too, that most of the writers, whom you have quoted, flourished in the period when Popery was the great object of jealousy; furnishing the most urgent motives to a harmonious union among Protestants. What wonder, then, if, under such circumstances, some English divines should express themselves in soft terms; or, even let fall observations which, viewed alone, may be made to countenance the Presbyterial scheme! Especially when it is considered that the foreign reformed churches placed their want of Bishops on the ground of necessity; lamenting it as a defect, and praying that it might be 'speedily supplied. Such a state of things furnished strong motives to an indulgent mode of expression; and, surely, no candid critic would think of construing this into an abandonment of the standards which the distinguished writers, in question, had subscribed, and which they were bound by every principle of duty to observe. The inconsistency, too, is to be fastened upon them by an exclusive attention to particular passages; leaving entirely out of view those parts of their works which speak a strong, and an unambiguous language.

How many opposite systems has the bible been made to support by your plan of partial examination. There is scarcely any thing which it may not be brought to favor, by collecting a text here, and a text there, without considering it as a whole, and putting a consistent and reasonable inter pretation upon all its parts. I mention this, as a familiar example, to shew the extreme impropriety of the mode in which you have proceeded.

Were I to treat you, as you have treated others, I should prove you, to all intents and purposes, a Quaker. You give up the priesthood and sacraments as not necessary to the visible church; representing certain internal qualifications as alone essential to it.* This is utterly inconsistent with your confession of faith; being, precisely, the sort of language which the society of Friends are in the habit of using. I do not intend to say, taking your own words, that there are 66 no expressions in other parts of your works, inconsistent with this concession." "It is enough for me to know what language you employ when you undertake professedly to state your opinion on the subject before us, and when you were called upon by every motive to write with caution and precision." Thus, sir, I have proved you to Letters, p. 247.

* Letters, p. 344.

be a Quaker precisely in the way in which you have prov ed many Episcopal writers to be favorable to Presbyte rial ordination; having quoted particular parts of your book in which you "professedly treat of the church, and in which it was your duty to be cautious;" passing by other parts, for this very good reason, that they express opinions different from those which I wish to fasten upon you. And are you, then, really, a Quaker? No--No--Upon reading your letters through it will be seen that you are a Presbyterian ; and a candid critic will be at no loss to perceive that you have been betrayed into the loose expressions, of which I avail myself, by your desire to preserve some sort of consistency while inveighing against "the arrogant and exclusive claims of your opponents." Many of the writers, whom you have endeavored to force into your service, are among the strongest supporters of the divine institution of Episcopacy. You have taken advantage of observations which the state of the times, and an earnest desire to preserve harmony among Protestants, in their common opposition to the Papacy, extorted from them; passing by, altogether, the plain language which is to be found in different parts of their works, and even forgetting that some of them have written professed treatises to prove the divine origin of the system which you represent them as, virtually, abandoning.

No doubt, many Episcopalians, clergymen as well as laymen, have not spoken, and do not speak, on this subject, the language of their church. But this is far from being a singular case. The observation may be made of every religious society; and, of none, more strongly, perhaps, than of that to which you belong. The faith of a church is to be collected from her standards; and it is preposterous to arrange against her the opinions of a few of her divines; especially when it is done for the purpose of conveying the idea that she has not, in the different periods of her history, maintained what her public formularies have always explicitly declared.

These preliminary reflections will prepare us for entering on your division of Episcopal writers.

The first class is thus characterized. "These prefer the Episcopal government, and some of them believe that it was the primitive form; but they consider it as resting on the ground of HUMAN EXPEDIENCY ALONE, and not of DIVINE

The first person, introduced under this head, is the vene rable Cranmer. And did this excellent Prelate really consider Episcopacy as a mere human invention resting on the ground of expediency alone? To say so is to make him utterly inconsistent with himself, and to set at nought the clearest, and most unequivocal testimony.

Cranmer, it is very true, was inclined, at one time, to lax notions on the subject of ecclesiastical offices; but it was before he had emancipated himself from the errors of Popery; while, indeed, he still held the absurd doctrine of the real presence. Upon further enquiry, he renounced the inaccurate sentiments, relative to the christian ministry, which he had been disposed to embrace; setting forth and vndicating its Episcopal constitution.

If Cranmer had entertained the opinion which you im. pute to him, would he have drawn up and subscribed the or dinal? But the ordinal, you tell us, was changed in the time of Charles II. You speak with caution on this subject, saying, "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 ;"'+ thus adopting the style of supposition; but we want something more than supposition, or assertion, which are all you have given us.

