/tr ■" f
 
 L 1 B R.ARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N 1 VERS ITY 
 
 or 1 LLl NOIS
 
 THE 
 
 REFORMERS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, 
 
 MR. MACAULAY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
 
 « 
 Also, by the same Author, 
 THE OBJECT IMPORTANCE, AND ANTIQUITY 
 
 OF 
 
 €lir t\\\i nf (0nii0crriitiDE nf Cljiirrlirn. 
 
 Price Seven Shilllnr/s. 
 
 TWO ORDINATION SERMONS. 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETEE. 
 Second Edition, toith large Additions, price Five Shillings. 
 
 THE SUCCESSION OF ENGLISH BISHOPS UNBROKEN. 
 
 Price Three Shillings. 
 
 THE ORDINATION SERMONS, 
 
 WITH 
 
 THE SUCCESSION OF ENGLISH BISHOPS. 
 
 hi Cloth, price Eight Shillings. 
 
 BRIEF NOTES ON THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 Price Four Shillings.
 
 THE 
 
 REFORMERS 
 
 THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, 
 
 fWr. JHaranlag's HHstorg of EitfllanH. 
 
 E. C. HARINGTON, A.M. 
 
 ClI.INCELLOn OF THE CATHEDR.\L CHURCH OF EXETEK. 
 
 LONDON : 
 FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON. 
 
 OXFORD: J. H. PAKKEE. CAMBRIDGE: MACMILLAN & CO. 
 
 EXETEE: 11. J. WALLIS. 
 
 MDCCCXLIX.
 
 THE llEFOEMERS, 
 
 Sfc. 
 
 The reader of Mr. Macaulay's History of England, 
 which has just issued from the press, if he be at all 
 conversant with the History of the Reformation in 
 this country, in the 16th century, will be startled and 
 pained by the sweepmg censure which the author has 
 passed on Archbishop Cranmer, and not less astonished 
 and grieved by the assertions so lavislily advanced, 
 that " the founders of the Anglican Church" held the 
 most extreme Erastian views, denied the divine insti- 
 tution of episcopacy, and " retained it merely as an 
 ancient, decent, and convenient ecclesiastical polity." 
 
 " Cranmer had declared, in emphatic terms," writes 
 Mr. Macaulay, (vol. i. p. 57) " that God had imme- 
 diately committed to Christian princes the whole cure 
 of all their subjects, as well concerning the administra- 
 tion of God's word for the cure of souls, as concerning 
 the ministration of things political. The thirty-seventh 
 article of rehgion, framed under Elizabeth, declares, 
 in terms as emphatic, that the ministering of God's 
 word does not belong to prmces. ■'
 
 Again (p. 53), "The foundersof the Anglican Church 
 took a middle coiu'se (between Papists and Puritans). 
 They retained episcopacy, but they did not declare it to 
 be an institution essential to the welfare of a Christian 
 society, or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cranmer, 
 indeed, plainly avowed his conviction that, in the pri- 
 mitive times, there was no distmction between bishops 
 and priests, and that laying on of hands was altogether 
 unnecessary." 
 
 Again (p. 55), " The king was to be the pope of his 
 kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of catholic 
 verity, the channel of sacramental graces." 
 
 (Page 56.) " He (the king) appointed divines of 
 various ranks to preach the gospel and to administer 
 the sacraments. It was unnecessary that there should 
 be any imposition of hands. The king — such was the 
 opinion of Cranmer, given m the plainest words — 
 might, in "\drtue of authority derived from God, make 
 a priest; and the priest so made, need no consecration 
 whatever. These opmions Cranmer followed out to 
 their legitimate consequences When it was ob- 
 jected, that a power to bind and to loose, altogether 
 distinct from temporal power, had been given by our 
 Lord to his Apostles, the theologians of this (Cranmer's) 
 school replied, that the power to bind and loose had 
 descended, not to the clergy, but to the whole body of 
 Christian men, and ought to be exercised by the chief 
 magistrate, as the representative of the society." And, 
 apparently referring to the period at which the formu- 
 laries of our Church were di*awn up, Mr. Macaulay 
 alludes to a paper containing matters to be discussed in 
 
 , UIUC '
 
 Convocation, A.D. 1532 or 1534,and adds, "'NVlien it was 
 objected that St. Paul had spoken of certain persons 
 whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers and sliep- 
 herds of the faithfid, it was answered, that King Heniy 
 was the very overseer — the very shepherd, whom the 
 Holy Ghost had appointed, and to whom the expres- 
 sions of St. Paul applied." 
 
 Now, my object in the following pages will be to 
 show that these assertions, as regards Cranmer and 
 the other Reformers, are not in accordance with his- 
 torical testimony ; that Mr. Macaulay has limited his 
 inquiries into the views of the Archbishop and the 
 " founders of the Anghcan Church," to the year 1540 ; 
 whereas m treatises, so early as 1537, and subsequently 
 in 1543-48-51 and 52, Cranmer distinctly disavowed 
 Erastian -sdews, defended the Di\dne Institution of 
 Episcopacy, supported Apostolical Succession, and 
 maintained the necessity of Episcopal Ordination for 
 the due achninistration of the Sacraments ; wliilst the 
 fi-amers of our Liturgy and Ordinal, have not, as far 
 as I am aware, advanced any opinions which woidd 
 justify Mr. Macaulay's imputations. 
 
 It is rather difficult, indeed, to ascertam the exact 
 parties to whom Mr. Macaulay refers, when he speaks 
 of " the founders of the Anghcan Chiu'ch." He alludes 
 to transactions, and treats of opinions expressed by 
 our Reformers, from the year 1532 to 1562, without 
 definmg the precise period to which he refers, or 
 stating the persons who are involved in his censure. 
 I am, therefore, left only to conjectm-e ; and I take it 
 for granted that, when he refers to the " founders of
 
 8 
 
 the Anglican Chiu'ch," he alludes to the compilers of 
 the Liturgy, and the commissioners appointed to di-aw 
 up the Ordinal in the years 1548-49. Mr. Macaulay, 
 in speaking of the opinions of oui* Rcfomiers, as con- 
 nected with the formularies of our Church, alludes 
 to those " who retained episcopacy as decent and con- 
 venient," but who " did not declare it to be essential to 
 the efficacy of the sacraments ;" we must, therefore, 
 inquii-e into the views of those who were engaged in 
 prepaiing the Ordinal, Litiu'g}-, and Articles. I think 
 it will be apparent, that Mr. ISlacaulay has fonnetl his 
 opinion of the statements held by the " foimders of 
 the Anglican Chui'ch," on the subject of episcopacy, 
 from the " Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines 
 of some Questions concerning the Sacrameftt^" in 1540. 
 Certain it is that, in developing the \iews of Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer, he quotes this document only ; with 
 what fairness, I shall presently endeavour to point 
 out. In defending, therefore, the '* fomiders of the 
 Anglican Church" against the imputations of Mr. 
 Macaulay, I shall briefly direct the attention of my 
 readers to the Ordinal and Ai'ticles of our Chiu'ch; and 
 then proceed to point out the opinions of the fi-amers 
 of these formularies, especially those of Cranmer, 
 on the subject of Cliiu'ch government, so far as they 
 are recorded in the "Resolutions of several Bishops 
 and Divines," (which seem to have been the basis 
 upon wliich Mr. Macaulay has fomided his assertions,) 
 and in other authorised documents. Before, however, 
 I proceed to this, the especial object of my pamplilet, 
 I would, without wishing to be offensive, diaw Mr.
 
 9 
 
 Macaulay's attention to tlie very great facility which 
 he gives to his readers to misunderstand his meaning, 
 and form erroneous conclusions upon questions of 
 great importance. 
 
 In endeavouring, for instance, to show that many 
 of the divines in EHzabeth's reign were inimical to 
 the requii'ements connected with the discipline and 
 doctrine of the Anglican Church, he says, that 
 "Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting 
 a mitre, from dislike to what he regarded as the 
 mummery of consecration;'' and adds, by way of 
 elucidating his meaning, that " when it is considered 
 that none of these prelates belonged to the extreme 
 section of the Protestant party, it cannot be doubted 
 that, if the general sense of that party had been fol- 
 lowed, the work of Reformation would have been 
 carried on as unsparingly in England as in Scotland." 
 Now, it is true that Archbishop Grindal had scruples 
 respectmg " Impropriations," " Episcopal Garments," 
 the " Crucifix," &c. He "gave Martyr to miderstand 
 how offended many were with the episcopal habits, 
 and those sacred garments, as they (the Papists) called 
 them. He confessed that the garments, which they 
 termed holj/, somewhat more stuck to him, so that he 
 wondered they should be more stiffly retamed ; and 
 he wished all thmgs in the service of God might be 
 done in the most simple manner." But I tliink 
 that Mr. Macaulay ^^iU find it difficult to adduce one 
 passage from Str)-]^)e's " Life of Ai'chbishop Grindal," 
 or from any other author of any note, which will bear 
 out the assertion, that the Aichbishop hesitated to
 
 10 
 
 accept a mitre from "« dislike to the mummery of 
 consecration ! " I subjoin the entire account of 
 Grindal's objections from Strj^^e's Life of the Arch- 
 bishop.^ 
 
 ^ " He (Grindal) was one of the five first elects ; Parker, elect of 
 Canterbury ; Cox, of Ely ; Barlow, of Chichester ; and. Scory, of 
 Hereford, being the other four. But our bishop elect of London 
 remained under some scruples of conscience about some things ; 
 esi^ecially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of 
 such as were bishops. 
 
 " For the reformed in these times generally went upon this 
 ground : that in order to the complete freeing the Church of 
 Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and 
 custom practised by that apostate and idolatrous Church, should be 
 abolished, and that all their ceremonies and circumstances of 
 religious worship should be clearly abrogated ; and that the service 
 of God should be most simple, stripped of all that show, pomp, and 
 appearance, that had been customarily used before ; esteeming all 
 that to be no better than supersitious and anti-christian. This 
 commonly received opinion, which the late English exiles especially 
 had imbibed, was the cause that Grindal was now in doubt, whether 
 he might with a safe conscience accept of a bishoi^ric, Avhen he saw 
 he must submit to divers of these things if he did ; namely, such 
 things as were practised in the Church of England in the late 
 reign of King Edward. For so it was now determined, that 
 religion should be reformed according to the way and manner 
 Avherein it then appeared and was practised. 
 
 " In this scruple, therefore, he thought fit to consult with Peter 
 Martyr, one of the learnedest Protestant professors of divinity in 
 Europe in his time, and of excellent moderation ; and at this time 
 public professor at Zurich, in Helvetia. And being Grindal's 
 friend and acquaintance (for they had been at Strasburgh together), 
 in the month of August he sent a letter to him, which, passing from 
 Strasburgh and so to Zurich, came not to MartjT's hands before 
 October. Therein Grindal communicated to him his doubts, desiring 
 his speedy resolutions of them, that he might, according to that 
 light he should give him, accept the episcopal oificc or refuse it: one
 
 11 
 
 Again, in page 56, he -wi'ites, " These (Erastian) 
 opinions C'ranmcr followed out to their legitimate 
 consequences. When it was objected that a power 
 to bind and loose, altogether distinct from temporal 
 
 of these was concerning impropriations, which were to be annexed 
 to bishoprics. 
 
 " For the Queen now (chiefly to gratify some of her courtiers) made 
 exchanges with her bishops, by the authority of a late act of Par- 
 liament, taking to herself thcii' ancient good manors and lordships, 
 and making over to them in exchange tithes and impropriations. A 
 matter those first bishops took very heavily, and scrupled very 
 much whether they could or should comply in a thing so much to 
 the injury of their respective sees, which must sufier considerably 
 by these exchanges, and whereby all hope should be cut ofi" of 
 restoring the tithes, so long imjustly detained from the respective 
 churches, for the maintenance of the incumbents. Another point 
 at which he stuck, was wearing certain peculiar garments, whether 
 extra sacra or in sacris. He desired Martyr's judgment briefly of 
 these things. 
 
 " The same year our bishop elect wrote two letters more to the 
 same reverend man, both in October and December, for his advice 
 and counsel, for he cared not to trust to his own wit and learning in 
 the performance of his duty in matters not so clear to him. The 
 things he now wrote to Peter Martyr about were partly the same 
 about which he had consulted with him before, and partly some 
 other. One of Grindal's queries was, that seeing he was not left at 
 his liberty for the garments, whether he should accept of the 
 episcopal function offered him, because of the imposition of the 
 matters aforesaid ? 
 
 " Peter Martyr's answer came late ; for Grindal had accepted the 
 bishopric, and was made bishop before it came to his hand. 
 
 " Grindal also gave Martyr to understand how offended many were 
 with the episcopal habits, and those sacred garments, as they called 
 them. But the divine told him, they might escape all blame, if they 
 eJso declared in their sermons that those garments displeased them 
 also, and that they woidd use their endeavour at one time or other 
 to get them laid aside." — Strtpe's History of the Life and Acts 
 of Archbishop Grindid, pp. 41, 46. Edit. 1821.
 
