ftractedly confidered, after their deprivation, as it was before; what they had been deprived of being only those contingent circumftances of emolument and honour, which have no neceffary connexion with the ministerial commiffion.

Your mistake upon this fubject appears to have arifen from your confounding two things in their nature quite diftinct, and not neceffarily connected with each other; the minifterial commiffion, and the temporalities annexed to the difcharge of it in this country. The circumftances of Mr. Law being a nonjuror, and ordained by a nonjuring bishop, which it is incumbent upon you to prove; together with that of Mr. LESLEY being a nonjuror, who certainly was not ordained by a nonjuring bifhop; tend in no degree to the establishment of the point you attempt to maintain. But let them stand in the fame predicament, if you pleafe; all that I am concerned about is, their minifterial commiffion; which was equally valid, if received from a nonjuring bishop, as from any other. To To prove this, I need only obferve to you, that had thefe Divines lived in the prefent day, and repaired to America for the fake of enjoying the public exercife of their function, their letters of orders would have admitted them into the ministry

of the American church; because they would have found no political impediment to the regular discharge of it. Dr. SEABURY, the late eminently learned and pious bishop of Connecticut, who was confecrated by fome bishops, who alfo then were nonjurors; and who even now, though no longer nonjurors, receive from the state nothing but protection-for which alone, there is reason to believe, they are truly grateful; is an instance in point.* The conclufion, then, which has been drawn from the circumftance of Mr. LAW being a nonjuror, falls to the ground: in fact,

*It is with infinite concern I here notice a farcafm in a note, annexed to a new edition, not published, but printed and dispersed with much induftry, of Poems by Michael Woodhull, efq.-He calls the confecration of Dr. SEABURY, "a pretended confecration, by a junto of non-juring Scotch ecclefiaftics, affuming to themselves the epifcopal office." See page 28. To reftrain poets from fiction, would be to deftroy their occupation. But when poets accompany their imaginary effufions with matters of fact and real life, that degree of information neceffary to juftify the publication of what reflects upon the characters of others, ought to be poffeffed by them; because it is prefumed, that in becoming poets they do not ceafe to be honeft men. Had Mr. W. been acquainted with the hiftory of the Scotch epifcopal church, he certainly would not have written the note in queftion; for he would have known the fubftance of it to be not more inconfiftent with truth than with charity. He however ftands excused on the fame ground on which ST. PAUL placed himself, when he faid, that "he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly.” 1 Tim, 1. 13. Mr. W., in his private character, is both respected and beloved; as a man who does honour to the fortune he poffeffes: it is to be lamented only,

fee him in what light you please, as ordained by a nonjuring bishop, or not, his cafe proves juft nothing to the present purpose.

The hypothefis, therefore, which you are pleased to call mine, according to which you attempt to prove that I am living in a state of fchifm with the church of England, becaufe Mr. Law was a nonjuror; I beg leave to refign to its author, not having penetration enough to fee the confequence drawn from it. Nor do I see more clearly, how the teftimony of nonjuring divines, upon the fubject of church government, can be affected by an offence committed against the civil power; on the contrary, I should think fuch testimony ought to weigh heavy in the scale, from the confideration that the parties who furnished it, (whatever judgment may be formed of their political opinions) had given the most unequivocal proof of their being honeft men, by facrificing every temporal advantage to the prefervation of their confciences.

that he writes as he does. Whatever Mr. WOODHULL's private opinion on the fubject of kings, priests, and republican governments, may be, that delicacy of feeling, poffeffed by every liberal mind, ought to restrain him from giving unneceffary offence to the opinions of other people. It is more to be wondered at that Mr. W. should do fo, when it is confidered that among his first friends he has to reckon some of the most refpectable and diftinguished characters in the clerical profeffion.

What you proceed to obferve on the fubject of the venerable Archbishop SECKER, ftrikes me to be as little to the purpose, as your remark on the nonjuring clergy. Nothing is more eafy than to put hard cases. But if particular hard cafes, which either may happen, or have fometimes happened, be deemed of fufficient force to overthrow a general rule, it will be difficult to find out any fuch thing as firmnefs or ftability either in church or ftate. "Exceptio non facit regulam," is a known and acknowledged axiom. Admitting, therefore, Sir, what you are pleased to fay upon the Archbishop's cafe, it does not in the least tend to invalidate the general pofition laid down in the words of ST. IGNATIUS, and other primitive writers, refpecting the administration of the Christian facraments. In conformity with which, Bishop BURNETT, in his comment upon the nineteenth article,, fays, "that none ought to baptize, but men dedicated to the service of GOD, and ordained, accor ding to that conftitution that was fettled in the church by the Apoftles." Article nineteenth. Such is the language of our church in her twenty-third article, and in her fervice for private baptifm.

In treating of the conftitution of the Chriftian church, the regular plan upon which it is formed

must be laid down: the exceptions, which from particular circumftances have taken place against it, must be left to fpeak for themselves, but not to militate against the general rule. Diffenters, for inftance, have been commonly admitted to communion in the church, without having been re-baptized. The conclufion to be drawn from this circumftance is, not that the church confiders the baptifm of Diffenters to be regular, but that the thinks the irregularity of it may not deprive the parties of the other benefits of church communion. Admitting, therefore, that the baptism of Archbishop SECKER was an irregular one, according to the doctrine of the church of England, it does not follow from thence that his minifterial function was invalid; because the circumftance of his having been irregularly baptized could not make him a fchifmatic, whilft he lived in communion with the epifcopal church: at the fame time that the circumftance of his having been regularly ordained established the validity of his ministerial office. With refpect to the character of the Archbishop, both as a divine and a man, the public, I believe, entertain but one opinion on that head; confequently the pages dedicated to his fubject might have been omitted.