to make. In the first place, if the documents and facts, to which you refer, really speak the language which you labour to make them speak, it is nothing to the purpose: in the second place, they do not speak that language; but, when properly examined, militate against the very positions which you bring them to confirm, and establish the very doctrines which you bring them to overthrow.

In the first place, then, if the documents and facts, to which you refer, really speak the language which you labour 'to make them speak, it is nothing to the purpose. Admit that the English reformers, when they composed the "Institution, and Erudition of a Christian Man," and when the select Assembly of Divines was convened, were really favourable to the doctrine of ministerial parity; the only consequence is, that, upon more full investigation, they found reason to change their opinion. At the time of drawing up the Ordinal, they unquestionably believed in the divine institution of distinct and subordinate orders of ministers, with appropriate powers. " Almighty God, who, by thy Holy Spirit, hast appointed divers orders of ministers in thy Church." Here we have the conclusion in which the English reformers rested when they had completed their inquiries. How unfair is it, then, in examining into the opinions which these men entertained on the subject of the ministry, to pass, without notice,*

*You take not the slightest notice of the Ordinal in your second work; and in the first, you only very briefly refer to it, for the purpose of making an assertion which you ought to have known to be utterly

the authentic document from which alone those opinions may be fully, and with absolute certainty, discovered, and dwell on partial extracts of books put out for temporary use in the infancy of the Reformation, and with respect to which it is well known that very different accounts are given by opposing writers!

Again-if it be admitted that the facts, to which you refer, of a date subsequent to the year in which the Ordinal was established, are exactly as you represent them, the only consequence would be, that the history of the Church of England furnishes instances of the violation of her principles by secret enemies, or injudicious friends. Is there a Church on earth whose history will not present us with similar examples? When a Church expressly lays down a principle in her standards, is it not preposterous to point us to cases in which, through the difficulty of the times, she was led to infringe that principle?

The reformers of the Church of England, you tell us, were Presbyterians. We answer, that these reformers, in the standards which they drew up for the perpetual government of the Church, expressly declare that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are distinct and subordinate orders of the ministry, and that to the highest of these orders the power of ordination is exclusively given. What reply do

unfounded; and when called upon to prove the assertion, you remain perfectly silent. You do not attempt to prove, and still you have not the magnanimity to retract. This, too, with respect to a fact on which the truth of an important head of your book wholly turns.

you make? Why, you tell us that Archbishop Grindal, in the reign of Elizabeth, many years after the Ordinal was established, gave a preaching license to John Morrison, a Presbyter of the Church of Scotland. You say not a word about the Ordinal, which can alone determine the question, but put us off with the loose conduct of an Archbishop who was called to an account by the Privy Council for his irregularity. The case of Grindal you have not fairly stated; but take the fact to be precisely as you give it, and it amounts simply to this, that Grindal violated the standards of the Church to which he belonged. Thus, then, although the reformers of the Church of England expressly declare, in a standard which they deliberately composed for the government of that Church, that Episcopacy is a divine institution, you pass by this standard without a word of notice, and assert, that they were Presbyterians, because, in the reign of Elizabeth, John Morrison, who had never been Episcopally ordained, was, nevertheless, permitted, by Archbishop Grindal, to preach and administer the sacraments. In the same way you might prove that the English reformers rejected the whole doctrine of the authentic call and commission of the Gospel ministry, from the circumstance of laymen, in the difficulty and confusion of the times, having the address to get into livings in the Church.

Suppose it to be admitted that Calvin never received ordination-would it follow that the Presbyterians do not believe in the necessity of an

outward commission to a valid ministry? Just as much as it follows, from the irregularity to which Archbishop Grindal was prone, that the reformers of the Church of England were not Episcopalians.

In the second place, the documents and facts, to which you refer, do not speak the language which you endeavour to make them speak; but, when properly examined, militate against the very positions which you bring them to confirm, and establish the very doctrine which it is your design to overthrow.

It is not my intention, however, to enter minutely into this part of the subject. Having shown that the standards, which the English reformers established for the perpetual government of the Church, set forth, in the plainest and strongest terms, the divine institution of Episcopacy, it is not material to inquire into the progress of their opinions. It is sufficient to know the conclusion in which their investigations terminated. Besides, a tedious detail of quotations would be necessary; and it is my earnest wish to prevent the present work from swelling to an inconvenient size. I should, however, consider it a duty to follow you, step by step, for the purpose of showing how little reliance can be placed upon your statement of facts, or citation of authorities, had not the task been most fully and ably executed by Dr. Bowden.* He has left nothing for me to say. It is by presenting partial quotations that you give

Bowden on Episcopacy, vol. ii. letters 14 and 15. vol. iii. letter 12.

to the early declarations of the English reformers the appearance of being favourable to the doctrine of parity. Dr. Bowden has laid the whole evidence before the reader, and has thus driven you at once from a position, which you evidently considered as of great importance, and which, with characteristic positiveness, you had repeatedly pronounced to be impregnable.

Before leaving this part of the subject, however, I think it proper to take a little notice of what you have said relative to Archbishop Cranmer. Let me solicit your attention, in the first place, to the very inconsistent accounts which you give of the venerable Primate.

You declare, expressly, that Cranmer was a Presbyterian in principle; believing Bishop and Presbyter to be the same by divine right, and regarding the doctrine of ministerial parity as the doctrine of Scripture, and of the primitive Church.*

Now, see how you speak of the Archbishop in another part of your work! "The first consists of those who believe that neither Christ nor his Apostles laid down any particular form of ecclesiastical government, to which the Church is bound to adhere in all ages. That every Church is free, consistently with the divine will, to frame her constitution agreeably to her own views, to the state of society, and to the exigences of particular

Letters, p. 119, 243, 244.