Christianity, if they think fit.

Page 389. "It is the magistrate who empowers them to do more for other bishops than they can for themselves, since they cannot appoint their own successors. ́ Yes they could, if the magistrate would let them. Here is an endless splutter, and a parcel of perplexed distinctions upon no occasion. All that the clergy pretend to, is a right of qualifying men for the ministry, something like what a university doth with degrees. This power they claim from God, and that the civil power cannot do it as pleasing to God without them; but they may choose whether they will suffer it or not. A religion cannot be crammed down a nation's throat against their will; but when they receive a religion, it is supposed they receive it as their converters give it; and upon that foot, they cannot justly mingle their own methods, that contradict that religion, &c.

Page 390. "With us the bishops act only ministerially, and by virtue of the regal commission, by which the prince firmly enjoins and commands them to proceed in choosing, confirming, and con

secrating, &c." Suppose we held it unlawful to do so how can we help it? But does that make it rightful, if it be not so? Suppose the author lived in a heathen country, where a law would be made to call Christianity idolatrous; would that be a topic for him to prove it so by, &c. And why do the clergy incur a premunire; to frighten them? Because the law understandeth, that, if they refuse, the chosen cannot be a bishop. But, if the clergy had an order to do it otherwise than they have prescribed, they ought and would incur a hundred rather.

Page 402." I believe the catholic church, &c." Here he ridicules the Apostles Creed. Another part of his scheme. By what he says in these pages, it is certain, his design is either to run down Christianity, or set up popery; the latter it is more charitable to think, and, from his past life, highly probable.

Page 405."That which gave the papists so great advantage was, clergymen's talking so very inconsistent with themselves, &c." State the dif ference here between our separation from Rome, and the dissenters from us, and show the falseness of what he says. I wish he would tell us what he leaves for a clergyman to do, if he may not instruct the people in religion, and if they should not receive his instructions.

Page 411. "The restraint of the press a badge of popery." Why is that a badge of popery? why not restrain the press to those who would confound religion, as in civil matters? But this toucheth himself. He would starve perhaps, &c. Let him get some honester livelihood then. It is plain, all his arguments against constraint, &c. favour the papists as much as dissenters; for

both have opinions that may affect the peace of

the state.

Page 413. "Since this discourse, &c." And must we have another volume on this one subject of independency? or, is it to fright us? I am not of Dr Hickes's mind, Qu'il vient. I pity the readers, and the clergy that must answer it, be it ever so insipid. Reflect on this sarcastic conclusion, &c.