 I 
 
 12 
 
 power, had been given by our Lord to his Apostles, the 
 theologians of this (Cranmer's) school replied, that 
 the power to bind and loose had descended, not to the 
 clergy, but to the whole body of Christian men, and 
 ought to be exercised by the chief magistrates as the 
 representatives of the society." We are not told where 
 these opinions are expressed by the " founders of the 
 Anglican Church," if by these are meant the firamers 
 of our formularies ; but Mr. Macaulay proceeds to 
 add that, " When it was objected that St. Paul had 
 spoken of certain persons whom the Holy Ghost had 
 made overseers and shepherds of the faitliful, it was 
 answered that King Henry was the very overseer — 
 the very shepherd — whom the Holy Ghost had 
 appointed, and to whom the expressions of St. Paul 
 applied." The " objection" and the " answer" seem to 
 be the result of a fertile imagination. Mr. Macaulay 
 refers, I suppose, to a " paper directed to some great 
 lord about the king, that he would instruct that sort 
 of the clergy that were of the king's part in the con- 
 vocation, how far they should go in advancmg his 
 spiritual authority, against those who stood so stiffly 
 upon their spiritual jurisdiction." Tlie date of this 
 paper is about 1532; and among the points to be 
 proved in Convocation was this, "That this text of 
 Actuum 20, ' Attendite vohis et imiverso gregi, in quo 
 Spiritus Sanctus vos posiiit episcopos^ 5fc., was not meant 
 of such hishops only as be now of the clergy ; but was 
 as well meant and spoken of every rider and governor 
 of the Christian people." How far this accords with 
 Mr. Macaulay 's statement, the reader will readily form
 
 13 
 
 an opinion. Strype adds, " I leave tlie reader at liberty 
 (seeing we are left to conjecture) to place this notable 
 paper here, or to bring it under the year 1534, 
 when an act was made that the king and his heirs 
 should be reputed supreme head of the Church of 
 England ; about which act tlie king consulted Avitli 
 his council and with his bishops ; and they in their 
 Convocation discussed the point, and declared that 
 the pope had no jurisdiction, warranted by God, in this 
 kingdom." — ^Strype's Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i. 
 pt. i. p. 209, ed. 1822. The date of the paper removes 
 it from all connection whatever with our formidaries, 
 which were di'awn up subsequent to the year 1548, and 
 the writer is stated by Strype to have been not Cranmer, 
 nor any of his " school," but in all probability Stephen 
 Gardiner, a virident Papist ! 
 
 Once more, speaking of Whitgift,^ Jewels Cooper^ 
 and other eminent divines, in the reign of Elizabeth, 
 Mr. Macaulay says, that they " defended prelacy as 
 innocent, as useful, as what the state might lawfidly 
 establish, as what, when established by the state, was 
 entitled to the respect of every citizen." I have 
 subjoin the opinions of Whitgift and Jewel, that 
 
 "^ Strype thus records the sentiments of AVhitgifton the discipline 
 of the Church of England as set forth in her formularies : — " Our 
 doctor, towards the latter end of his answer, gave his judgment of 
 this new (presbyterian) platform, (that such a stir was made to 
 introduce,) set down by the authors in the second ' admonition ;' 
 where they prescribe the manner of electing ministers, where they 
 treat of their exercises, of their equality, of the government of the 
 Church, &c. ' This surely,' writeth he, ' being well considered, will 
 appear not only a confused platform, without any sound warrant of 
 God's word, bu( also a fantastical device, tending to the overthrow
 
 14 
 
 the reader may judge for himself; and I must express 
 my deep regret that such hasty and unsupported state- ^ 
 
 of learning, religion, yea, the whole state of the government of the 
 Commonwealth.' " — Stkype's Life of Whityift, vol. i., p. 84. 
 Again, Dr. Bowden (in his letters to Miller) remarks, that "The 
 first attack made upon it (episcopacy) was by Cartwright and his 
 associates, in the year 1572, twenty-four years after the Reformation. 
 They published a book entitled. An Admonition to the Parliament, 
 the design of which was to subvert the government of bishops. An 
 answer was given to this book by Dr. Whitgift, then vice-chancellor 
 of the University of Cambridge. Strype says of this book, that 
 ' it containd a very learned and satisfactorj'^ vindication of the 
 Church of England, and especially of the government of it by 
 bishops.' Some years afterwards, Sir F. Knollys, a great Puritan, 
 complains of Whitgift, that in this book he ' had claimed, in the right 
 of bishops, a superiority belonging to them over all the inferior clergy, 
 from God's own ordnance.' In 1593, Whitgift, when promoted to 
 the see of Canterbury, wrote a letter to Beza, in which he expostu- 
 lates with him for intermeddling in the dispute between the Church 
 and the Puritans. In that letter, he says, ' We make no doubt, but 
 the episcopal degree which we bear, is an institution apostolic and 
 divine ; and so hath always been held by a continual course of times, 
 from the Apostles to this very age of ours.' Again, ' You may 
 remember, learned sir, the beginnings of that episcopacy, which you 
 make to be only of human institution, are referred by the Fathers, 
 with one mouth, to the Apostles, as the authors thereof; and that 
 the bishops were appointed as successors of the Apostles ; especially 
 in certain points of their function. And what Aaron was to his 
 sons and to the Levites, this the bishops were to the priests and 
 deacons ; and so esteemed of the Fathers to be ^by divine institu- 
 tion.' " — Bowden's Apostolic Origin of JEpiscopaci/ asserted, p. 58. 
 The following is extracted from Stkype's Life of Archbishop 
 Whitgift, and though directly referring to Bishop Hutton, throws 
 considerable light on the archbishop's opinion on the divine institu- 
 tion of episcopacy : — " In this interim (a.d. 1589), while the calling 
 of bishops and their authority, as founded upon Scripture, was so 
 much opposed as contrary thereunto ; a very learned discourse was 
 seasonably made, in conference with the lord- treasurer and secretary
 
 15 
 
 iiients — statements involving matters of the deepest 
 importance — should have had the aid of Mr. Macaulay's 
 
 Walsingham, the Queen's two great counsellors of state, at their 
 motion, by Hutton, bishop of Durham, a man well studied in 
 divinity, and sometime the public professor of that faculty in Cam- 
 bridge immediately before Whitgift ; and for whom the said 
 "\Miitgift, now archbishop, had a gi-eat esteem for his learning. 
 Those two great men, for their own satisfaction, heard that bishop 
 discourse accurately this and some other points, mightily now-a- 
 days insisted on by Puritans. An account whereof the said bishop 
 wrote soon after, in the month of October, to his friend the said 
 archbishop, which is well worthy the recording in history. This 
 discourse consisted of three heads. 1. Concerning the judicial law 
 of Moses. 2. The authority of a prince in causes ecclesiastical. 
 3. The authority and lawfulness of bishojis. This bishop being at 
 court, the lord-treasurer had his company in his private chamber to 
 dinner ; w-here none was present but himself, the secretary, and 
 the bishop. There designedly these two statesmen, for their better 
 satisfaction, desired to hear what that weU-learned and grave man 
 could say on those greatly contested arguments. His resolutions 
 whereof, as himself penned them down in his letter, dated from York to 
 the archbishop, being somewhat long, I have reposited in the 
 Appendix. Wherein we may see and understand what Avere the 
 judgments of the bishops of the realm, and the learnedest divines 
 in those times nearest the reformation of this Church ; and so best 
 knew the true constitution of it." — Book iii. ch. 24. 
 
 In the Ajypendix of Records ajul Originals, No. 44, book iii., we 
 have an account of this ' Discourse ' in a letter from Bishop Hutton 
 to Archbishop Whitgift. The following extract refers to the 
 question before us : — " The third question was, of the authority 
 and warrant of a bishop. My answer was, Hiijus rei gratia reliqui 
 te in Creta, ut qucc desunt pergas corrigere, &c., Tit. i. Also, 
 Adversus 2)reshyierum ne acapias accusationem, kc. 1 Tim. v. Here 
 is the chief office of a bishop set down ; to appoint and constitute 
 priests in parishes, and to amend things amiss in the Church. 
 "\Micrcby it appears, that both Titus and Timothy did exercise the 
 office of Ijihhops. Therefore both Hierom and Eusebius affirm that 
 they were bishops ; the one of Crete, and tlie other of Ephesus.
 
 16 
 
 powerful pen, to give them cuiTency amongst those 
 who are unable or unwilling to search for themselves. 
 
 And, albeit, that it cannot be denied, but that these names, 
 episcopus and presbyter, in the New Testament, are often used for 
 one thing, for priests and ministers of the word and sacraments ; 
 as Acts XX. St. Paul sent from Miletus for the priests that were at 
 Ephesus ; and speaking unto them, he called them bishops ; Attcn- 
 (lite vohis, et universo gregi, in quo vos posuit Spiritus Sanctus 
 cpiscopos. Whom before St. Luke calleth elders or priests, St. Paul 
 calleth bishops. Likewise, Tit. i., first he calls them priests ; Ut 
 constituas oppidathn 2))'eshi/teros : then he calls them bishops ; Oportet 
 enim episcopmn {7Teprehensibilet7i esse; also in the first to the 
 Philippians, he saluteth ' the saints at Philippi,' together with the 
 ' bishops and deacons.' Bishops in this place do signifj- elders or 
 priests. For it is not like that there were many bishops in that one 
 city at that time, as the word doth now signify. Yet it is certain, 
 that there was an office in the Apostles' time, Avhich Titus and 
 Timothy did exercise, which was distinct from the office of them 
 who had only authority to preach and minister the sacraments, but 
 not to appoint priests and censure ofienders. No ; by a general 
 Council of all the Church, they which do execute the same office 
 which Titus and Timothy did, by the appointment of the Apostles, 
 are called ejmcopi, the other are called presbyferi, or saccrdotes ; and 
 since the Apostles' times, have been distinct, both name and office. 
 And this w^as done in schismatis remedium, as Hierom said upon the 
 epistle to Titus, and in an epistle that he writeth to Evagrius. In 
 which, albeit, he confoundcth the names, yet liketh he well of the 
 distinction of the offices. For as Christ is apostolus, Heb. iii. ; and 
 episcopus, 1 Peter ii. ; and St. Peter doth call himself presbyter, 
 1 Peter v. ; and St. Hierom saith, that St. John the Evangelist and 
 Apostle calleth himself presbyter in his two last epistles (for there 
 he seemeth to ascribe those epistles to John the Apostle), yet may 
 we not confound the offices of elder or priest, bishop and apostle. 
 
 " I alleged, last of all, that Epiphanius, writing against Aerius, 
 concludeth it for a heresy to say. Idem est episcopus et presbyter. 
 And he allcgcth against that heretic and that heresy, some of those 
 places T cited before, to prove that they are distinct offices. He 
 addcth, furthermore, ihai 2»'eshyter gignitjilios, meaning, by preach-
 
 17 
 
 Let mc now direct the reader's attention to the 
 Preface to the Ordination Service, as contained in our 
 
 ing the Gospel ; but episcopus gignit patres, meaning, that he doth 
 appoint presbyters unto the Church, which were Fathers." 
 
 Again, we have " The opinion of Matthew Hutton, Archbishop 
 of York, touching certain matters, like to be brought in question 
 before the King's most excellent INIajestj-, at the conference at 
 court," ^^Titten, October 9, Imo. Jacobi, to the Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury : — " "\Miereas, indeed, bish/jps have their authority, not by 
 any custom or decree of man, hut from the Apostles themselves, as 
 Epiphanius proveth plainly against Aerius the heretic ; who, being 
 a proud man, because he could not get to be bishop himself, thought 
 that idem est episcopus et presbyter. With this opinion St. Augustine 
 doth charge that heretic, in his book De Hccrcsihus, ad Quod-vult- 
 Deum. But Epiphanius doth show the difference to be, not only 
 because the bishop hath authority over the priests, but because the 
 presbyter begetteth children to the Church by preaching and 
 baptizing ; the bishop begetteth Fathers to the Church by giving of 
 Orders. Hujus rei gratia reliqui te in Creta, ut quce desunt jjergas 
 corrigere ; constituas oppidatim presbyteros, &c. And so it has con- 
 tinued in the Church ever since." Appendix, No. 44. book iv. (See 
 Note at the end.) The reader will find the opinions of Bancroft, Bilson, 
 Hooker, Andrews, Hall, Bramhall, Sec, &c., in favour of the divine 
 right of episcopacy, fully detailed in my Second Ordination Sermon, 
 pp. 157, 63. 
 
 ^ The following is *' the judgment of that reverend Father, Jewel, 
 some time Bishop of Sarum, on this assertion, Archiepiscoporum et 
 archidiaconorum nomina, simul cum muneribus et officiis suis, sunt 
 abolenda. How know you that the fourth chapter ad Ephes. is a 
 perfect pattern of all ecclesiastical government ? We have now 
 neither Apostles, nor evangelists, nor prophets, and yet are they the 
 chief in that pattern. Neither have we there either bishop, or 
 presbyter, or diaconus, or cateehista, or lector. And yet are these 
 necessary parts in ecclesiastical government. Therefore that pattern 
 is not perfect to hold for ever. The Church is not governed by 
 names, but by offices. Every bishop then was called papa. And 
 Anacletus, that was next after Peter (if there be any weight in his 
 words), namcth archbishops." Again, " In the primitive Cliurch 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 own Prayer-book. This office'^ was dra-wn up in the 
 year 1549, under the authority of King Edward VI., 
 by six archbishops and bishops, and six other eminent 
 Reformers, Cranmer being the chief. The act of Par- 
 liament, under which this Ordinal was framed, runs 
 thus : " It is requisite to have one uniform fashion and 
 manner for making and consecrating of bishops, priests, 
 and deacons. Be it, therefore, enacted by the king's 
 highness, mth the assent of the Lords spiritual and 
 temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament 
 assembled, and by authority of the same, that such 
 form and manner of making and consecratmg arch- 
 bishops, bishops, priests, and deacons, be devised, and 
 set forth," &c. ; whereby it is e\ident, that different 
 
 God raised up Apostles and prophets, and gave them power extra- 
 ordmary, as the gift of tongues, the gift of healing, the gift of 
 government, &c., in place whereof, He hath given now bishops, 
 archbishops, &c." Bishop Jewel was also one of the disputants on 
 the Protestant side at a disputation in 1559, between the Papists 
 and Protestants at Westminster, when the latter maintained against 
 the former, who were anxious to lower the episcopal in favour of the 
 papal dignity, that "the Apostles' authority is derived upon after 
 ages, and conveyed to the bishops, their successors." The eminent 
 names of Scory, Grindal, Cox, Aylmer, Guest, Jewel, and Horn, may 
 be mentioned as the Protestant disputants who maintained the 
 above proposition. (Sec Note at the end.) 
 
