_When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare._ Footnote 55: It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have been episcopally vested with holy orders. In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it, to call that an “appointment of Christ,” and an “essentially necessary” one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this controversy to an issue.