It seems to be nothing more nor less than Jerome's opinion, that to prevent schism, Bishops were set over the Presbyters by general consent. This may be true or not, according to the sense in which it is taken. I suspect, Sir, that all is not quite rightwith respect to this quotation; but I cannot, at present, throw the same light upon it that I have upon the one immediately preceding...

Your last Catholic testimony is from the Consultations of Cassander. This testimony does not differ materially from the last; and as I have not access to Cassander's writings, I must content myself with the same answer that I have given to your extract from the Canon Law.

I have now, Sir, shown that the canons of Elfric are pointedly, and decidedly in our favour; and that the testimony which you ascribe to Anselme, is not taken from his genuine writings. And as to the two last quotations, although I cannot at present throw that light upon them that I wish; yet, I have not a doubt, that if I had the books to which you refer, I should be able to show, that you have failed as much in these, as in the others.

I shall close this letter with one observation.-It is an easy matter, by means of scraps, and sentences expressed in vague terms, to make an author speak almost any thing that we wish. In this way, I could make you appear a very good Episcopalian, and a person who had not access to your book would be at a loss to prove, that the quotations were partial and VOL. II. K

imperfect. I have, in the course of this discussion, shown this kind of management to be so common in your Letters, that I suspect, even your friends will shrug up their shoulders, and make some very unfavourable exclamations. They, no doubt, will acquit you, as I certainly do, of all designed misrepresentation; but still they will, if I mistake not, be pretty unanimously of opinion, that you ought to have been more particular in your investigation, and have trusted less to others.

AFTER giving your readers four quotations from authors before the Reformation, in favour, as you suppose, of Presbytery, you proceed to observe, *that all the first Reformers of the church of England freely acknowledged Bishops and Presbyters to have been the same in the Apostolic age; and only defended diocesan Episcopacy as a wise human appointment."

This I have proved to be most grossly erroneous. I have proved it from the preface to the ordinal, and from the ordination offices. I have proved that Cranmer placed Episcopacy upon the ground of Apostolic institution, and that all the Reformers were of the same mind. So much evidence has been produced upon this point, that I cannot conceive it possible for any human mind to resist its force.

I have also proved that you committed an error, when you asserted that Bancroft was the first who placed Episcopacy upon the ground of divine right. Whitgift had done so seventeen years before Bancroft.* The former published his answer to the

*Collier, vol. ii. p. 537.

Admonition to the Parliament, in the year 1571; the latter, by your own account, preached his famous sermon in the year 1588.

You next, Sir, give us a long quotation from Dr. Raignolds, from which it appears, that he did not conceive Episcopacy was founded upon divine right. To quote Raignolds in favour of the human, institu4ion of Episcopacy, is much like quoting a Presbyterian in favour of it. You must certainly know, that this learned professor was a leading man among the Puritans, and that he was the prolocutor of their commissioners, at the famous Hampton court conference. What a number of cavils he advanced on that occasion, may be seen in Collier's ecclesiastical history. To quote such a man can hardly be considered as candid. It is true, he did not separate from the church; and, therefore, I suppose, you rank him among Episcopalians. But a man cannot, with any propriety, be viewed in that light, although he may be officiating in an Episcopal church, when he renounces the very principle which discriminates Episcopacy from Presbytery. It is not a form of prayer that makes the distinction; for there are several Presbyterian churches that use forms. It is not any doctrines peculiar to either that discriminate; the doctrines, except the article of election, with its counterpart reprobation, are the same, or nearly so. It is not that the one uses rites and ceremonies, and that the other does not use them; for rites and ceremonies, in a greater or less

degree, belong to all churches that have any pretensions to decency. No; these are not the points of difference between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. The grand distinction between them is, as I have already observed, that one holds Episcopacy to have been instituted by the Apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost; the other, that a parity of ministers rests -upon the same foundation. Raignolds, therefore, had no just claim to the character of an Episcopalian, and, consequently, his testimony is that of an enemy, and not of a friend.

Your next quotation is from Archbishop Whitgift, who, you say, "referring to the great attention which Bancroft's sermon had excited, observed that it had done good; but added, that with respect to the offensive doctrine which it contained, he rather wished, than believed it to be true."

I shall give you the answer to this, which Dr. Chandler gave forty years ago to Dr. Chauncy, when he urged it. "This is incredible in itself, and seems to rest altogether on Neal's authority. This historian, in his account of Bancroft's sermon, refers to no other evidence than Strype's life of Whitgift; and in that book the anecdote is not to be met with. But near this time, viz. in 1589, the Archbishop, in answer to the calumnies of Martin Mar, prelate, says, that he was persuaded, that there ought to be by the word of God, a superiority among the ministers of the church; and that