 ^ I am at a loss to understand why Mr. Macaulay added the name 
 of Bishop Cooper. Was it because he was accused by Martin- 
 Marprelate of being a pajnst, on account of a sermon which he 
 preached at St. Paul's Cross, in June, 1572, " in vindication of the 
 Church, its Liturgy, and its Rites ?." Or for the aid which he 
 rendered to Archbishop Whitgift, in the latter's reply to the 
 " Admonition?" — (See Note at the end.) 
 
 ^ Sec Mason's Vindicicc Ecclesia Anfflican(v, -p^p. 183 — 108; and 
 my Succession of Bishops, &c. p. 76.
 
 19 
 
 offices were contemplated and actually framed for 
 different orders. Now mark the opinions expressed 
 in the preface :'' " It is e\ident unto all men diligently 
 reading the Holy Scriptui'es and ancient authors, that 
 from the Apostles' time there have been these orders 
 of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and 
 
 * " That our Church did believe our bishops to succeed the Apos- 
 tles in those parts of their office, I shall make appear by these things. 
 In the preface before the Book of Ordination, it is said, that 'it is 
 evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient 
 authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of 
 ministers in Christ's Church, bishops, priests, and deacons.' What 
 is the reason that they express it thus, '■from the Apostles' time,' 
 rather than ' in the Apostles' time,' but that they believed, while the 
 Apostles lived, they managed the affairs of government themselves ; 
 but as they withdrew, they did, in some Churches sooner, and in some 
 later, as their own continuance, the condition of the Churches, and 
 the qualification of persons were, commit the care and government of 
 Churches to such persons whom they appouited thereto ? Of which 
 we have an uncontrollable evidence in the instances of Timothy and 
 Titus ; for the care of government was a distinct thing from the 
 office of an evangelist ; and all their removes do not invalidate this, 
 because while the Apostles lived, it is probable there were no fixed 
 bishops, or but few. But as they went off, so they came to be settled 
 in their several Churches. And as this is most agreeable to the sense 
 of our Church, so it is the fairest hypothesis for reconciling the dif- 
 ferent testimonies of antiquity ; for hereby the succession of bishops 
 is secure from the Apostles' times, for which the testimonies of 
 Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and others, are so plain ; hereby 
 room is left to make good all that St. Jerome hath said, and what 
 Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Chuixhes 
 at first ; so that we may allow for the community of names between 
 bishop and presbyter for a while in the Church ; i. e. while the Apos- 
 tles governed the Churches themselves ; but afterwards, that which 
 was then part of the apostolical office, became the episcopal, which 
 hath continued from that time to this, by a constant succession in the 
 Church. — Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Sejmration, p. 269. 
 
 b2
 
 20 
 
 Deacons; which offices were evermore had in such 
 reverent estimation, that no man, by his o^vn private 
 authority, might presume to execute any of them, 
 except he were first called, tried, examined, and known 
 to have such qualities as were requisite for the same ; 
 and also, by public prayer, mth imposition of hands, 
 approved and admitted thereunto. And, therefore, to 
 the intent these orders should be continued and reve- 
 rently used and esteemed in the Church of England, 
 it is requisite that no man, (not being at this present 
 Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon,) shall execute any of them, 
 except he be called, tried, exammed, and admitted, 
 according to the form hereafter followdng."^ Now, the 
 Divine appointment of the several orders® is expressly 
 
 'See the Bishop of Exeter's Ordination Sermon^ (1843,) p. 27. 
 
 ^ " As a further proof that the Reformers maintained a distinction 
 of offices in the Church, they expressly said in their Preface to the 
 old Ordinal, ' It is evident unto all me7i, diligently reading Holy 
 Scripture and ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have 
 been these orders of ministers in C7irisfs Church : — Bishops, Priests, 
 and Deacons.'' Still further; the prayers in the old Ordinal 
 expressly mentioned the appointment of divers orders hy the Holy 
 Ghost. Thus, at the Ordination of a Bishop, the prayer was just 
 the same as it is now. ' Almighty God, Giver of all good things, 
 who by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers orders of ministers in 
 Thy Church, mercifidly behold this Thy servant now called to the work 
 and ministry of a Bishop,' &c. The same declaration, that the 
 Holy Spirit appointed ' divers orders' in the Church, was likewise 
 in the prayers used at the Ordination of a Priest, and of a Deacon. 
 
 " Now, it is a consequence obvious to common sense, that when 
 a committee was appointed for the express purpose of composing 
 disfmct offices for the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons ; 
 when three distinct offices were actually composed; when in the 
 Preface to these offices three distinct orders were particularly enume-
 
 21 
 
 declared in the first and subsequent Ordinals. " Al- 
 mighty God, giver of all good things, who by thy 
 Holy Spirit hast appcmted divers Orders of Ministers 
 in thy Church ; mercifully behold this thy servant, 
 now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop," or 
 Priest, or Deacon, as the case may be. The preface 
 remained the same, and the forms, with one or two 
 trifling alterations, in the Prayer-book of 1552, and 
 the slight variations m the preface, and the alterations 
 in the forms themselves, adopted at the last review, in 
 1662, tend to develope more clearly the views of our 
 Church in favour of Episcopacy and the doctrine of 
 the Apostolical Succession. 
 
 The 23rd and 36th Articles of our Church next 
 demand our attention. I need hardly state, that these 
 Articles were drawn up by Cranmer and certain bishops 
 and other divines, m the year 1552 : they were revised 
 in 1562, under Archbishop Parker: and, "when de- 
 creed, were," in the language of Strj^DC, " mostwhat 
 the same "VNith those made and constituted in the year 
 1557." The 23rd, which I am now about to quote, 
 was precisely the same : " It is not lawfid for any man 
 to take upon him the office of public preacliing or 
 ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before 
 
 rated; and when in the prayers of each office it is expressly declared 
 that (livers orders were appointed by the Holy Ghost ; and, lastly, 
 when in the service for consecrating a Bishop it is expllcithj said that 
 the elect is to be admitted into the office of a Bishop ; when, I say, 
 these things are considered, it is obvious to common sense that the 
 Reformers believed that Bishops were superior to Presbyters by ^Ipos- 
 tolic institution.'" — Dr. Bowden's Testimony of the Reformers^ 
 Letter xiv., pages 19-2.5.
 
 22 
 
 he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same ; 
 and those we ought to judge la^vfully" (that is, accord- 
 ing to the law of God ; for the judges, not the clergy, 
 are the proper expositors of the law of the land,) 
 " called and sent, which be chosen and called to this 
 work by men who have public authority given unto 
 them in the congregation, to call and send ministers 
 into the Lord's vineyard." The 36th Article, as revised 
 in 1562, says: "The Book of Consecration of Arch- 
 bishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and 
 Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward VI., 
 and confirmed at the same time by authority of Par- 
 liament, doth contain all things necessary to such 
 Consecration and Ordermg ; neither hath it anything 
 that of itself is superstitious and ungodly ; and there- 
 fore whosoever are consecrated and ordered according 
 to the rites of that book, since the second year of the 
 afore-named King Edward unto this time, or hereafter 
 shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same 
 rites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and 
 lawfully consecrated and ordered." This declaration 
 of the Church was afterwards confirmed by act of 
 Parliament, in the eighth year of Elizabeth. Let any 
 man compare these Articles with the " Preface to the 
 Ordination Service," where he will read, that " to the 
 intent these Orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, which 
 have been from the Apostles' time in Christ's Church, 
 should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed 
 in this Church of England, it is requisite that no man, 
 (not being at this present Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon,) 
 shall execute any of them, except he be called, tried,
 
 23 
 
 examined, and admitted, according to the form here- 
 after following :" let a man, I say, compare these " Ar- 
 ticles" with the " Preface to the Ordination Service," 
 and the service itself— ^ all di*awn up under the same 
 archicpiscopal head — and I think that he will not 
 doubt the sentiments of Cranmcr and the other Re- 
 formers on the question of Episcopacij and the necessity 
 of a Divine commission. 
 
 A little dihgence would, indeed, have enabled Mr. 
 Macaulay to have avoided the serious misrepresenta- 
 tions in which he has indidged. In broadly asserting 
 that the foimders of the Anglican Church held extreme 
 Erastian "views, he doubtless referred to the answers 
 which were given by the bishops and di\ines to the 
 questions propounded in the commission^ issued by 
 
 ® " But this matter deserves to be a little more particularly treated 
 of. The King (Hen. VIII.) had appointed several of the eminent 
 Di^^nes of his realm to deliberate about sundry points of religion 
 then in controversy, and to give in their sentences distinctly. 
 
 And that in regard of the Germans And also in regard of 
 
 a more exact review of the Institutmi of a Christian 3Ian, put forth 
 about two or three years before, (1537,) and now intended to be 
 published again, as a more perfect piece of religious instruction for 
 the people. The King, therefore, being minded thoroughly to sift 
 divers points of religion, then started and much controverted, com- 
 manded a particular number of Bishops, and other his learned 
 Chaplains and Dignitaries, (1 540,) to compare the lites and ceremonies 
 and tenets of the present Church by the Scriptures, and by the 
 most ancient -svTiters ; and to see how far the Scripture or good 
 antiquity did allow of the same. And this, I suppose, he did at the 
 instigation of Archbishop Cranmer. The names of the com- 
 missioners were these : Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury ; Lee, 
 Archbishop of York ; Bonner, Bishop of London ; Tunstal, Bishop 
 of Durham; (Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester:) Barlow, Bishop of
 
 24 
 
 Henry VIII. in the year 1540, nine years prior to the 
 office of Ordination being reformed. Supposing Mr. 
 Macaulay's assertion to be true, that Erastian views were 
 then maintained by the founders of our Church, — how 
 can the " peculiar conceits,"^ as Bumct calls them, of 
 some of the bishops and divines, in 1540, affect the clear 
 and authoritative testimony borne by the Church of 
 
 St. David's ; Aldrich, Bishop of Carlisle ; Skyp, Bishop of Hereford ; 
 Hatha, Bishop of Rochester ; Thirleby, Bishop elect of West- 
 minster : Doctors, Cox, Robinson, Day, Oglethorpe, Redman, Edge- 
 worth, Syraonds, Tresham, Leyghton, Curwen, and Crayford. And 
 first, the doctrine of the Sacraments was examined, by propounding 
 seventeen distinct questions, drawn up, as I have reason to conclude, 
 by the Archbishop, on which the Divines were to consult ; but each 
 one was to set down in writing his sense of every of these questions 
 singly and succinctly." — Strype's Memorials of Archbishop Cran- 
 mer, vol, i., p. 110. 
 
 It is important to remark, that the answers of these Bishops and 
 Divines formed the data for drawing up the Erudition of a Christian 
 Man, in 1543. See Lingakd's Histonj of England, vol. iv., p. 310; 
 Todd's Life of Archbishop Cranmer, vol. i., pp. 298 and 332 ; and 
 Wheatly, on the Common Prayer, p. 25. 
 
 ^ As the " Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines of some 
 questions concerning the Sacraments," in 1540, have been, and are 
 frequently quoted, to show that our Reformers were " Presbyterian 
 in their principles," and only " retained episcopal ordination as 
 decent and convenient," I will give the following summary of their 
 opinions from Courayer : — 
 
 " Now it appears by the answers made to the questions above 
 mentioned, that the majority of the prelates and divines were not of 
 the same opinion with Cranmer. 
 
