^ . 
 
 > *
 
 L I B RAFIY 
 
 OF THE 
 U N I VERS ITY 
 or 1 LLl NOIS
 
 PRESBYTERIAN RIGHTS 
 
 ASSERTED. 
 
 //
 
 LONDON : 
 rRINTED BY ROIiSON, LEVEY, AND PRANKLYN, 
 
 46 St. Martin's Lane,
 
 PRESBYTERIAN RIGHTS 
 
 ASSERTED. 
 
 BY 
 
 A PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JAMES BURNS, PORTMAN STREET 
 
 PORTMAN SQUARE. 
 M.DCCC. XXXIX,
 
 PRESBYTERIAN RIGHTS ASSERTED. 
 
 The present circumstances of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and her future prospects, render it highly 
 important for the clergy of the second order in the 
 ministry to understand their real position in the 
 Church ; their duties and obhgations to the first 
 order of the ministry on the one hand, and their 
 own rights and privileges on the other. 
 
 That a very general ignorance prevails on this 
 subject, it is impossible for any one to doubt. By 
 the generality of our legislators it is unknown that 
 we possess any peculiar rights and privileges : they 
 regard us as mere servants of the state, and they 
 look upon the bishops as magistrates appointed to 
 keep us in order. This, too, is perhaps the view 
 generally taken by those of the clergy who are 
 designated low-churchmen. They look upon them- 
 selves as ministers employed by the government, 
 and placed by the same government under the 
 control of certain other ministers, who have high 
 secular rank conferred upon them. Some of those 
 who are styled high-churchmen are apt to err in the 
 opposite extreme. Being deeply impressed with 
 the divine right of episcopacy, they forget that the 
 right of the presbytery is equally divine, and draw
 
 the hasty conckision, that episcopacy is a despotism, 
 and that, consequently, to the caprice of their dio- 
 cesan all the clergy of a diocese are bound, without 
 questioning, to submit. If, without disrespect, I 
 may speak of the bishops themselves, and infer 
 their opinions from their conduct, I should say 
 that they are as divided in their opinion as to their 
 relative position with respect to the other clergy, 
 as any of the parties to whom I have alluded. I 
 believe, that with very few exceptions, there has 
 never existed a body of men more desirous of doing 
 their duty than the existing bishops of the Church 
 of England. But their notion of episcopal duty 
 varies considerably. Some appear among us as 
 spiritual peers, associating with the other clergy, 
 as the lord-lieutenant of the county with the in- 
 ferior magistrates. These are generally the best, 
 though not the most apparently active, bishops in 
 the Church. They never needlessly interfere with 
 the parochial clergy, but are always willing to 
 assist them : they are the great patrons of learning 
 and piety. Other prelates seem to regard them- 
 selves as schoolmasters ; indeed I have heard it 
 said of a high-establishment prelate, that his notion 
 of a bishop is, that he is an examining master plus 
 a jiroctor. Others, again, consider the whole dio- 
 cese as one parish, and every parish priest as their 
 curate ; thus reducing the clergy, in point of fact, 
 to two orders, bishop and deacon. These are the 
 most busy prelates ; but their activity, as we shall 
 
 
 
 "•Vn^\
 
 see, is not always advantageous to the Church. 
 They seem most of them to have forgotten the 
 authoritij, rights, and privileges of the second order 
 of the ministry, which possesses authoritij, rights, 
 and jij-ivileges scarcely inferior to their own. The 
 fourth Council of Carthage decrees, " ut episcopus 
 in ecclesia et in consessu presbyterorum sublimior 
 sedeat; intra domum vero collegam se presbyter- 
 orum esse cognoscat."* At the same time, these 
 are the bishops who are desirous of obtaining from 
 the state increased power — power to do as magis- 
 trates, what as bishops they have no right to do. 
 If they obtain an increase of power, our order will 
 be depressed even more than it is now ; and this 
 is another reason why it is necessary to let them 
 know what our rights really are. 
 
 Now the present writer was a zealous supporter 
 of episcopacy at a period when to speak of the 
 apostolical succession was looked upon as a sign 
 of dementation by many who are now the most 
 able advocates of the doctrine. He may consider 
 himself, in a very humble sphere, as one of those 
 who have been instrumental in opening the eyes of 
 the public to the Scriptural authority of the epis- 
 copate.f He does entirely believe that episcopacy 
 
 * Can. XXXV. 
 
