plied, "Bishops and Priests were, at one time, and were not two things, but one office, in the beginning of Christ's religion."

Now, Sir, in this opinion I can see nothing inconsistent with Episcopal pre-eminence. I can subscribe to it without the least hesitation. We all agree, that in the beginning of Christ's religion, Presbyters were also called Bishops. Consequently they were different names for the same office. But here lies the fallacy. The word bishop in the eleventh question, was understood in the appropriate sense. The question is, " Whether a Bishop hath authority to make a Priest by the scripture or not? And whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest?" To this, Dr. Cox answers," Bishops [in the appropriate sense of the word] have authority, as is aforesaid, of the Apostles, in the tenth question, to make Priests, except in cases of great necessity." In his answer to the tenth question, to which he refers, he had made this distinction-Bishops as they be now; that is, as superior to Presbyters; have authority to make Priests. Dr. Redmayn gives his opinion in these words" To the first part [that a Bishop, in the appropriate sense of the word, hath authority to make a Priest by scripture] I answer, yea; for so it appeareth, Titus i. and Tim. v. with other places of scripture. But whether any other but only a Bishop may make a Priest, I have not read, but by singular privilege of God. As for making, that is to say, ordaining and

consecrating of Priests, I think it specially belongeth to the office of a Bishop, as far as can be shown by scripture, or any example, as I suppose from the beginning." And with Redmayn agree Thirleby, Symmons, Robertson, Leighton, and others. In short, they all agree, that none but Bishops have authority to make Priests-a few making an excep❤ tion to cases of extreme necessity. Nothing can be more clear and decisive, with respect to the opinions of the English Reformers, than the statement of Burnet and Collier of the whole progress of that business.

From this view, given us by the above named historians, it is evident, that if this transaction had taken place, as you assert, in the reign of Edward the sixth, the question relating to Episcopacy would not be affected by it. All agree that it took place before the ordination offices were compiled; but Burnet clearly proves, in opposition to Stillingfleet, that the transaction occurred in the reign of Henry the eighth, when the Reformers had made but little progress in the great work in which they were engaged; and that of course, even at that early period, they had become perfectly convinced from scripture and the writings of the Fathers, that Episcopacy was the true and proper government of the Christian church.

Yet, Sir, you say, with Burnet in your hands, that he maintains, "Such were the language and the views of Cranmer and other Prelates, in the reign

of Edward the sixth;"* when he, in direct terms, says the contrary. He dates the questions and resobutions to which I suppose you have reference, as far back as the year 1540, and observes, that he had "seen a much fuller paper concerning orders and ecclesiastical functions, signed, either in the year 1537 or 1538, since it is subscribed by Edward Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died in May, 1538." - You must have been misled, Sir, by somebody or other upon this point. You have confounded two distinct transactions, which happened, the one in the reign of Henry the eighth, the other in the reign of Edward the sixth. With respect to the latter, Burnet says, "This winter (1540) there was a committee of select Bishops and divines appointed for examining all the offices of the church, and for reforming them.-The thing they first examined was the sacrament of the Eucharist; which being the chief of Christian communion, was thought to deserve their chief care. And here they managed their inquiries in the same manner that was used in the former reign; in which, when any thing was considered in order to a change, it was put into several queries, to which every one in commission was to give his answer in writing. It is no wonder, if the confusion that followed in queen Mary's reign have deprived us of most of those papers; yet there is one set of them preserved, relating to some ques

* Letter vi. p. 222.

Hist. Ref. addenda, vol. i. p. 289, 365.

tions about the priest's single communicating."* I have looked over the questions to which Burnet refers, and I do declare, that there is not to be found in them one syllable upon the subject of Episcopacy.

This evidence, together with Strype's, shows in a satisfactory manner, that Stilling fleet was mistaken, in dating the transaction in question in the reign of Edward the sixth. Burnet, in his history, corrected the error; and Stilling fleet never controverted the point, that we know of.

The circumstance, too, of the manuscript, which Burnet says he had seen, and which contains the questions and answers in a fuller manner than that of 1540, and which was clearly drawn up no later than in 1538, as it was signed by Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died that year, affords strong proof, that the business had been begun in 1538, but was not completed till 1540. There is also strong internal evidence, that the questions and answers were put out some years before the framing of the articles of the church, and the offices of public worship, which took place in 1548. In the latter there was unanimity, in the former there was not. The minds of those excellent men were gradually enlightened; it was scarcely possible that it should have been otherwise. But, if the business of the questions and answers took place in the same year

VOL. II.

* Hist. Reform. vol. ii. p. 61:
C

in which the articles, &c. were framed, the ret formers must have had the light of truth break in upon them very suddenly indeed; for in the former, there is much crudeness of expression, some difference of opinion, and some singularity of sentiment. But every thing has a different aspect in the articles and offices of the church. These circumstances are, I think, sufficient to convince every impartial person, that you have been misled by Stilling fleet, or somebody else, in dating the questions and answers in 1548.

But notwithstanding this correct view of the whole business given by Burnet and Collier, you still push forward with zeal to carry your point. You say, "Another circumstance, which serves to show that Archbishop Cranmer considered the Episcopal system in which he shared, as founded rather in prudence and the will of the magistrate, than the word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all Episcopal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the King, and that, as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agreeably to this, when Henry the eighth died, the worthy primate regarded his own Episcopal power as expiring with him; and therefore would not act as Archbishop till he had received a new commission from King Edward."

There is, Sir, nothing in this world easier, than to misstate facts and superinduce false colours upon truth. Your unlearned and prejudiced readers have, no doubt, been greatly misled by your numerous