 " As for instance, upon the seventh question, excepting Cranmer 
 and Bar low, almost all agree upon the efficacy of the Sacraments ; 
 ' Conveniunt omnes, prceter Menevensem, naturam septem Sacramen- 
 torum nobis tradi in Scripturis. Eboracensis effectus singtdorwn 
 enumerat, item Carliolensis. Upon the ninth question, viz., ' Whether
 
 25 
 
 Eng^land iii the year 1549, in the Prrfuce^ of the 
 Ordinal in question, as to there " having been from the 
 
 the Apostles, lacking a higher power, as in not having a Christian 
 King among- them, made Bishops by that necessity, or by authority 
 given by God?' They all agreed that ' Christ had given this power 
 to His Apostles;'' Omnes conveniunt Apostolos divinitus accepisse 
 potestatem creandi Episcopos : and I do not find that any one fell into 
 Cranmers error, who was of opinion that there was no necessity 
 for any further ceremonies to make a Bishop, than there was for 
 any lay magistrate ; and that the rites made use of were more for 
 decency than out of necessity. Upon the eleventh question, — 
 ' Whether a bishop hath authority to make a priest by the Scripture, 
 or no? and whether any other but a Bishop only may make a Priest? ' 
 All, excepting Barlow, Bishop of St. David, were of opinion, that 
 ' Bishops had the said poioer ;' ' Convenit omnibus proeter Menevensem, 
 Episcopos habere authoritatem instituendi Presby teres ;' and almost all 
 agree that they alone have this potver : ' Eboracensis videtur omnino 
 denegare aliis hanc potestatem. Bedmaytius, Symmons, Robertsonus, 
 Leightonus, Thirlby, Corre?ius, Roffensis, Edgicorthus, Oglethorpus, 
 Carliolensis, misquam legerunt alios tisos fidsse hac potestate.^ 
 To the twelfth query, which regards the necessity of Ordination, 
 almost all were of a contrary opinion to Cranmer and Barlow, 
 and did acknowledge the necessity of consecration. ' liespoti- 
 dent Eboracensis, Londinensis, Carliolensis, Leighton, Tresham, 
 Robertsonus, Sfc, Consecrationem esse requisitam. Redmaynus ait earn 
 receptani esse ab Apostolis, atque a Spiritu Sancto institutam ad con- 
 ferendam gratiam. Dayus, Roffensis, Symmons aiunt Sacerdotium 
 conferri per manuum impositionem, idque e Scripturis ; Consecra- 
 tionem vero dill receptam in Ecclesia. Coxus institutionem cum 
 manuum impositione suffxcere, neque per Scripturam requiri Consecra- 
 tionem, &c. To the fourteenth, 'Whether it be forfended by God's 
 law, that (if it so fortune that all the bishops and priests of a region 
 were dead, and that the Word of God should remain there un- 
 preached, and the Sacrament of Baptism and others unministered,) 
 the King should make bishops ?' &c., few were of Cranmer' s opinion. 
 *Eatentur, ut prius, omnes Laicos posse docere. Eboracensis, Symmons, 
 Oglethorp, neg ant posse ordinare Presbyteros ; tamen concedit Ebora- 
 censis baptizare, et contrahcre matrimonia ; Etlgworth, tantum
 
 26 
 
 Apostles' tiTne these orders of ministers in Chrisfs Church, 
 Bishops, Priests, and Deacons? which offices (says the 
 Church) were ever more had in such reverent estima- 
 tion, that no man, by liis own private authority, might 
 presume to execute any of them, except he were fii'st 
 called, tried, exammed, and kno\vn to have such 
 quahties as were requisite for the same ; and also by 
 public prayer, with imposition of hands, approved and 
 admitted thereunto^ And I think that I have also made 
 it apparent, in Avhat I have already advanced, that an 
 express declaration, on the part of the Church, as to the 
 Divine Institution of Episcopacy pervades the entke 
 
 baptizare posse ; nam stifficere (licit ad salutem^ ^c. These opposite 
 sentiments of the majority of the prelates and divines to those of 
 Cramner, make it plain enough that the Reformation of the Liturgy 
 was not blindly abandoned to the views and erroneous opinions of 
 this Archbishop. 
 
 " It is, therefore, not true (as it was supposed), that those em- 
 ployed to reform the Liturgy* were Presbyterians in their principles, 
 or that they only preserved JEpiscopal Ordination for forni's sake, or 
 that they looked upon Consecration to be useless. The errors of some 
 cannot with justice be imputed to the whole : and at the very time 
 when the charms of novelty increased the number of the innovators, 
 a great many divines, and a good part of the clergy, remained firm 
 in the defence of the Hierachy ; and there has not been found in 
 any Chiurch more zealous defenders of Episcopacy than have appeared 
 in the Church of England since the 8chisiyiy\ — Defence of the 
 Validity of Enylish Ordinations, p. 154. See «lso Todd's Life of 
 Cranmer, vol. i., pp. 299 — 310. 
 
 ^ Probably drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer. 
 
 * I shall examine, by and bye, more at large the above " Resolutions," so far as 
 they were expressed by the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer and the 
 framcrs of Edward's Ordinal. 
 
 t My readers must bear in mind that the above author was a Romanist,
 
 27 
 
 Ordinal. And as regards the framers of our Liturgy 
 and Ordinal holding opinions inimical to the Divine 
 Institution of EjDiscopacy, I maintain, that there was 
 not one of them, with the exception of Cranmc)\ of 
 whom I shall presently speak more at large, who 
 expressed the sentiments imputed to them by Mr, 
 Macaulay ; nay, that they did (so far as they expressed 
 their views,) record opinions^ directly the reverse. I 
 presume that Mr. Macaulay admits, with Ileylyn^ and 
 other writers, that " the same persons who had been 
 before employed in compiling the Liturgy ^^ were now 
 made use of to di'aw up our Ordinal.'"^ If this be not 
 admitted, we shall, I believe, look in vain for further 
 information as to the names of the commissioners ; for 
 
 ^ That this is not a mere hasty assertion, my readers may learn 
 from the fact, that of the thirteen compilers of the Liturgy, Cranmcr, 
 Skyp, May, Cox, Redniayne, Robertson, and Goodrich, had been en- 
 gaged in drawing up the " Declaration of the Functions and Divine 
 Institution of Bishops and Priests " (1536-8) ; that Thirlhy was one 
 of the compilers of the Erudition (1543) ; that Taylor and Ridley 
 were members of the sub-committee for preparing the Reformatio 
 Legum (1551); and that Day was an avowed Papist. The other 
 two were Bishop Holhech and Dr. Heynes. 
 
 * " The number of the Bishops, and the learned men, which are 
 appointed by this Act, assure me that the King made choice of the 
 very same whom he had formerly employed in composing the 
 Liturgy." — History of the Reformation, p. 82. 
 
 * " The commission" (to draw up the English Liturgy) "is pro- 
 bably not upon record ; and in the statute the Archbishop only is 
 named. The other commissioners are there called " most learned 
 and discreet Bishops, and other learned men of the realm." — See 
 Noteixi Shepheed's Introduction, Sfc, p. 26. 
 
 ® Courayer, upon the authority of Heylyn, gives the names of the 
 thirteen Bishops and Divines mentioned in a subsequent note, as the 
 framers of Edward's Ordinal. See p. 187, edit. 1844.
 
 28 
 
 Strype^ tells us that he " does not meet -with any of 
 their names, excepting that of Hethe, Bishop of 
 Worcester," who declined to act. He adds, that " the 
 chief of them, no doubt, was the Ai'chbishop." Taking 
 for granted, then, that the compilers of the Liturgy,^ 
 
 ' lAfeof Cranmer, vol. i., p. 273, edit. 1812. 
 
 ^ The compilers of our Liturgy, according to the authority of 
 Strype, Memorials, vol. ii., pt. 1., p. 134, edit. 1822, and of Fuller, 
 Church History, p. 386, and of Heylyn, History of the Reformation, 
 p. 57, and of Collier,* Eccl. Hist., vol. v., p. 246, edit. 1840, and of 
 Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 86, and of Shepherd, Elucida- 
 tion of the C.P. Introduction, p. 36, (where see note,) and of Nichols 
 071 the Common Prayer, Preface, p. 5, and of Glocester Ridley, in 
 his Life of Bishop Ridley, p. 222, and of Downes, Lives of the 
 Compilers, Sfc, p. 152, were the following : — " Archbishop Cranmer, 
 Bishops Ridley, Goodrich, Holbech, Thirlby, Skyp, and Day ; and 
 Drs. Taylor, Cox, May, Robertson, Heynes, and Redmayne.f The 
 list given by Courayer, though ostensibly that of the comiDilers, seems 
 to be that of the " godly Bishops, and other learned and religious 
 men, who were no less busily employed (the same year) in the Castle 
 of Windsor, appointed by the King's command to consult together 
 about one uniform Order for administeriny the Holy Comtnunion in 
 the English tonyue, under both kinds, of bread andicine.'" — Published 
 in March, 1548. See Heylyn's Hist, of Ref, p, 57. Heylyn thinks 
 
 * Notwithstanding the note, p. 16, in the new edit, of Courayer, (1844,) I must 
 still claim Collier as a testimony in my favour. I think, with deference, that a 
 perusal of the passages referred to in Collier and Heylyn, and even in Burnet, 
 prove that Collier, in speaking of * a different list,' alludes to the list of commis- 
 sioners for drawing up an * Order for administering tlie Holy Eucharist in Enylish,' 
 and not to that for revising the Liturgy. He distinctly says, speaking of the 
 shorter list of thirteen commissioners, " tliese were the persons who afterwards 
 made the first Liturgy." The Editor will pardon me for drawing his attention to 
 a misprint in the above note, viz. 1520 instead of looO. I must add, that I much 
 regret not having had the advantage of consulting the very valuable notes, &c. by 
 the learned Editor of Conrayer, until I had nearly completed my labours. 
 
 t The above list of the compilers of the Liturgy is adopted by Bishop Mant, 
 Bishop Short, the author of the History of tJie Church of England (J. B. S. 
 Carwilhen), and other modern writers.
 
 29 
 
 and the commissioners appointed to draw np the new 
 Ordinal,^ constituted one and the same body, may I be 
 allowed to ask the name of any one commissioner, 
 (with the above exception, which I shall examine by 
 and bye,) who held the Erastian views attributed 
 to them. I am aware that some confusion arises from 
 the difficulty of ascertaining the precise sense in which 
 " the Bishops and Divines," in their replies to " some 
 Questions concerning the Sacraments," in 1540, used 
 the terms " making^'' " consecrating,'' &c. &c. In the 
 language of Dr. Redmapie, one of the respondents, 
 " it is to be considered that in this question, with other 
 like, this word ' maker of a Bishop or Priest ' may be 
 taken two ways: for understanding the word to 
 * ordain,' or ' consecrate,' so it is a thing \n\Ac)[i pertai7ieth 
 
 that these framers of the new Communion Office, and the compilers 
 of the Liturgy, were one and the same body, and gives the above 
 names as constituting the commissioners. — Nichols makes the same 
 assertion, adding that the same thirteen persons prepared the public 
 services for other special occasions. At all events, Courayer would 
 by his references make the number of the framers of the Ordinal 24, 
 whereas they were limited to twelve by the Act of Parliament ; 
 neither is this passage consistent with that referred to in the previous 
 note ; — nor does Collier, to whom he refers, substantiate his asser- 
 tion. The reader must bear in mind, that there were t/a-ee com- 
 missions issued, one for drawing up " a new Office for the Communion 
 only'' (published in March, 1548); another for compiling "a com- 
 plete Liticrgy, or Form of Public Prayer,'' set forth by an Act of 2 
 and 3 Edw. VI. (adopted by Parliament, November, 1548); and a 
 third, for drawing up the Ordinal, pursuant to the 3 and 4 Ewd. VI. 
 published in March, 1549). — See Kennett's Hist, of Eng., vol. ii., 
 p. 290, note; and Jexkyns's Remains of Archhisliop Cranmer, Pre- 
 face, pp. 50 — 52, and 375, note. 
 
 ' The number was limited to twelve by the 3rd of Edw. VI., 
 ch. 12.
 
 30 
 
 to the Ajwstles and their successors only ; but if by this 
 word ' making^' be understood the appointing or naming 
 to the office, so it pertaineth especially to the supreme' 
 heads and governors of the Church, which be Princes." 
 Again, in the reply of Dr. Cox to the twelfth question, 
 " whether in the new Testament be required any con- 
 secration of a Bishop and Priest, or only appointing to 
 the office be sufficient '? " viz. " that by Scriptiu'e there 
 is no consecration of Bishops and Priests required, but 
 only the appointing to the office of a Priest, cum 
 impositione inanmim^' it is e^ddent that he attached a 
 different sense to the word consecration from that which 
 it bears now, or, in fact, was applied to it at the time 
 by the other Divines.^ It will be observed that 
 Cox speaks of the consecration of Bishops and Priests 
 as not being required, but only the appointing to 
 the office of a Priest, '-'-per impositionem 7nanuum" 
 admitting the necessity of Ordination? To the ninth 
 question, "whether the Apostles, lacking a higher 
 power, as in not having a Christian King among them, 
 made Bishops by that necessity, or by authority given 
 them of Godl" Dr. Cox replies, "Although the 
 Apostles had no authority to force any man to be 
 Priest; yet they, moved by the Holy Ghost, had 
 
 ^ And we may add by Dr. Cox himself, when in 1549 he assisted 
 in drawing up " The Form of Consecratikg of an Archbishop or 
 Bishop^ 
 
 • Dr. Cox was one of the Divines who drew up the Reformatio 
 Legmn, 1551, and the Institution of a Cliristian Man, in 1537; in 
 the latter of which " the invisible grace imparted at Ordination by the 
 imposition of the Bishop's hands " is distinctly admitted.
 
 31 
 
 authority of God to exhort and induce men to set forth 
 God's honour, and so to make Priests ^ And again, in 
 the eleventh question, "Whether a Bishop liath autho- 
 rity to make a Priest by the Scripture, or no ?" Dr. 
 Cox replies, " Bishops have authorifi/^ as is aforesaid of 
 the Apostles in the tenth question, to make Priests.'' 
 That the tenn '■'■consecration " was used by the different 
 Di\'ines in a veiy different sense, may be learnt from 
 the answers of Dr. Day and others. Thus Bishop 
 Hethe^ who held the Divine Right of Einscopacy, says, 
 " the Scripture speaketh de imimsitione man us et de 
 oratione ; and of other manner of consecration I find 
 no mention in the New Testament expressly ; but the 
 old authors make mention of Inunctions." Dr. Dai/ 
 (who was, as Strype tells us, " a strong Papist,'') says, 
 " Consecration of Bishops and Priests, I read not in the 
 New Testament ; but ordinatio per manuum impo- 
 sitionem cum oratione is read there; and the onlt/ 
 a^ypointment to the office of a Priest, as I think, is not 
 sufficient." And yet he replies to the question as to 
 "the authority of a Bishop to make a Priest," that 
 " Bishops have authority hy Scripture to ordain Bishops 
 and Priests, John xx., '■Hujus rei gratia reliqui te 
 Cretce, ut constituas oppidatim preshyteros^" Tit. i., Acts 
 xiv. Drs. Pedmayne Pohertson^, Leigton, Tresham, 
 and others, say that, "Besides the appointing to the 
 office, it appeareth that, in the primitive Chui'ch, the 
 
 ^ I should add, that Dr. T. Robertson also, with Dr. Cox, was 
 engaged, in the year 1537, in di'awing up the Institution of a 
 Christian Man, in which the Episcopal function.s are clearly 
 maintained.
 