 ■f It is not meant to say, that at the commencement of this 
 century the doctrine was not taught ; it was asserted by many of 
 our great divines, Jjy Bishop Ilorsley especially, and his worthy 
 successor in the aichdeaconry of St. Albans, the late Archdeacon
 
 8 
 
 is of divine right ; and when the deference, on 
 principle, was not paid to the episcopal office 
 which he knew to be due to it, he not only con- 
 tended for episcopal rights and privileges, but w^as 
 among the first and foremost, by his example, to 
 maintain them. But he did not do this from any 
 exclusive regard to the honours of episcopacy. He 
 was influenced only by his love for the Church of 
 Christ. Pro ecclesia Dei, pro ecclesia Dei, was his 
 motto then as it is now, — the motto which he 
 hopes will cling to his parched lips as he breathes 
 his last breath. The well-being of the Church 
 requires that due honour should be paid to the 
 episcopate; but the well-being of the Church 
 requires that more honour than is due to it should 
 not be rendered. When we look upon human 
 nature, we find that its corruption, in a great 
 degree, consists of the disproportion which exists 
 between its different component parts : one in- 
 stinct is disproportionately strong, the opposite 
 and counteracting affection disproportionately 
 weak, and the issue is sin. So is it with the body 
 ecclesiastical : if the episcopal power be dispro- 
 portionately exalted, so as unduly to depress the 
 
 Watson, that kind-hearted, humble-minded, venerable, and learned 
 man, " whose praise is throughout all the Churches." But it was 
 a kind of esoteric doctrine, merely whispered among the clergy, 
 not noised abroad among the public, as in our better days. The 
 study of evidences had made our controversialists take the nar- 
 rowest ground they could find, and every doctrine which they 
 did not think essential, they thought it expedient to withhold.
 
 presbyterate, the diaconate, or even the rights of 
 the laity, evil must ensue. Of late years the lay 
 influence in the Church of England has undoubt- 
 edly been too great, and with a section of the 
 Church there is a desire to increase it : laymen 
 have thrust themselves into the places of the 
 clergy, presided over meetings of a purely religious 
 character, sent forth missionaries together with the 
 bishops, and done almost every ministerial act ; and 
 in our towns they are coveting, and, by means of 
 the five-trustee churches, are securing to them- 
 selves, the powers exercised by the lay dissenters, 
 of whose tyranny, the most vehement advocates of 
 schism, among dissenting preachers, loudly com- 
 plain. To counteract this usurpation, the clergy 
 have been zealous in pointing out to their people 
 the rights of episcopacy. But still, when we have 
 done this, there will be a want of proportion, if the 
 rights of the other clergy are forgotten. Let this 
 be always remembered; for the sake of the Church, 
 each order and degree should maintain its rights, 
 and not exceed them. All members of the Church 
 of Christ, lay as well as clerical, are consecrated ; 
 as of the ancient, so of the spiritual Israel, it is said 
 that they are " a chosen generation, a royal priest- 
 hood, a holy nation, a peculiar people :"* the laity 
 are consecrated at baptism to preach the gospel by 
 a holy example ; as heads of families, they inherit 
 patriarchal rights, they are to instruct their house- 
 * Compare Exod. xix. 5, 6, witli 1 Pet. ii. 9.
 
 10 
 
 holds in the Gospel, and minister at the domestic 
 altar. Over an assembly of families the presbyter 
 is ordained to preside, and to administer the sacra- 
 ments among them, with or without a deacon. 
 Over an assembly of parishes the bishop presides ; 
 over an assembly of dioceses the metropolitan. 
 The metropolitan is the centre of unity to the 
 provincial (or, as politicians style it, the national) 
 Church ; the bishop is the centre of unity to the 
 diocese ; the incumbent is the centre of unity to 
 the parish ; the father is the centre of unity to the 
 family. If the presbyter unduly interferes with the 
 family arrangements, confusion ensues ; and con- 
 fusion also ensues if the bishop unduly interferes 
 with the parochial arrangements. But when a 
 family in his parish is disorderly, the presbyter is 
 bound, in duty, to interfere ; and so is the bishop 
 to interfere when parochial duties are not properly 
 discharged. Here we see order and regularity 
 strictly preserved. If the layman, on the other 
 hand, intrudes into the presbyter's office, confusion 
 of another sort is the consequence ; which is again 
 the consequence if the presbyter, transgressing the 
 boundaries of his parish, busies himself, except 
 under the bishop, and by his command, in diocesan 
 affairs; and this is again the consequence if a 
 diocesan interferes in another bishop's diocese, and 
 intrudes into the office of the metropolitan.* Let 
 
 * A priest when ordained in Enfjland is asked, " Will you 
 reverently obey your ordinary and other chief ministers to whom 
 
 i
 
 11 
 
 US not encroach upon the rights of a higher order ; 
 but let us not forget that it is our duty to maintain 
 our own. 
 
