"The Erudition," says he, "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 Bishop's hands; that in the beginning of Christianity, this character was given by the Apostles. The proof is drawn from the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus."

This is sufficient proof that the Erudition maintains three orders in the church. Notwithstanding this, there are to be found, according to Collier, the words which you have quoted, viz. “ the scripture speaks expressly of no more than the two orders of Priests and Deacons." There is undoubt→ edly a seeming contradiction between these two passages; and there is no other way of reconciling them, but by saying as Collier does, that "under those called Priests or Presbyters, this book supposes the Episcopal character was meant; for that these two characters were distinct and subordinate, is plain from this Erudition." He then adds, that

this last book does not stand upon so strong an authority as the former. The Institution was the act of the whole clergy, and subscribed by both houses of Convocation. But the necessary Erudition was drawn up only by a committee of the King's nomination."*

The manner in which Collier reconciles the Re

Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. P. 190, 191.

formers with themselves is perfectly easy and natural. It corresponds too with the manner of speak, ing of the Priests in the Old Testament. The High Priest, as I have several times mentioned, is very rarely distinguished from the other Priests, The usual distinction is-Priests and Levites. The Fathers too, in a few instances, comprehend all the clergy under two divisions-Presbyters and Deacons. At other times, the same writers particularly distinguish the Bishop from the Presbyter. The High Priest was a Priest, and, therefore, he and the Priest were generally confounded; the Bishop is a Presbyter, and, therefore, Bishops and Presbyters were, and are still, sometimes comprehended under one title.

With respect to the two books which have thus engaged our attention, it may be observed, that they were intended for nothing more than temporary use. The Reformation in England, during the whole reign of Henry the eighth, did not proceed beyond the state of infancy. Not a single article of importance, but the Pope's supremacy, was as yet altered. Cranmer, and all the other bishops and divines, who, in the reign of Edward the sixth, made so great a figure in reforming the church, were not, till that period, free from the prejudice of a Popish education. They were determined, however, to proceed, and to correct what was amiss in a very slow and gradual manner, according as they should be enabled to determine the true sense of scripture. In

the mean time, the two books in question were published for temporary use. Soon after, some of the doctrines of the church of Rome were thoroughly canvassed by Cranmer and other divines, and pronounced to be inconsistent with scripture, and the principles of the primitive church in the purest and best ages. It is no wonder then, that while the mist in which they had been involved all their lives, was thus slowly dissipating, that we should find some crude expressions, and some obscurity of ideas in the books in question. Read Collier's Abstract of these two books, and you will find that to be the case, both with respect to doctrine and government. The mode which they adopted was the wisest that reason could suggest. They proceeded very cautiously in comparing the doctrines of the church of Rome with the scriptures, and the earliest Fathers. As they derived light from these sources, they declared their sentiments upon doctrinal subjects; and then they proceeded in the same cautious manner with respect to the constitution of the church. They took nothing for granted, either with respect to doctrine or government, merely because it was entertained by the church of Rome. On the contrary, they were very suspicious of the truth of every thing which that church taught. Several questions relating to the orders of the priesthood were proposed in writing to the divines engaged in this business; and their judgments were accurately summed up, and set down by the Archbishop

of Canterbury. This transaction should be dated in the reign of Henry the eighth, and not ten years afterwards, as you assert, following either the Ire nicum, or somebody that has implicitly followed that book. This appears beyond contradiction from Bishop Burnet, who has completely settled that point.

-Now let it be considered, that all this important business was transacted in the very dawn of the Reformation, when but very few steps were taken towards a thorough change in doctrine and government. "The prepossessions of a Popish education," says Dr. Chandler,*" still operated in the minds of these honest searchers for truth; and it was owing, perhaps more to the force of these prepossessions, than to any other cause, that some of them have used expressions, which have since been construed to imply their having some doubts concerning the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters. The Popish schoolmen and canonists had been, for some ages, endeavouring to destroy the distinction between the two orders, of which Bishop Burnet gives a particular account, concluding it in these words: "On this I have insisted the more, that it may ap pear how little they have considered things, who are so far carried with their zeal against the established government of the church, as to make use of some passages of the schoolmen and canonists that

deny them to be distinct orders; for these are the very dregs of popery; the one raising the Priests, for the sake of transubstantiation; the other pulling the Bishops lower, for the sake of the Pope's supremacy, and by such means bringing them almost to an equal."* The like observation was made before by an eminent Archbishop, who says, "We may justly ascribe the reviving of the Arian heresy in these latter days, to the dispensations of the court of Rome, who licensed ordinary Priests to ordain, and confirm, and do the most essential offices of Bishops. So their schools do teach us, a Priest may be the extraordinary minister of priesthood, and inferior orders by the delegation of the Pope, Again The Pope may confer the power of confir mation upon a simple Priest. By such exorbitant practices as these, they chalked out a way to innovators. And yet, they are not able to produce a precedent of such dispensation, in the primitive times."+

You proceed, Sir, to inform us, that "five years after the last named publication, viz. about the year 1548, Edward the sixth called a select assembly of divines, for the resolution of several questions relative to the settlement of religion. Of this assembly, Archbishop Cranmer was a leading member, and, to the tenth question, which respected the office of Bishops and Presbyters, that venerable prelate re

* Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 366. ↑ Bramhall's Works, p. 431.