 32 
 
 Apostles used certain consecration of the Ministers of 
 the Church, by imposition of hands ^ and prayer^ and 
 with fasting. (Redmai/ne.) " Opinor requiri consecra- 
 tionem quandam, hoc est impositionem manuum, ora- 
 tionem, jejunium" &c. (Robertson.) "I suppose that 
 there is a consecration required, as by imposition of 
 hands ; for so we be taught by the ensample of the 
 Apostles." (Leighton.) "There \^2i certain kind of 
 consecration required, which is imposition of the Bishop's 
 hands, with prayer ; and the apjwintment only is 7iot 
 sufficient.'' (Tresham.) It ^vill be seen by these ex- 
 tracts that though Drs. Cox and Day objected to the 
 term consecration,^ which was admitted by most of the 
 other Divines, yet that they all agree as to the mode of 
 conveying the commission, '■'•per mxinuum impositionem.'' 
 My readers must not, however, suppose that the 
 Bishops and Divines who were principally concerned 
 in framing the new Ordinal, had, on any occasion, 
 recorded opinions even as vague and loose as those of 
 Drs. Cox and Day. It will hardly be believed, after 
 Mr. Macaulay's positive assertions as to the views of 
 " the founders of the Anglican Church," that only six 
 (we might, perhaps, say huifiDe) of the framcrs of the 
 new Ordinal expressed any opinion at all, as far as we 
 have any record, on the subject of the questions pro- 
 
 * It is, however, worthy of remark, that in the new Ordinal of 
 1549, of which Drs. Cox and Day Avere compilers, the titles ran 
 thus : — " The Form of Consecrating of an Archbishop and Bishop" 
 — " The Form of Ordering Priests." In the Review of 1662 the first 
 title was altered thus : " The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating of 
 an Archbishop or Bishop."
 
 33 
 
 pounded in 1540. Of these six, Drs. HoherUon and 
 Redmm/ue thus speak: "Opinor (says the former) 
 Apostolos autJioritate divina creasse Episcopos et Pres- 
 byteros, ubi publicus magistratus permisit." Again, 
 "Opinor Ep)iscopnm habere autJioritatem creandi sacer- 
 
 dotum He then adds, '•'■ordinat. conferr. ffratiam, 
 
 vide. Ec. Homil. Ix." Dr. Redmayne., (whom Stiype 
 calls " one of the solidest and best read Divines in the 
 land,") writes, " Christ gave His Apostles authority to 
 make other Bishops and Ministers of the Church., as He 
 had received authority of the Father to make them 
 Bishops ;" and adds, that " it was meet that they 
 which were special and most elect servants of our 
 Saviour Christ, and were sent by Him to convert the 
 w^orld, and ha\ing most abundantly the Holy Ghost 
 in them, should have special ordermg of such ministry 
 as pertained to the planting and increasing of the 
 faith." He then says, that " to ordain or consecrate is 
 a thing which p>€rtaineth to the Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors only'' Again, Dr. JRedmayne "writes, " 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 showed by Scripture, or any 
 example, as I siqjpose, from the beginning.'''' The 
 opinions of Drs. Day and Cox we have considered 
 ah'eady, and have seen that they are very far from 
 supporting the statement of Mr. Macaulay ; and we 
 must bear in mmd that Dr. Cox had, in 1540, sub- 
 scribed to the declaration that — " Orders is a holy rite 
 or ceremony, instituted by Christ and His Apostles in 
 the New Testament, and doth consist of two parts, 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 that is to say, of a spiritual and invisible grace, and 
 
 also of an outward and a visible sign. The invisible 
 
 gift or grace conferred in the Sacrament (of Orders) is 
 
 nothing else but the^;o?(;er, the office^ and the authority 
 
 before mentioned. The visible and outward sign is 
 
 tlie -prayer^ and imposition of the Bishop's hands upon the 
 
 person that receiveth the said gift or grace. And to the 
 
 intent the Church of Christ should never be destitute 
 
 of such Ministers as should have and execute the said 
 
 power of the keys, it was also ordained and commanded 
 
 by the Apostles, that the same Sacrament shoidd be 
 
 applied and administered by the Bishop, from time to 
 
 time, to such other persons as had the qualities 
 
 necessarily required thereunto ; which said qualities 
 
 the Apostles did also very diligently describe, as it 
 
 appeareth evidently in the third ch. of Tim. and first 
 
 of Tit." — Institution of a Christian Man. Dr. Cox 
 
 also assisted in di'awing up the Reformatio Legum, in 
 
 1551. But what Avill my readers say when I repeat 
 
 that Dr. Day also (then Bishop of Chichester,) though 
 
 appointed a commissioner for compiling the Litui'gy, 
 
 and subsequently iox framing^ the new Ordinal, was " a 
 
 strong Papist,'' notwithstanding his replies to the 
 
 seventeen questions ; that he was deprived of his see 
 
 for not taking down the Popish altars m his diocese ; 
 
 that he reproved his college for favouring the Refor- 
 
 ® Doivnes says, upon the authority of Heylyn, that Day's name 
 was omitted in the latter commission ; but Heylyn seems to have 
 hazarded a conjecture. Courayer gives the name of Bishop Day, 
 when he enumerates the commissioners. 
 
 f
 
 35 
 
 mation and leaving off masses ; sided with Gardiner 
 against Cranmer ; and in ]Mary's reign was a Aiolent 
 persecutor of the Protestant Bishops and others ! 
 " In truth (says Sti'j^e,^) in the composing of that 
 Office (the Common Prayer) choice was made, not 
 so much of men with respect to their opinions, as to 
 their great learning and knowledge in the usages and 
 practice of the ancient Church. For Bishop Day^ 
 another of them, (besides Redmayne,) was a strong 
 Papist ; and so was Robertson affected, and not much 
 otherwise w^as Bishop Skip ! " Be it remembered that 
 Bishop Skip (and probably Bishop Day) and Drs. 
 Robertson and Redmayne assisted in draiving it]) the 
 Ordinal, in which Mr. Macaulay says " Episcopacy was 
 retained only as an ancient, a decent, and a convenient 
 Ecclesiastical polity." But we must proceed with the 
 " Resolutions." The remaining two were those of 
 Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop TJiirlhy. Bishop 
 Thirlby' thus writes: "Making of Bishops hath two 
 parts ; appointment, and ordering. Appointment, 
 which the Apostles by necessity made by common 
 election, and sometimes by their own several assign- 
 ment, could not then be done by Christian Prmces, 
 because at that time they were not ; and now at these 
 days appertameth to Christian Princes and Rulers. 
 But in the ordering, wherein grace is conferred (as afore), 
 
 ^ Memorials Ecclesiastical, vol. li., pt. 1., edit. 1822. 
 
 ' According to Strype, Life of Cranmer, vol. i., p 111, and vol. 
 ii.,p. 749, edit. 1812. See also Bishop 77i/>Zi_y's opinions, as stated 
 by Burnet, in the Collection of Records, Book ili., No. 21. 
 
 c2
 
 36 
 
 the Apostles did follow the rule taught hy the Holy Ghost, 
 per manuum impositionem, cum oratione et jeju?iio." 
 Again : " A Bishop, ha\ing authority of his Christian 
 Prince to give orders, may by his ministry, given to him 
 of God in Scripture, ordain a Priest. And we read not 
 that any other, not being a Bishop, hath, since the be- 
 ginning of Chrisfs Church, ordered a Priest. Again : 
 " Only appointment is not sufficient, but consecration ; 
 that is to say, imposition of hands, with fasting and 
 prayer, is also required. For so the Apostles used to 
 order them that were appointed ; and so have been used 
 continually ; and ive have not read the contrary.''^ I have 
 thus examined the opinions of iive^ of the commission- 
 ers, who on a j)revious occasion had recorded their 
 sentiments on the authority of the Episcopate ; and I 
 again ask, whether the imputations against these 
 " founders of the Anglican Church," on the subject of 
 Episcopacy, are supported by historical testimony % — 
 whether it would appear that they " retained Episco- 
 pacy as an ancient, a decent, and a convenient Eccle- 
 
 ^ The substance of what I have above stated has akeady appeared 
 in a previous work — " The Succession ofBishojis in the Church of Eng- 
 land Unhroken ;" but as the positions there advanced have not been 
 refuted, and are, I believe, irrefutable, I have taken advantage of my 
 previous labours in preparing my present publication, 
 
 ° Of the remaining seven compilers (whose opinions on Episcopacy, 
 it will be remembered, arc not recorded in the celebrated " Resolu- 
 tions") Bishop Skip is accused by Strype of having been affected 
 with Popery ; and Bishops Goodrich and Ridley, and Drs. Taylor 
 and May, were four of the committee for drawing up the Reformatio 
 Lecjum, in which Episcopacy is clearly maintained in all its effi- 
 ciency." — Sec Jenkyns's Remains of Archbishop Cranmer, Preface^ 
 p. 1 1 0, note.
 
 37 
 
 siastical polity only ; but had not declared that form of 
 Church Government to be of Divine Institution 1 " 
 
 The opmion of ArcJibishop Cranmer alone remains 
 to be considered. Mr. Macaulay tells us (p. 53), that 
 " Cranmer plamly avowed his conviction, that, in the 
 primitive times, there was no distinction between 
 Bishops and Priests," and that " the laying on of hands 
 was altogether unnecessary." " It was unnecessary 
 that there should be any imposition of hands. The 
 King, such was the opinion of Cranmer, given in the 
 plainest words, might, in virtue of authority derived 
 from God, make a Priest ; and the Priest so made 
 needed no ordination whatever. These opinions 
 Cranmer followed out to their legitimate conse- 
 quences." " The founders of the Anglican Church 
 had retained Episcopacy as an ancient, a decent, and 
 a convenient Ecclesiastical polity, hut had not declared 
 that form of Church Government to be of Divine 
 Institution. We have akeady seen how low an esti- 
 mate Cranmer had formed of the office of a Bishop." 
 The Author adds much more to the same effect. Now 
 is this quite fair % Woidd not any reader imagine 
 that these views were the known, deliberate, and often 
 expressed opinions of Archbishop Cranmer % AVould 
 any reader guess that the Archbishop had in the In- 
 stitution of a Christian 3i«;j, published in 1537, in The 
 Declaration of the Functions and Divine Institution of 
 Bishops and Priests, in 1536-8, in the Erudition of a 
 Christian Man, in 1543, in his Catechism, in 1548, in 
 the Iliformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, in 1551, and 
 in the Preface to the Ordinal, wliicli was probably
 
 38 
 
 written by Cranmer himself, clearly, distinctly, and 
 unequivocally, to quote the language of Dr. Hickes, 
 (Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy asserted, 
 p. 40,J " derived the order and mission of Bishops and 
 Priests from Christ to the Apostles, and from them 
 successively to others, unto the world's end ; " and that 
 Cranmer had actually cancelled the replies to the ' Ques- 
 tions concerning the Sacraments,' upon which Mr. 
 Macaulay foimds his assertions respecting the Arch- 
 bishop's views ! I am willing to admit that, in the 
 Archbishop's replies in 1540, certain " singular 
 opinions" seem to be recorded on the " Ecclesiastical 
 Functions," which are not conformable to the princi- 
 ples maintained throughout the new Ordinal of 1549 ; 
 but I think that, in fairness, Mr. Macaulay should 
 have informed his readers that Cranmer had, as Bishop 
 Burnet expresses himself, quite "laid aside those 
 peculiar conceits of his own" six years at least prior 
 to the rejection of the Roman Pontifical and the intro- 
 duction of the new Ordinal ; and that in the years 
 1537 and 1538 he had not embraced these " singidar 
 opinions." ^ I have said that certain " singular opinions" 
 seem to be recorded in the replies of the Archbishop 
 in 1540, because I believe that some of Cranmer's 
 answers may be capable of an interpretation, very 
 different from that which is generally attached to them. 
 
 ^ At the end of Cranmer's replies to the seventeen questions 
 appears this paragraph, written by the Archbishop himself: — 
 " T. Cantuarien. This is my opinion and sentence at this present, 
 •which nevertheless I do not temerariously define, but refer the judg- 
 ment thereof wholly unto your Majesty."
 
 39 
 
 How otherwise can we reconcile the opinions expressed 
 in TJie Institution of a Christian Man, — drawn \\]) under 
 the immediate direction of the Archbishop, and of 
 which he was the principal compiler, and published 
 in 1537, and similar sentiments to which he subscribed 
 in 1536-8, when he signed a Declaration'^ of the Func- 
 tions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests, — 
 with the replies of 1540, as commonly interpreted? 
 And we should bear in mind that assertions equally 
 strong in favour of Episcopacy/ pervade the Erudition 
 of a Christian Man, published in 1543, wliich was 
 " chiefly," Strype tells us, " of the Archbishop's com- 
 posmg," and his Catechism, published in 1548. I shall 
 leave the solution of the question in the hands of my 
 readers ; but the following extracts from the Bishop's 
 Book -vvill show what were Cranmer's sentiments in 
 1537. 
 