 It will now be seen that the present writer is 
 an episcopalian, with a due regard to the rights of 
 the presbytery ; a presbyterian, with a due regard 
 to the rights of the episcopate. He does not wish 
 to encroach on the rights of his spiritual father, 
 but he claims a right to use, as he thinks proper, 
 what his father has given him. If a father, being 
 in business, admits his son into partnership, the 
 son, however grateful he may be for his father's 
 kindness, however filial in his respect, nevertheless 
 feels that he has, as a partner, a right to be con- 
 sulted in all the speculations and transactions of 
 the firm ; or if a father, on the marriage of his son, 
 make over to him a farm out of his estate, the son, 
 though he may be deeply sensible of his obligation 
 to his father, though he regard himself only as his 
 tenant, will still feel that he may assert the tenant's 
 right to cultivate the farm on the principles he 
 approves ; and the father is only then justified in 
 
 is committed the charge and government over you, following 
 with a glad mind and will all their godly admonitions, and sub- 
 mitting yourselves to their godly judgments ?" and he answers, 
 " I will do so, the Lord being my helper." A bishop, when con- 
 secrated, takes " an oath of due obedience to the arcldtishop" 
 " In the name of God, amen. I, N., chosen bishop of the church 
 and see of N., do profess and promise all due reverence and obe- 
 dience to the archbishop and metropolitical church of N., and to 
 their successors. So help me God through Jesus Christ."
 
 12 
 
 his interference when the son is clearly injuring 
 the estate. Now, I admit and assert, that all 
 authority to minister in sacred things emanates from 
 the episcopate. Our blessed Lord commissioned 
 the apostles and their successors. Their successors 
 are the bishops. I will give them their highest 
 titles, summi sacerdotes, pont'ifices maximi, pnncipes 
 sacerdotiim, sublime fastigium sacerdotii: I am quite 
 ready, as I always have done, to recognise a bishop 
 as a 'Trar/jo •TruTi^ajv, an episcopus episcoponan. These 
 were titles given to the bishops in the early ages of 
 the Church : high titles, but let it be observed, 
 titles which recognise the authority of the presby- 
 tery. If the bishop be spiritual overseer to us, let 
 him not forget that we are spiritual overseers to 
 the laity ; if he be a spiritual father to us, we are 
 spiritual fathers also to our people. Whether the 
 bishops of the existing Church in England do thus 
 respect our authority as we do theirs, is a question 
 more easily asked than satisfactorily answered. 
 But whether they do so or not, I concede the 
 point, that to their order our order is indebted for 
 all the authority we possess. But what I contend 
 for is simply this, that the rights which we know, 
 either from Scripture or from tradition, to have been 
 yielded to the second order of the ministry, by the 
 apostles, or by the bishops of the Church Catholic, 
 no provincial church can take away ; and any addi- 
 tional rights conceded by a provincial synod, or by 
 custom or common law, to the clergy of that pro-
 
 13 
 
 vince, no individual prelate can withdraw from the 
 clergy of his diocese. When we were ordained to 
 the presbyterate, we were ordained to a certain 
 clearly defined office in the Churchy, and were at the 
 same time invested with all the privileges pertaining 
 to that office. No power exists among the bishops 
 of the Church of England to withdraw from us that 
 authority which, by our ordination, we possess as 
 Catholic presbyters, to baptise, and preach, and 
 administer the eucharist, in any part of the world 
 where our services will be accepted by the ecclesi- 
 astical authorities ; except that, after canonical 
 trial, being fomid guilty, we may be degraded ; 
 which is only saying, that when we cease to be 
 presbyters, we cease to have the authority of pres- 
 byters : and so again, as clergy of one of the two 
 provinces of the English Church, when as presbyters 
 we are instituted into our livings, we have rights of 
 spiritual jurisdiction conferred upon us as sacred 
 as those of the bishop himself, who, if he invades 
 those rights, incurs the guilt which is incurred by 
 any other usurper. I may illustrate my position 
 by reference to our rights as Englishmen. Every 
 one acquainted with history must admit the fact, 
 that all our pri\T[leges and rights are concessions 
 from the crown : Tories contend that what is thus 
 true in fact is true also in principle, and that 
 honour, privilege, and power, all emanate from the 
 throne : but no one would, on that account, be 
 deemed unloyal who should refuse to the reigning
 