Attend to the following unequivocal passage from Bishop Burnet. "In Cranmer's paper some singular notions of his about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found; but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they were not established as the doctrine of the church, but laid aside as particular conceits of his own; and it seems that, afterwards, he changed his own opinion. For he sub

*It is curious to observe the different points of light in which Doct. M. places Cranmer. At one time, he is a Presbyterian; believing Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by divine right;* at another, he is a perfect latitudinarian, considering ecclesiastical government, in every part of it, as resting on human expediency.† When a writer substitutes conjecture and bold assertion for fact and testimony, no wonder he runs into inconsistencies.

† Letters, p. 225.

Letters, p. 219. 223, ibid. p. 12.

scribed the book* which was soon after set out, which was directly contrary to those opinions."†

There is another fact which puts an end to all doubt relative to the opinion of Cranmer. He published a catechism, in which, according to Bishop Burnet, "he fully owns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests."‡

What, then, is the state of the evidence?

Cranmer, at one time, was lax in his opinions relative to the christian ministry; but, upon more full enquiry, he be came a decided believer in the divine institution of Episcopacy. He assisted in drawing up the ordinal which asserts the existence of distinct orders of ministers, by divine right, in as strong terms as language can supply. He published a catechism setting forth the same doctrine. Bishop Burnet not only tells us all this; but he states further that the lax notions found in the papers of Cranmer were proposed with great modesty, being laid aside as particular conceits of his own, and not established as the doctrine of the church; that he changed his opinion, and subscribed the book shortly after put out, containing sentiments directly contrary to those

* The book, here alluded to, is "The Erudition of a Christian man" published in the year 1540. And yet you appeal to this book to prove that Cranmer was a Presbyterian in principle. Bishop Burnet was, probably, as well acquainted with the fact as you can -be. We have shewn that he holds a very different language. See, too, how the learned historian, Collier, speaks of the book in question! "The erudition makes orders, one of the seven sacraments, and defines it a gift of grace for administration in the church; that it is conveyed by consecration and imposition of the Bishops' hands; that in the beginning of christianity this character was given by the Apostles. The proof is drawn from the epistles of Timothy and Titus." Further "That these two orders" of Bishops and Priests "were distinct and subordinate," says Collier, "is plain from this erudition.” Burnet and Collier thus hold precisely the same language. But I will not enter, at present, into a particular consideration of the evidence which you attempt to derive from the institution and erudition of a christian man, from the answers to questions proposed to a select assembly of divines, from the conduct of Cranmer, on the death of Henry VIII. from the act of the 13th of Elizabeth, and a few other particulars; reserving the distinct examination of them to a future opportunity. I will, however, take the liberty of observing, that the whole of what you have said, on this part of the subject, is a continued strain of misrepre sentation, and an absolute abuse of the credulity of your readers. How easy is it to garble evidence; paticularly at second hand!

† History of the reformation, vol. I. p. 289. + vol. II. p. 71.

which, on a superficial view, he had been disposed to favor. The evidence, thus produced, is direct and positive; and when we consider that it renders Cranmer consistent with himself, making him act a correct and regular part, it puts the question of his opinions completely at rest.*

I proceed to say something of Archbishop Whitgift, another venerable Prelate, to whom you do great injustice. See the strong language which he uses in a letter to Beza! "We make no doubt but that the Episcopal degree which we bear is an institution apostolical and divine; and so hath always been held by a continual course of times from the Apostles to this very age of ours."+ And yet, Whitgift, you say, considered the superiority of Bishops over Priests as a mere human arrangement, without any pretence to divine right. But further." And what Aaron was to his sons, and to the Levites, this the Bishops were to the Priests and Deacons; and so esteemed of the Fathers to be by divine institution." See, sir, how rashly you have written! What language can be more explicit than that which Whitgift uses! Aaron was superior to his sons by divine right. By the same divine right, says Whitgift, are Bishops superior to Priests. Take one more testimony. In a book which he published, even before his advancement to the see of Canterbury, in answer to an attack upon the church of England, Whitgift maintained, according to the declaration of one of the Puritans themselves, the superiority of all the Bishops over the inferior clergy from GOD'S OWN ORDINANCE* And will you, still, tell us that this Prelate placed the Episcopal constitution of the church on the footing of mere expediency! What reliance can be put upon an author who examines so carelessly, or asserts so boldly!

The catechism of Cranmer, fully owning the divine institution of Bishops and Priests, was compiled in the year 1548. In the same year was published his sermon on the power of the keys, containing high church notions. So far, indeed, is Episcopacy carried in this sermon, that Doctor Hicks has reprinted it, at large, in his preface to "The Divine right of Episcopacy asserted." The ordinal was compiled in the year 1550. Now, take the plain language of the ordinal, in connection with the catechism and sermon, just spoken of, not forgetting the other evidence adduced and can a doubt remain as to the opinions of Cranmer !

Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 460.

Ibid.

§ Ibid. book iv. chap. 3, p. 350.