 " We thiuk it convenient (that is, proper and right) that 
 all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach the people 
 committed unto their spiritual charge ; — 1st. How that Christ 
 and His Apostles did institute and ordain in the New Testa- 
 ment, that, besides the civil powers and governance of Kings 
 and Princes, which is called potestus Gladii, " the power of 
 
 ■ " ^ Declaration made of the Functioyts and Divine Institution of 
 Bishops and Priests,'^ signed by thirty-eight Bishops, Divines, and 
 Canonists ; amongst whom were seven of the compilers of the Book 
 of Common Prayer, viz., Cranmer, Slap, Robertson, Redmayne, 
 May, Cox, and Goodrich. " It declares, that the power of the 
 Keys, and other Church functions, is formally distinct from the i:)Ower 
 of the Sword. That this power is not absolute, but to be limited to 
 the rules that are in. the Scripture, and is ordamcd only for the edifi-
 
 40 
 
 the Sword," there should also be continually iu the Church 
 Militant certain other ministers or officers, which should have 
 special poiocr, authority, and commission, under Chirst, to 
 preach and teach the Word of God unto His people ; to dispense 
 and administer the Sacraments of God unto them, and by the 
 same to confer and give the graces of the Holy Ghost ; to con- 
 
 cation and good of the Church : that this poiter ought to be still 
 preserved, since it was given hy Christ as the means of reconciling 
 sinners to God. Orders were also declared a Sacrament, since they 
 consisted of an outward action, instituted by Christ, and an imvard 
 grace conferred with them; but that all inferior Orders, Janitors, 
 Lectors, &c., Avere brought into the Church to beautify and adorn it, 
 and were taken from the Temple of the Jews : and that in the New 
 Testament there is no mention made but of Deacons or Ministers, 
 and Priests or Bishops. Nor is there belonging to Orders any other 
 ceremony mentioned in the Scripture but prayer and imposition of 
 hands." — Burnet's Hist, of the Ref, vol. i., p. 345, and Wilkins's 
 Concilia Mag. Brit., vol. iii., p. 834. The reader wdl find in 
 Burnet (^idem, p. 346) some explanatory remarks on the words 
 *' Priests or Bishops." Though the " Declaration " is, in fact, 
 nearly the same as the Exposition upon Orders in the histitution of 
 a Christian Man, it appears to have been a distinct document, and to 
 have preceded the publication of the latter. A very interesting and 
 important document wUl be found in Jenkyns's Remains of Archbishop 
 Cranmer, (vol. iv., p. 300,) entitled, " De Ordine et Ministerio 
 Sacerdottim et Episcoporum^' from the pen of Cranmer. The date 
 is supposed to be about 1538. The following brief extracts will 
 suffice to show the opinions of the Archbishop at that time: — 
 " Sacerdotwn et Episcoporum ordinem ac ministerium non humana 
 
 auctoritate sed divinitus institution, Scriptura aperte docet Pro- 
 
 inde potestatem seit functionem hanc Dei verbum et sacramenta 
 ministrandi cceterasque res agendi quas ante recensuimus, Christus 
 ipse Apostolis suis dedit, et in illis ac per illos eandem tradidit, haud 
 promiscue quidem omnibus, sed quibusdam duntaxat hominibus, nempe 
 Episcopis et Presbyteris, qui ad istud muneris initiantur et admit- 
 tuntur.'' Throughout the document the two Orders are distinguished, 
 " Presbyteri et Episcopi."
 
 41 
 
 secrate the blessed Body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar; 
 to loose and absolve from sin all persons which be didi/ penitent 
 and sorry for the same ; to bind and to excommunicate such as 
 be guilty in manifest crimes aiiU sins, and will not amend their 
 defaults; to order and consecrate others in the same room, 
 order, and office, xohcreunto they be called and admitted them- 
 selces. It appeareth evidently that this power, office, and 
 administration, is necessary to be preserved here in earth for 
 three special and principal causes. — 1st. For that it is the 
 commandment of God it should be so, as it appeareth in 
 sundry places of Scripture. 2nd. For that God hath instituted 
 and ordained none other ordinary mean or instrument whereby 
 He w-ill make us partakers of the reconciliation which is by 
 Christ, and confer and give the graces of His Holy Spirit unto 
 us, and make us the right inheritors of everlasting life, there 
 to reign with Him for ever in glory, but only his "Word and 
 Sacraments. And, therefore, the office and power to minister 
 the said Word and Sacraments, may in no wise be suffered to 
 pei'ish or to be abolished. 3. Because the said power and office 
 or function hath annexed unto it assured promises of excellent 
 and inestimable things ; for thereby is conferred and given the 
 Holy Ghost, with all his graces, and finally our justification 
 and everlasting life. Again, — This office, this poioer, and 
 authority, was committed and given by Christ and His Apostles 
 unto certain persons only ; that is to say, unto Priests and 
 Bishops, tvhotn they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by 
 their prayer and imposition of their hands. . . . Orders is a 
 holy rite or ceremony instituted by Christ and His Apostles in 
 the New Testament, and doth consist of two parts ; that is to 
 say, of a spiritual and invisible grace, and also of an outward 
 and a visible sign. The invisible gift or grace conferred in the 
 Sacrament is nothing else but the power, the office, and the 
 authority before mentio7ied. The visible and outward sign is 
 the prayer and imposition of the Bishop^s hands upon the i)erson 
 that rcccivdh the said gift or grace And to the intent the
 
 42 
 
 Church of Christ should never he destitute of such ministers as 
 should have and execute the said power of the Keys, it was 
 also ordained and commanded by the Apostles, that the same 
 Sacrament should he applied and administered hy the Bishop, 
 from time to time, unto such other persons as had the qualities 
 necessarily required thereunto; which said qualities the 
 Apostles did also very diligently describe, as it appeareth 
 evidently in the third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy, 
 and the first chapter of his Epistle to Titus." 
 
 These were the Archbishop's sentiments in 1537 ; 
 that Cranmer had moreover completely relinquished 
 the loose opinions imputed to him on the subject of 
 Church government some years before the new Ordinal 
 ivas framed, may be learnt from his recorded senti- 
 ments on the same topic, as given in the Erudition of 
 a Christian Man, published in 1543, and from his 
 Catechism,^ published in 1548. In the former of 
 these he tells us, that " Order is a gift or grace of 
 ministration in Christ's Church, given of God to 
 Christian men hy the consecration and imposition of the 
 Bishop's hands upon them ; and this was conferred and 
 given hy the Apostles, as it appeareth in the Epistle of 
 St. Paul to Timothy, whom he had ordained and 
 consecrated Priest, when he saith thus : ' I do exhort 
 thee that thou do stu* up the grace of God, the which 
 
 ^ Dr. Lingard says : " It is remarkable that in this Catechism the 
 Archbishop leans more than usual to the antient doctrines ; and 
 attributes the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to Christ in a manner 
 which seems to do away his former opinion on the same suhjecf." — 
 History of England, vol. iv., p. 395. See also some interesting 
 remarks on this head in Jenkyns's Preface to the Remains of Arch- 
 bishnj) Cranmer, p. 34.
 
 43 
 
 is given thee by the imposition of my hands.' And 
 in another place he doth monish the same Timothy, 
 and put him in remembrance of the room and ministry 
 that he was called unto, in these words : ' Do not 
 neglect the grace which thou hast in thee, and the 
 which is given thee through prophecy and with impo- 
 sition of hands, by the authority of Priesthood ;' 
 whereby it appearcth that St. Paul did consecrate 
 and order Priests and Bishops hy the imposition of his 
 hands. And as the Apostles themselves, in the begin- 
 ning of the Church, did order Priests and Bishops, 
 so they appointed and willed the other Bishops after 
 them to do the like, as St. Paul manifestly showeth 
 m his Epistle to Titus, saying thus : ' For this cause 
 left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordam Elders 
 in every city according as I have apj)omted thee.' 
 And to Timothy he saith, ' See that thou be not 
 hasty to put thy hands upon any man.' " Collier^ 
 tells us that Cranmer subscribed the Erudition, coun- 
 tenanced it in his diocese, and checked Joseph, a 
 clergyman, who took the liberty to preach against it. 
 
 Again, in the Catechism, which was published in 
 Cranmer's own name, we read that " the ministration of 
 God's Word, which our Lord Jesus Christ did first 
 institute, was derived from the Apostles unto others after 
 them, hy imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, 
 from the Aptostles' time to our own days ; and this was 
 the consecration, and orders, and unction of the Apostles, 
 whereby they, at the beginning, made Bishop)S and Priests; 
 
 "■ Eccl. Hist., vol. v., p. 125, edit. 1840.
 
 44 
 
 and this shall continue in the Church unto the worhVs 
 end" &c. ; from which it is clear, as Dr. Hickes' re- 
 
 ' " I have (says Dr. Hickes) made this sermon public again, 
 because I think the doctrines set forth in it are as beneficial to the 
 Church now, as when they were published one hundred and sixty 
 years ago. I say the doctrines, for in order to explain the j>ower of 
 the Keys, he hath treated of the sacerdotal mission of God's minis- 
 ters, to whom the power of the Keys is committed, and delivered 
 his doctrine about it in several propositions, as 1st. — That it is 
 necessary to have preachers, or ministers of God's most Holy Word. 
 2. — That they must not aspire to that high ofiice, before they are 
 called, ordained, and appointed to it, and sent to us by God. 3rd. 
 — That except they be so called, and sent, they cannot fruitfully 
 teach, because God doth not work with the preacher, whom he hath 
 not sent, &c. I have set all this in the reader's view, for the honour 
 of Archbishop Crajimer's memory, to show that when he wrote this 
 book, he could not be of the opinion, that *■ the form of Church 
 Government is mutahle, that there is no distinction hetween a Bishop 
 and a Priest, and that a man ajjpointed to be a Bishop, or a Priest, 
 needs no consecration by the Scriptio-e ; electioti, or appointment, being 
 sufficient thereunto, as is said of him, with great triumph, in the 
 178 page of the book of Rights.^- These loose opinions, which are 
 so apparently contrary to what the Archbishop published in this 
 sermon, that fraudulent writer took from a manuscript as cited by 
 Dr. Stillingfleet in the 8th ch. of the 2nd book of his Irenicum ; 
 though Dr. Durel, who saw the manuscript afterwards, told the 
 world how it Avas manifest from it, that the Archbishop changed his 
 opinion, and came over to that of Dr. Leyghton,\ who, in answer to 
 the 11th question, asserted — that * a Bishop had authority frmn God 
 in ScrijHure, as his minister, to make a Priest, and that he had not 
 read that any other man had authority to make a Priest by Scripture, 
 or kneio any example thereof .'' And in answer to the 12th, he said — 
 
 * By MattJiew Tindal, answered by Turner, in his Vindication of the Rights 
 of the Christian Church, and hy Ilickes, in his Christian Priesthood, and Dignity 
 of the Episcopal Order. — Sec Preface. 
 
 t Collection of Records in the 3id Book of the Bishop of Saiuui's llislonj 
 of the Reformation, page 227.
 
 45 
 
 marks, that Cranmcr " derived the orders and mission 
 of Bishops and Priests from Christ to the Ajwstles, and 
 
 ' I suppose that there is a consecration required, as hy imposition of 
 hands, for so tee he taught hy the ensample of the Apostles ; ' icho, in 
 answer to the 10th question, he had said — ' were made Bishops and 
 Priests hy Christ,' and that ' after them the seventy-two* Disciples were 
 made Priests.'' This account of the Archbishop changing his opinion 
 as to the point of Church Government, Dr. Durel, afterwards Dean 
 of Windsor, gavef from the manuscript itself, wherein it appeared 
 that Th. Cantuariensis was written with the Archbishop's o^vn hand 
 imdemeath Leyghton's opinion, to signify his approbation of it ; and 
 his sermon, which I have here reprinted, shews that it was his 
 final opinion, and that he thought the people were to be instructed 
 in it, as part of the erudition of a Christian man. — Dr. Stillingfieet, 
 afterward Bishop of Worcester, never wrote, or, that 1 heard, said 
 anything to contradict Dr. DureVs account of his manuscript, all his 
 life long. And the Bishop of Sarum also acknowledges, that the 
 Archbishop did retract his opinion, though he printed his manu- 
 script in another order and method than the original is -vratten in, 
 contrary to the advice of Dr. Stillingflcet, as Dr. Grove told the 
 world in his shuffling answer to Dr. Lowth's letter to Dr. Stilling- 
 fieet; which was a fancy, or rather a liberty in his Lordship, which, 
 perhaps, he would censure in another historian. I am sure it cannot 
 be justified in any, and, in matters of law, it would be called altering 
 a record. I must also observe, that Archbishop Cranmer's book 
 must be written in 1547, or some time before, because it was printed 
 in 1548. Which also further shews the great mistake of Bishop 
 Stillingjleet, when he wrote his Irenicum, in dating the birth of his 
 manuscript from the first settlement of King Edward VI., as a paper 
 containing the principles upon which the Reformation proceeded in 
 1547, J to the great dishonour of our Eeformers, and the disgrace of 
 our Keformation, and giving our adversaries of Home great occasion 
 to misrepresent our Church to be Erastian in its foundation, as giving 
 
 * On the Number of Disciples, whether 70 or 72, see Heylyn's His. of Epis. 
 p. 19. t yindicue Ecclesicp AtigUcancc, cap. xxvi., p. 326. 
 
 X It may be added that Edward, Archbishoi} of York, who subscribed the 
 Paper of Questions, died in 1544.
 
 46 
 
 from them to others, and from them successively to others, 
 unto the world's end." 
 
 Again, the Archbishop says — 
 
 *' Teachers, unless they be called and sent, cannot fruitfully 
 teach ; for the seed of God's Word doth never bring forth fruit 
 unless the Lord of the harvest doth give the increase, and by 
 His Holy Spirit, do work with the sowers. But God doth 
 not work with the preacher whom He hath not sent ; as St. 
 Paul saith, 'How shall they preach if they be not sent?' 
 Wherefore it is requisite that preachers should be called and 
 sent of God ; and they must preach according to the authority 
 and commission of God granted unto them." 
 