 14 
 
 sovereign the power to withdraw from the House 
 of Lords, or the House of Commous, the rights 
 and privileges conceded to those Houses by pre- 
 ceding sovereigns. We may contend for their 
 observance, as St. Paul did for his rights as a 
 Roman gitizen. 
 
 I have now said enough to make manifest my 
 principle ; and I proceed to point out certain rights 
 and privileges which we possess, and are in duty 
 bound to maintain, but which seem to have been 
 forgotten both by bishops and presbyters. 
 
 It may seem trivial, but as it will serve to shew 
 the false position into which we have unconsciously 
 sunk, I will venture to allude to a title which was 
 very generally given to our order in the primitive 
 Church. We were frequently designated as clergy 
 of the second throne, because, though our seats 
 were less elevated than that of the bishop, we were 
 accustomed to sit with him within the rails of the 
 chancel, the deacons standing around. Is this the 
 place which the presbyters of England assume 
 when they meet their bishops ? In most dioceses, 
 at a visitation, we find the bishop sitting within the 
 chancel, while the presbyters are standing without 
 the chancel. Let the laudable piety and humility 
 of the bishops of the fourtli Council of Carthage 
 be remembered ; for they decreed, " ut episcopus 
 quolibet loco sedens, stare j)reshyterum noii iia- 
 tiatur."* And, alas, I may say, in passing, for the 
 
 * Cartha"-. iv. c. 34.
 
 15 
 
 charges which we generally hear from our bishops ! 
 what are they now but digests of acts of parlia- 
 ment ? This may be a necessary evil, but it is an 
 evil much to be deplored. But if acts of parliament 
 are not enumerated, let me ask whether the tone 
 of the episcopal charges is such, in general, as we 
 have a right to expect ? Courteous, indeed, and 
 kind they always are, in style ; and I say this be- 
 cause I am not venturing to throw blame upon our 
 bishops ; I only complain that neither they nor we 
 are, at present, fully aware of our relative positions. 
 Taking the generality of late episcopal charges, 
 they are addresses from a magistrate to his sub- 
 jects — not the addresses of the supreme ruler to his 
 ^o-rulers. A diocese is not ruled by the bishop, 
 but by the bishop and presbyters. If we go to the 
 highest authority, that of Scripture, we find there 
 that we are designated as rulers of the Church by 
 the Spirit of God himself, 1 Tim. v. 17. If we go 
 to the next authority, to the epistles of St. Igna- 
 tius, we find, that highly as the episcopate is 
 exalted, as great things every whit are said of the 
 presbyterate ; and I here quote the words of one 
 of the most learned prelates who ever adorned the 
 Church of England. Speaking of Ignatius's epis- 
 tles. Bishop Pearson says, " Si quid ego in hac re 
 intelligo, quicunque presbyterali dignitati auctori- 
 tatique maxime student, non habent suae existima- 
 tionis firmius aut solidius fundamentum, quam 
 epistolas sancti Ignatii nostri : neque enim in
 
 16 
 
 ullo vere antique scriptore extra has epistolas tot 
 ac tanta presbyteratus praeconia invenient, neque 
 illiiis ordinis honorem sine episcopatus pra^rogativa 
 uUibi constitutum reperient."* As Bingham re- 
 marks, " St. Ignatius always joins the bishops and 
 presbyters together." Thus, Ej). ad Ej)hes. n. 2, he 
 bids them " be subject to the bishop and the preshj- 
 terijr Ep. ad Mag7ies. n. 6, he commends Sotion 
 the deacon, because " he was subject to the bishop 
 as the gift of God, and to the presbytery as the law 
 of Christ." Ep. ad Trail n. 2, he bids them '' be 
 subject to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus 
 Christ ; " and again, " reverence the presbyters, as 
 the council of God, and the united company of the 
 apostles, without which no church is called a church." 
 At a later period, when, according to Bishop Pear- 
 son, the power of the presbyterate had greatly 
 diminished, we find St. Chrysostom saying, *' Bi- 
 shops and presbyters do not differ much from one 
 another ; for presbyters are admitted to preach 
 and govern the Church ; and the same qualifications 
 that the apostle requires in bishops are required in 
 presbyters also : for bishops are superior to them 
 only in the power of ordination, and have that one 
 thing more than they."f We have a right, then, 
 to expect, that while the bishop tells us the regula- 
 tions he may think proper to make, as the supreme 
 spiritual ruler of his diocese, he will take care not 
 
