misstatements, and your extremely plausible assertions. No doubt, you mean what you say, and are perfectly free from any intention of giving a wrong view of the subject. But how to acquit you from negligence in the investigation of facts, I declare, Sir, I do not know; and therefore shall not attempt it. That Archbishop Cranmer took out a new commission for the exercise of his office, is true; but it was not upon the principle which you mention. It is undeniable, that it was the doctrine of the King, the Bishops, and the whole nation, that authority to administer the sacraments, and to perform all other spiritual offices, was derived, not from the crown, but from Christ. This doctrine was explicitly maintained in the "Institution of a Christian Man," as you will see by consulting Collier. And that it was maintained by the King, is evident from a letter of his to the convocation of the province of York, explaining the supremacy. That letter you will find in Dr. Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 54. Therein the King makes a clear distinction between the temporal and spiritual powers of the Bishops; the former he derives from the state, the latter from Christ. It is, therefore, evident, that what was meant to be given by the King, was nothing more than a legal right to exercise that spiritual function, which was derived from Christ, and a jurisdiction relating to matters testamentary, matrimonial, &c. which was derived from the state. Afterwards, in the reign of Edward the sixth, from 1548 to 1553, Bishops were commonly appointed by the King's letters patent. " By those letters," says Bishop Burnet," it is clear, that the Episcopal function was acknowledged to be of divine appoint ment, and that the person was no other way named by the King, than as lay patrons present to livings; only the Bishop was legally authorized in such a part of the King's dominions, to execute that func tion which was to be derived to him by imposition of hands."* This, Sir, is the true state of the matter; and it evidently shows how very incorrect you are, when you advance Cranmer's taking out a new commis sion after the death of Henry, as a proof that he believed Episcopacy was a mere human institution. As a further proof that Cranmer believed the Episcopal office to be of Apostolical institution, let us have recourse again to the questions and resolutions. To the 11th question, Dr. Leighton thus answers; "I suppose that a Bishop hath au❤ thority of God, as his minister, by scripture, to make a Priest; but he ought not to admit any man to be a Priest, and consecrate him, or to appoint him to any ministry in the church, without the Prince's license and consent. And that any other man hath authority to make a Priest by scripture, I have not read, nor any example thereof." To the 12th question, Leighton answers: "I suppose there His. Ref. vol. ii. p. 128. is a consecration required, as by imposition of hands; for so we be taught in the ensample of the Apostles." Durell, in his Vindicia, says, that having had an opportunity of examining the original manuscript, he found that Cranmer gave his consent to Leighton's opinions upon this subject, subscribing to each-Thos. Cantuariensis.* This is a decisive proof, that the Archbishop was, at that period, a correct Episcopalian. Before that time, Cranmer seems indeed to have had too high a notion of the power of the magistrate; and it appears from the above answer, that Leighton also had; and it may be, for any thing I know to the contrary, that all the reformers of the church of England had the same tincture. Burnet says In Cranmer's papers some singular opinions about the nature of ecclesiastical offices will be found; but as they are delivered by him with all possible modesty, so they are 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 opinion. For he subscribed the book that was soon after set out, which is directly contrary to those opinions set down in those papers." These are sufficient proofs, that Cranmer and the other reformers were far enough from being Presbyterians in principle, as you incau tiously assert. • Chandler's Appeal defended, p. 26, 27. But as some men, from one cause or other, are very hard to be convinced, I will add more evidence with respect to Cranmer. 66 Bishop Burnet informs us, that in 1548, Cranmer compiled a Catechism, or, " large instruction of young persons in the grounds of the Christian religion;" in which, says my author, "he fully owns the divine institution of Bishops and Priests." Cranmer also published, at the same time, a sermon on the authority of the keys, which is as highly Episcopal as any thing can be. In that sermon are the following words. I shall give them according to our modern spelling. They that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called, the ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration of God's word, (which our Lord Jesus Christ himself did first institute) was derived from the Apostles unto others after them by imposition of hands, and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles down to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue in the church, even to the world's end." But even these proofs, convincing as they are, do not close the evidence upon this point. I appeal to the ordination offices, which are the public standards of the church, and which were compiled by Cranmer and others in the year 1550.* You, Sir, in • Burnet. Hist. Reform. vol. ii. p. 143, 144. deed, endeavour to preclude us from that plea, by observing, that "those who insist on this argument, forget that the ordination service, as it now stands, differs considerably from that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates. 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 you assert, Sir, but give us no proof whatever of the correctness of your assertion. Profes sing as you do, to have nothing in view but to lead your Christian brethren into truth, you ought cer tainly to have laid before them the evidence upon which you ground your assertion. But this you have not done in the smallest degree. I also think, Sir, that we are entitled to some respect. When you say we are wrong, you ought to prove upon solid grounds that we are so. You can hardly sup» pose, that we shall take your especially after the numerous specimens you have given us, that there is a wide difference between asserting and proving. Were I to assert that you are mistaken upon this point, it would prove just as much, as your saying that we are. Really, Sir, this mode of discussion is far beneath a scholar and a man of sense. assertion for proof; But to come to the point. In the year 1549, not long after Edward's accession to the throne, an act passed the parliament for drawing up an Ordinal. The act being short, I shall transcribe from Collier |