 And to the intent that we may know to whom this 
 commission is granted, the Archbishop adds : 
 
 " Again, otcr Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath both ordained 
 and appointed ministers and preachers, to teach us His holy 
 Word, and to miiiister His Sacraments ; a?id also hath 
 appoitited them what they shall teach in His name afid what 
 they shall do unto us. He called and chose His tioelve Apostles. 
 And, aftei' Chrisfs ascension, the Apostles gave authority to 
 other godly a7id holy men to minister God^s Word; chiefly in 
 those places where there were Christian men already which 
 lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could not longer 
 abide with them. Wherefore, when they found godly men, 
 and meet to preach God's Word, they laid their hands upon 
 them and gave them the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received 
 of Christ the same Holy Ghost, to execute their office. And 
 they that were so ordained were indeed, and also were called, 
 
 the Prince the power of the Apostles, and other unconsecrate laymen 
 authority to ordain Bishops and Priests, and to excommunicate, and 
 administer the Sacraments, if the law of any kingdom alloweth 
 thereunto'"' — Dr. Hickes' Preface to the Divine Right of Episcopacy 
 Asserted, pp. 38-41.
 
 47 
 
 the Ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were, as St. 
 Paul saith unto Timothy ; and so the ministratioti of God's 
 Word, which our Lord Jesus CJirist did first institute, was 
 derived from the Apostles unto others after than, hy imposition 
 of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles* 
 time to our own days : and this teas the consecration, and 
 orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they, at the 
 heginning, made Bishops and Priests ; and this shall continue 
 in the Church unto the loorld's end. "Wherefore, good children, 
 you shall give good reverence and honour to the ministers of 
 the Church, and shall not meanly or lightly esteem them in 
 the execution of their office, hut you shall take them for God's 
 ministers and the messengers of our Lord Jesus Christ. For 
 Christ Himself saith in the Gospel, ' He that heareth you 
 heareth Me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.' And 
 " lohatsoever they do to you, as lohen they baptize you, tvhen they 
 give you absolution, and distribute to you the body and blood of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem as if Christ 
 Himself in His own person did speak and minister to you : for 
 Christ hath commanded His miyiisters to do this unto you ; and 
 He Himself, although you see Him not with your bodily eyes, is 
 present with His ministers, and icorheth by the Holy Ghost in 
 the administration of the Sacratnents." 
 
 But I shall further prove that Cranmer, probably 
 before the publication of the Erudition iii 1543, had 
 repudiated the Erastian views imputed to him, by can- 
 celling his replies to the ' Questions concerning the 
 Sacraments,' which, on presenting them to the King, he 
 had declared, though "at present liis opinions and sen- 
 tence," he did "nevertheless not temerariously define."^ 
 
 ^ " Even at the moment of expressing them, he seems to have had 
 some misgivings resiJccting their soundness ; and, as he had lately 
 adopted, so he very quickly saw reason to forsake them." — Jenkyns's 
 Remains of Archhishop Cranmer, Preface, p. 33.
 
 48 
 
 Dr. Durel, it appears, examined " Bishop C'ranmer's 
 MS.," (cited in the Irenicum) with Stillingfleet himself, 
 and not only discovered that the date of the MS., as 
 stated in the Iretiicum, viz. 1547, was incorrect, but 
 found that Cranmer had suhscrihed to the opinions of 
 Dr. Leighton. — " ' Th. Cantuariensis' being wTittenwith 
 the Archbishop's own hand under Leighton s opinion, 
 to signify his approbation of it." " Tantus, inquam, 
 fuit Cranmeri candor, ct tantus amor veritatis, (writes 
 Dr. Durel,J ut in hanc Leightojii sententiam., 2^^'^P^'^^ 
 7mitata, concedere non dithitaverit. Quod ex eodem 
 CI. Stillingfleeti manuscripto libro manifestum est ; in 
 quo scilicet videas ' Th. Cantuariensis' nomen manu 
 propria ad calcem Leightoniancs sententia appositum, 
 in signum approhationis. Cranmerus itaque non modo 
 in Formulae ordinandi Prsefatione, sed in co ipso qui 
 penes est CI. Stillingfleetum manuscripto totiis noster 
 est."^ Dr. Hickes, referring to this pomt, says^ that 
 
 * The following summary of Cranmer's views, from 1537 to 1550, 
 on the point we are considering, is from Todd's Life of A^-chbishop 
 Crafimer, vol. i., p. 307. " It will be seen, that in Cranmer's 
 paper, as Burnet has stated it, there are some singular opinions 
 about the nature of Ecclesiastical Offices : but they were not estab- 
 lished as the doctrines of the Church. They were laid aside as 
 particular conceits of his own. Indeed, he soon afterwards changed 
 his opinions ; for he subscribed the book that was formed in conse- 
 quence of these discussions ^T/ie Necessary Eruditio7i, published in 
 1543), which is directly contrary to the opinions delivered in his 
 paper ; as the reformed Ordinal, in the time of Edward, is, of which 
 he was one of the compilers (1549). On mature consideration, he 
 abandoned those dangerous principles, which subject the validity of 
 Christ's Church to the caprice of every tyrant who may choose to 
 call himself a Christian. He had, before (he artful questions of his
 
 49 
 
 " Dr. Stillingflcet, afterwards Bishop of Worcester, 
 never wrote, or, that I heard, said, any thing to con- 
 tradict Dr. Diirel's account of his manuscript, all his 
 life long." 
 
 Now, what were the opinions of Dr. Leighton to 
 which Cranmer subscribed X " To the ninth question, 
 
 Sovereign were circulated, entertained sentiments very different from 
 his present answers. I have already briefly noticed them. He was 
 then in perfect agreement with the Archbishop of York, eleven other 
 Prelates, and several Canonists and Theologians, in declaring, on 
 Henry's abolition of the inferior Orders in the Church of Rome, 
 such as Subdcacons, Janitors, Lectors, and the like, that in Scripture 
 those Orders are not to be found : this being the sole object of their 
 declaration in answer to certain Romanists, who represented the 
 partial, as a general suppression of ecclesiastical ofl[ices. He had 
 also been the principal compiler of the Institution (1537) ; his 
 opinions in which, as to the government of the Church, and the 
 functions of the Hierarchy, the reverse of those in his present 
 answers, are, as I have before said, recovered in the Necessary Eru- 
 dition. In not proclaiming now (1540) the Apostolical institution of 
 Episcopacy, he had been, perhaps, led by the King to aim at an 
 acknowledgment of the Sovereign's right to exercise every office in 
 the Church. But in these answers he met with little support." — 
 The " pliability " of the Archbishop has been adduced as the cause 
 of his apparent inconsistency ; but if we refer to his Annotations on 
 the King's Booh, being remarks on Henry's corrections of the 
 Institution, we shall find that Cranmer was not that " cowardly 
 time-server to a dogmatical tyrant," as some writers are apt to 
 imagine. *' It will be found, on the contrary, that he criticised both 
 the grammar and the theology of his master with a caustic freedom, 
 which might have given offence to an author of far humbler pre- 
 tensions than a Sovereign who had entered the lists with Luther, 
 and who prided himself on his titles of ' Defender of the Faith,' 
 and ' Supreme Head of the National Church." " — Jenkyns's 
 Remains of ArchhisJwp Cranmer, Preface, p. 19. 
 
 * Preface to the Divine Rigid of Episcopacy Asserted, p. 43. 
 
 D
 
 90 
 
 I say, that the Apostles (as I suppose) ?}iade Bishops 
 hy authority given unto them of Christ ; howbeit I think 
 they would and should have required the Chiistian 
 Princes' consent and licence thereto if there had been 
 any Christian Kings or Princes." "To the tenth: 
 the Apostles were made of Christ Bishops and Priests, 
 both at the first; and after them septuaginta duo 
 discipuli were made Priests." "To the eleventh: I 
 suppose that a Bishop hath authority of God, as His 
 minister, by Scripture to make a Priest ; but he ought 
 not to admit any man to be Priest, and consecrate 
 him, or appoint him to any ministry in the Church, 
 without the Prince's licence and consent, in a Christian 
 region. And that any other man hath authority to make 
 a Priest hy Scrip>ture, I have not read, nor any example 
 thereofV " To the twelfth: I suppose that there is a 
 consecration required, as by imposition of hands; for so 
 we be taught by the ensample of the Apostles." 
 
 Dr. Durel adds,'' "Didicimus disceptationem, qua; 
 in eo manuscripto continetur,factam fuisse ante exactum 
 annum millesimum quingentesimiim quadragesimum quar- 
 tum, quo anno diem suum demum obiit Ed^^ardus Lee, 
 Eboracensis Archiepiscopus, cujus nomen manu pro- 
 pria in eo libro, eodem tempore et eadem occasione 
 cum cceteris scriptum legitur." " AVhich also farther 
 shows the great mistake of Bishop Stillingfleet, when 
 he wrote his Irenicum, in dating the birth of his 
 manuscript from the first settlement of Kmg Edward 
 VI., as a paper contaming the princijjles upon which 
 
 ^ Ecclesiee Anglicanm Vindicicc, pp. 327-8. 
 
 i
 
 51 
 
 the Reformation proceeded in 1547, to the great dis- 
 honom- of our Reformers, and tlie disgrace of our 
 Reformation; and gi^ing our adversaries of Home 
 great occasion to misrepresent our Church to be 
 Erastian in its foundation, as giving the Prince the 
 power of the Apostles, and other unconsecrate laymen 
 authority to ordam Bishops and Priests, and to excom- 
 municate, and administer the Sacraments, if the law 
 of any kingdom aUoweth thereunto.'' Thus wrote Dr. 
 Hickes^ at the close of the seventeenth century. It 
 is also worthy of remai'k, that in the margin of the 
 paper of Resolutions, attributed by Strj-pe to Bishop 
 Thirlhr/, portions of wliich I have previously quoted, 
 the names of Cranmer and others are written, " for 
 what pui-pose (says Strype) I do not know, unless to 
 signify their judgments as agreeable with his," It will 
 be seen from the passages quoted, that the judgment 
 of this Bishop, upon some of the seventeen questions 
 bearing on the subject before us, was m favour of the 
 Ajwstolical Succession and Episcopal Ordinatio7i ; and 
 to each reply, as given above, is added in the margin 
 ''Ahp. Tantr 
 
 I ought perhaps to add, that the same opinions in 
 favour of Episcopaci/ and the necessity of a Divine 
 commission transmitted through the medium of Ordina- 
 tion, which are foim^d in the Institution of a Christian 
 Man^ (1537) ; the Declaration of the Functions and 
 
 ' Preface, Sfc, p. 44. 
 
 ** How far Cranmer was concerned in drawini:;^ up this formu- 
 lary will be seen in Jknkyns's Prtface to Cranmer' s Iiemai/is,\). 17.
 
 52 
 
 Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests (1536-8); the 
 Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian 
 iliaw(1543); and Cranmer's Catechis}n (154:8), are dis- 
 tinctly stated in the^ Reformatio LegumEcclesiasticarum, 
 
 ® I subjoin the chapters referred to in the original, as the work is 
 somewhat scarce. — Tit. " De Ecclesia, et Ministris p/us, illorumque 
 ojficiis.'''' Cap. 3. De Diaconis. — " Diaconus erit pati'onus pauperum, 
 ut languidos confirmet, soletur vinctos, inopes juvet, eritque pater 
 orphanis, patronus viduis, et solatium afflictis et miseris, quantum in 
 illo est, omnibus. Nomina etiam pauperum Parocho diligenter 
 deferet, ut ejus suasu ecclesia tota permota necessitatibus illorum 
 prospiciat, ne mendicantes late fratres obambulent, eodem et crelesti 
 patre nati et pretio redempti. Pastoribus suis, a quibus adsciti 
 fuerint, in sacris precationibus et officiis perpetuo adsint. Lectiones 
 ex verbo Domini quotidianas populo recitabunt, et, si quando 
 necessitas incumbat, concionabuntur, et sacramenta (modo id episcopi 
 aut ordinarii permissione faciant) administrabunt. His officiis nisi 
 diligenter eos invigilasse per presbyteros ecclesiae demonstratum sit, 
 episcopi illos ad altiorem gradura non promoveant." 
 
 De Presbyteris, cap. 4. — " In presbytero mores eluceant a D. Paido 
 descripti ad Tim. iii., et ad Titum primo. Gregem Dei sibi com- 
 missum verbo vitse subinde nutriant, et ad sinceram tum Deo turn 
 magistratui ac in dignitate positis obedientiam assidue eliciant, et ad 
 benevolentiam mutuam Christianos omnes sedulo invitent. Non sint 
 compotores, non aleatores, non aucupes, non venatores, non syco- 
 phantse, non otiosi, aut supini, sed sacrarum literarum studiis et 
 pradicationi verbi et orationibus pro ecclesia ad Dominum diligenter 
 incumbant. Nullus expers conjugii, mulierem sexaginta annis natu 
 minorem in ajdibus sinat diversari, nisi sit ejus mater, aut amita, aut 
 matertera, aut soror. Presbyter quivis Biblia sacra habcat propria, 
 non Anglice modo, verum etiam Latine ; vcstis sit dccens, et gravis, 
 qua ministrum decent, non militem, juxta arbitrium Episcopi." 
 
 De Episcojjoi'um gradu, ac dignitate in Ecclesia., cap. 10. 
 