 * Pearson, Vind. Ignat. par. 2, c. xvi. p. 4«28. 
 f Hoin. II. in 1 Tim. iii. 8.
 
 17 
 
 to say any thing which may interfere with the 
 regulations which we may think proper to lay down 
 as the supreme spiritual rulers of our parishes. 
 
 And here I may, before I proceed, make a 
 remark on the misunderstanding of the ancient 
 expression, ' that nothing is to be done without the 
 bishop.' It is most true that nothing is to be done 
 without the bishop ; but we are not obliged to apply 
 to the bishop every time that we baptise, preach, 
 offer the eucharist, or pray : we have received our 
 authority from the episcopal college to discharge 
 these offices when we were ordained, therefore all 
 these offices are done with the bishop : and so with 
 respect to parochial government, we were invested 
 with spiritual jurisdiction in our parishes when we 
 were instituted ; and in the exercise of that jurisdic- 
 tion in all our parochial arrangements, we therefore 
 act with the bishop until we are deprived of our 
 benefice. 
 
 I now proceed to another very important pri- 
 vilege which belongs to us. Being co-rulers of the 
 diocese with the bishop, we have a right to expect 
 him to consult us on all important occasions. 
 Ignatius {Ej). ad Magnes. n. 6) exhorts the people 
 to act not only under the bishop, but under the 
 presbyters, who are " in the place of the apostolical 
 senate." By St. Chrysostom {De Sacerdot. lib. iii. 
 c. 15), we are styled the sanhedrim of the presby- 
 ters, ro TiJv '7r§i(j(ovrs§ojv ffvushoiov. By St. Cyprian, 
 as Bingham translates it, the sacred and venerable 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 bench of the clergy, cle?i sacrum venerandumque 
 consessum (Ep. Bb, al. 59, ad Cornel.) By St. 
 Jerome, in Esai. iii. torn. v. p. 17, " the Church's 
 senate, and the senate of Christ." By Oiigen, 
 Com. in Mat., and by the Apostolical Constitutions, 
 lib. ii. c. 28, '' the bishop's counsellors, and the 
 council of the Church." Thus, as Bingham re- 
 marks, '' though the bishop was prince and head 
 of this ecclesiastical senate, and nothing could 
 regularly be done without him ; yet neither did he 
 ordinarily do any public act relating to the govern- 
 ment or disciphne of the Church, without their 
 assistance and advice. The first ages," continues 
 that writer, '^^ afford the most pregnant proofs of 
 the divine harmony between the bishop and his 
 presbyters ; for any one that ever looked into the 
 writings of St. Cyprian must acknowledge that at 
 Rome and Carthage, the two great churches of the 
 AVest, all things were thus transacted by joint con- 
 sent ; the bishop, with his clergy, did communi con- 
 silio ponderare, weigh all things by common advice 
 and deliberation. Whether it was in the ordination 
 of the clergy (for Cyprian would not so much as 
 ordain a subdeacon or reader,' officers something 
 like our sexton and clerk, ' without their consent) ; 
 or whether it was in the exercise of discipline, and 
 reconciliation of penitents, Cyprian declares his 
 resolution to do all things by common consent. 
 And so Cornelius at the same time acted at Rome ; 
 for when Maximus, and the rest of the confessors
 