 Episcopi, quoniam inter cseteros ecclesia ministeros locum princi- 
 pem tenent, ideo sana doctrina, gravi authoritate, atque provido 
 concilio, dcbent inferiores ordines cleri, universumque popidum Dei 
 regere ac pascere, non sane ut dominentur corum fidei, sed ut seipsos 
 
 k
 
 53 
 
 clra'v\Ti up at the close of 1551, of which the principal 
 matter was furnished by the Archbishop. In the third, 
 
 vere servos servorum Dei exhibeant, sciantque authoritatem et juris- 
 dictionem ecclesiasticam non alia de causa sibi preecipue creditam 
 esse, nisi ut suo ministerio et assiduitate homines quam plurimi 
 Christo jungantur; quique jam Christi sunt, in eo crescant et 
 exsedificentur ; atque si nonnulli deficiant, ad pastorem Christum 
 Dominum reducantur, et per salutarem poenitentiam instaurentur." 
 
 De obcdientia Episcopis exhibenda, cap. 11. — " Omnes in ecclesia 
 cum pacem sectari debeant, et ad concordiam quantum licet incum- 
 bere, episcopo qui ecclesise praeficitur, non solum decanus, archidia- 
 conus, archipresbyter, et reliqui ministri parebunt, sed omnia etiam 
 Christi membra ejus curae commissa sic ad ejus se voluntatem accom- 
 modabunt, ut et in his quae juxta verbum Dei prseciplunt, et in illis 
 etiam quae mandabunt ad Christianam disciplinam, et ad nostras 
 ecclesiasticas leges pertinentia, paratissime morem gerent." 
 
 De variis et multlplicibus Episcopi muneribus, cap. 12. — " Verbi 
 Dei sanam doctrinam cum primis tum per seipsum, turn per alios, 
 episcopus tradat in sua ecclesia, quanta diligentia et sedulitate fieri 
 potest : sacros ordines opportuno tempore conferat ; sed nemini, vel 
 mercede conductus, vel temere manus imponat ; idoneos ministros 
 ad ecclesiastica beneficia instituat ; indignos vero, ubi graves causae 
 ac morum perversitas id requisierint, submoveat, et ab ecclesiae admi- 
 nistratione dejiciat; ecclesiae testimoniaet querelas de suis pastoribus 
 audiat ; rixas inter ministros et ecclesias subortas componat ; vitia, et 
 contaminatos mores, censuris ecclesiasticis corrigat ; edicta ad melio- 
 rem vivendi formam praescribat; eos qui pertinaciter et obstinate reluc- 
 tantur, exoommunicet ; pcenitentes vero in gratiam recipiat ; diocesim 
 totam, tam in locis exemptis quam non, tertio quoque anno visitet, 
 et consuetas procurationes accipiat : ut vero aliis temporibus, quoties 
 visum fuerit, visitet propter novos casus qui incidere possint, ei 
 liberum esto : modo suis impensis id faciat, et nova onera stipen- 
 diorum aut procurationum ab ecclesiis non exigat ; statis temporibus 
 annuatim sj-nodos habeat ; illi quoque sit curse ut in Catechismo 
 instructos certo anni tempore confirmet ; testamenta quoque appro- 
 bet. Et demum omnia et singula episcopis curae sunto, quae ad eos 
 ex Dei praescripto spectant, et nostras leges ecclesiasticae illorum 
 cognitioni et judiciis commiserunt."
 
 54 
 
 fourth, tenth, and subsequent chapters we have the 
 offices of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, clearly and speci- 
 fically stated. The Deacon was to preach, and adminis- 
 ter the Sacraments, " modo Ejmcopijjermissione." The 
 chapter on the office of Preshyter refers us to the third 
 chapter of Timothy and the first of Titiis for an eluci- 
 dation of their official character ; and speaks of the 
 flock of God committed to them : which commission we 
 learn from the Ordination Ser\ice, (which was di'aA^Ti 
 up two years before, under the same authority, and 
 again printed in 1552, with a few alterations,) was 
 imparted hy the imposition of the Bishop's hands. The 
 chapter on the order and dignity of Bishops, and the 
 subsequent chapters on the obedience due to these, are 
 stiUmore explicit. The first speaks of the Bishops 
 as holding the chief place among the ministers of 
 Christ's Church, and gives them authority to govern 
 the inferior orders of the Clergy, " inferiores ordines 
 
 Cleri ;'' the others allude to the Ecclesiastical au- 
 thority and jurisdiction of the Bishops ; and declare 
 that the whole diocese, both Clergy and Laity, " omnia 
 
 Christi membra ejus curce commissa" were to be under 
 the Bishop, and to be governed by his discipline and 
 direction, not only on those points which are clearly 
 specified in the Word of God, but on such as apper- 
 tain to the maintenance of Church discipline, and the 
 carrying out the requirements of the Ecclesiastical 
 laws. A subsequent chapter speaks of the Bishop as 
 conferring the sacred orders, " sacros ordines conferat ;" 
 and alludes to the imposition of the Bishop's hands as 
 the mode of conferring these orders, " nemini temere
 
 55 
 
 nmnus imponat'^''^ I should likewise state that Cran- 
 mer, Goodrich, Ridley, Cox, Taylor, and May, six of 
 the compilers of the Liturgy and the Ordinal, together 
 with three others, formed a sub-committee to prepare 
 the above code. 
 
 I think, then, that my readers — and even Mr. 
 Macaulay's readers — will regard his assertions, that 
 " the founders of the Anglican Church retained Epis- 
 copacy, not as of Divine Institution, but as an ancient, 
 decent, and convenient Ecclesiastical Polity;" — 
 that, according to Cranmer and the theologians of his 
 school, " the King w^as to be the Pope of liis kingdom, 
 the Vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic Verity, 
 the channel of sacramental graces ;" — that he was to 
 have " the whole powder of the keys ;" — that, " in the 
 opinion of Cranmer, given in the plainest words, the 
 King might, in virtue of authority derived from God, 
 make a Priest, that the Priest so made needed no 
 ordination v\^hatever," and that " Cranmer carried out 
 these opinions to their legitimate consequences ;" — as 
 statements which militate against historical testimony, 
 give a very unfair and imperfect view of the opinions 
 of our Reformers, and are contrary to the mature 
 and deliberate judgment both of the compilers of our 
 Ordinal and of Archbishop Cranmer himself; and I 
 may be allowed to add, that, though Mr. Macaulay is 
 
 ' The reader will pardon me for referring him to my second 
 Ordination Sermon (p. 102) for further extracts in the original, 
 from the Reformatio Legtcm Ecdesiasticainm .
 
 56 
 
 a very attractive writer, he is not a very^ safe guide 
 in matters ecclesiastical. 
 
 - In proof of the truth of this assertion, I would, for a moment, 
 revert to the passage in Mr. Macaulay's History, where he refers 
 to Archbishop Whitgift and the Bishops Cooper a7idJeivel as having 
 retained and " defended Prelacy as innocent, as useful, as what the 
 state might lawfully establish, as what, when established by the 
 state, was entitled to the respect of every citizen." Is it possible 
 that Mr. Macaulay could have taken the trouble to ascertain the 
 opinions of these eminent Reformers on the subject of Episcopacy ; 
 and, without having exercised a little diligence, ought he to have 
 indulged in such dangerous and erroneous statements ? In addition 
 to the exposition of their views already given (note p. H), I would 
 call the reader's attention to the fact, that Whitgift and Cooper were 
 accused by Martin Marprelate of being Papists for their several 
 vindications of the Church of England and of her Liturgy ! " Martin 
 Marprelate mentioned, among other particular Popish points, 
 wherein as he supposed they agreed, his (the Archbishop's) main- 
 tenance of the hierarchy of Bishops, and his ascribing the name of 
 Priest unto the Ministers of the Gospel. To this objection, viz. 
 that the calling of Bishops, as superior to other Ministers of Christ 
 was a Popish principle, the Archbishop gave this answer ; acknow- 
 ledging that he was persuaded that there ought to be, bj/ the word of 
 God, a superiority among the Ministers of the Church ; and that it 
 was sufficiently proved in his books against T. C, and in Dr. 
 Bridges' book likewise. And that he was at all times ready to 
 justify it by the Holy Scriptures, and by the testimony of all antiquity. 
 And added, that Epiphanius and Augustin accounted them heretics 
 that held the contrary. And that as for the arguments to the con- 
 trary, they were vain ; their answers were absurd ; the authority 
 they \xsed shamefully abused ; and the Scriptm-e they made use of 
 for their purpose wrested. That angry author would also have it an 
 agreement with the Church of Rome, that the Ministers were com- 
 monly called Priests. The Archbishop answered to this, that he 
 had shewed sufficient reason in his book against T. C. why the 
 Ministers of the Gospel might be called Priests. That the ancient 
 Fathers so called them ; that the Church of England embraced
 
 57 
 
 that name, and that by the authority of the highest court in England. 
 The Archbishop proceeded and said, that in these points he did agree 
 with the Holy Scriptures, ivith the Universal Church of God, tvith 
 all antiquity, and in some sort tcith the Church of Rome /" (Stkype's 
 Life of Whitgift, book iii. ch. 22.) Something more, methinks, is 
 here expressed than the ' innocency,' ' decency,' or ' utility * of ' the 
 calling of Bishops.' And as regards Bishop Cooper, he, " one of our 
 leamedest Bishops, was, together with other Bishops and learned 
 men," consulted upon, and in fact, revised Whitgift's answer to 
 " An Exhortation to the Bishop to ansicer the Admonition,^'' in which he 
 defends the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England upon 
 " the testimonies of ancient councils and learned Fathers, which 
 those unlearned men (the writers of the Admonition) unlearnedly 
 contemned." This same Bishop was the object of Marprelate's 
 virulence, as a Papist, for '• magnifying the English Service Book, 
 and defending the ungodly titles and unjust lordship of Bishops." 
 He was also attacked for papistical views exhibited, as alleged, in a 
 sermon which he preached at St Paul's Cross, on the 27th of June, 
 1572, "in Vindication of the Church, its Liturgy, and Rites." And 
 in a sermon preached at the Queen's Chapel, in 1588, Bishop Cooper 
 says, " For the truth of the doctrine according to the word of God ; 
 for the right administration of the Sacraments ; for the true worship 
 of God in our prayers laid down in the Book of Service, since the 
 Apostles' age unto this present age of the restoring of the Gospel, 
 there was never Church upon the face of the earth so nigh the sin- 
 cerity of God's truth as the Church of England is at this day." — 
 Steype's Annals, b. i., ch. 21 ; Preface to the Life of Pakkek, 
 p. 15 ; Life of Whitgift, b. i. ch. 7.) — Bishop Jewel also is 
 mentioned as one of the Divines of Elizabeth's day who regarded 
 Episcopacy as ' innocent and useful,' and nothing more. Again 
 Mr. Macaulay is most unfortunate in his selection. We read 
 in his ' Apology,' (p. 19,) that " we believe that there is one 
 Church of God ; that this Church is the kingdom, the body, and 
 spouse of Christ ; that Christ is the only prince of this king- 
 dom ; that there are in the Church divers orders of Ministers ; 
 that there are some who arc Deacoyis, others who are Presbyters, 
 and others who are Bishops, to whom the instruction of the 
 people and the care and management of religion are committed ; 
 that a minister ought to have a lawful call, and be duly and 
 orderly preferred in the Church of God, and that no man ought at
 
 58 
 
 his ovra will and pleas\ire to intrude into the sacred ministry." Let 
 Mr. Macaulay try whether he can reconcile his opinion of Jewel 
 with the following extracts. " The truth is, this Church hath been 
 persecuted because she alone, of all the Churches in Europe, has 
 had the blessing and singular favour of God to reform with pru- 
 dence, moderation, and an exact and regular conduct, after great and 
 wise deliberation, by the consent of our Bishops, Convocations, 
 States and Princes, without tumults or hasty counsels. So that the 
 Papists themselves do ever envy our primitive doctrine, government, 
 and discipline, and both fear and hate us more than any other of the 
 Reformed Churches. They are the same things that have raised the 
 spleens and animosities of the other side, with whom whatever is 
 older than Zuinglius and Calvin, is presently Popery, and must be 
 destroyed. Tell them that Episcopacy teas settled in all Churches 
 in the days of the very Ajwsiles, and by them, and they reply, the 
 mystery of iniquity began then to work ; intimating, if not affirming, 
 that Holy Order was part of it." — Preface to Apology. Whether, 
 then, " Whitgift, Cooper, and Jewel, defended prelacy as innocent, 
 as useful, as what the State might lawfully establish, and when 
 established by the State, was entitled to the respect of every 
 citizen," — thus, regarding it as a mere human institution ; or 
 whether they and the founders of the Anglican Church, " constantly 
 and clearly insisted," in the language of Mosheim, fJEccl. Hist., 
 vol. 2, p. 237,) " on the Divine Origin of the Government and 
 Discipline of the Church of England," are questions which, to an 
 unprejudiced mind, will admit of an easy solution. 
 
 PLYMOUTH : 
 
 riiiilcil by liiDSTONE anil UiU'.NUON, 
 
 Gcorpc LiUio.
 
 // 
 
 f;.- 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 
 •^ \- ' ^' 
 
 1 . 
 
 ">' ' ^ ^- 
 
 ;■■ 
 
 "■ 
 
 
 
 r ■ 
 
 ,",,^^-. * 
 
 " -' '• 
 
 ■ ' A- r: 
 
 *^i 
 
 :;^'^Hf^^'^ 
 
 
 
 \r 
 
 ■k'?*^ >^' 
 
 ■r. ^?v> 
 
 . I- 
 
 
 
 .%',' < 
 
 •1 ip*;