 19 
 
 who had sided with Novatian, came forward and 
 made confession of their error, and desired to be 
 admitted again into the communion of the Church, 
 Cornehus would do nothing until he had first 
 called a presbytery, and taken both their advice 
 and consent in the matter, that he might proceed 
 according to their unanimous resolution. Cyprian, 
 in several other of his epistles, speaks of the 
 same deference paid to his presbytery ; and in 
 one place he more particularly tells them, ' that 
 it was a law and a rule that he had laid down 
 for himself, from the first entrance of his bishop- 
 ric, that he would do nothing without their ad- 
 vice, and the consent of the people.' Epiphanius 
 observes the same practice at Ephesus in the con- 
 demnation of Noetus ; ' for first,' he says, ' he was 
 convened before the presbytery, and then again, 
 upon a relapse, expelled the Church by them;' 
 which, at least, must mean that the bishop and his 
 presbyters joined together in this ecclesiastical cen- 
 sure. In like manner, speaking of the first con- 
 demnation of Arius, he says : ' Alexander, Bishop 
 of Alexandria, called a presbytery against him, 
 before whom, and some bishops there present, he 
 examined him, and expelled him.' " " In the con- 
 demnation of Origen, the Council of Alexandria, 
 which expelled him the city, was composed both of 
 bishops and presbyters, who decreed ' that he should 
 remove from Alexandria, and neither teach nor 
 inhabit there.' The Council of Rome that was
 
 20 
 
 gathered against Novatian consisted of sixty 
 bishops, and as many more presbyters and deacons. 
 The first Council of Antioch that was held against 
 Paulus Samosatensis, had also presbyters and dea- 
 cons in it."* Even in the fourth century, when 
 our order was much depressed, we were still per- 
 mitted to sit in consistory with the bishops, and in 
 the provincial synods. In the Council of Eliberis 
 there were no fewer than thirty-six presbyters sitting 
 with the bishops : so there were in the Council of 
 Aries. And though it may be a question whether 
 they sat in general councils (although we find at the 
 Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, three presbyters 
 subscribing wdth the bishops), still the bishops at- 
 tending a general council were only delegates from 
 the different provincial councils ; so that, virtually, 
 the presbyters as well as the bishops had influence 
 in ecumenical synods. 
 
 Now, with respect to the Church of England, 
 this principle is fully conceded. Our Church is 
 divided into two provinces, and in the provincial 
 synods of both provinces the presbyters have a 
 right to be represented by members of their own 
 order. Nay, it may be a question whether, by 
 the Church of England, the principle is not car- 
 ried too far, and whether, if convocations were 
 again to assemble for despatch of business, it 
 would not be necessary to introduce some reform 
 in our system, so as to give the bishops yet greater 
 
 * Bingham, Oric/ines Ecclesiasticcc, book ii. c. xix. s. 8.
 
 21 
 
 authority than they possess m our synods — if we 
 may be permitted so to style our convocations. But 
 into the question of convocations and their revival, 
 it is not my business at the present time to enter ; 
 I only allude to the subject to shew that the Church 
 of England, like a true branch of the Catholic Church, 
 considers presbyters to be co-rulers of the Church 
 with the bishops. I respectfully entreat my right 
 reverend fathers the bishops, and my reverend bre- 
 thren the presbyters, to remember this ; I entreat 
 the laity also to be apprised of it : 1 entreat them 
 to remember, what people are beginning to forget, 
 that we are a sacred and necessary order in the 
 Church; that by Eusebius we are called 'Tr^kl^oi, 
 r^oiGromq by Gregory Nazianzen and Basil, ir^o- 
 (TTUTui by Chrysostom, and pixeposifi by the ancient 
 Latins, — titles which we share with the bishops, 
 and which are intended to convey a notion of our 
 rights, office, and privileges. If we are to do 
 nothing without the bishop, the bishop is to do 
 nothing without us. 
 
 I say that this is forgotten, strangely forgotten, 
 both by the bishops and by ourselves ; and it is no 
 wonder, therefore, that it should be forgotten also 
 by the laity. We may perceive this, in the first 
 place, on the appointment of the Ecclesiastical 
 Commission. It was determined by the great states- 
 man of the age. Sir Robert Peel, to appoint an 
 ecclesiastical commission. He looked upon the 
 subject merely as a statesman, and he appointed
 
 22 
 
 the commission as a friend of the Church. No one 
 can blame him for what he did. Had he appointed 
 a legal commission, he would have looked for 
 advice, as to its formation, to the law-officers of 
 the crown ; he would not have attended to the 
 professional details, but he would have left that to 
 them : so, in appointing the ecclesiastical commis- 
 sioners, he consulted those prelates of whom the 
 crown thought proper to take advice. Perhaps he 
 could not have selected prelates in whom the 
 Church generally would have placed more entire 
 confidence. They consented to form the commis- 
 sion, — whether rightly or wrongly, is not now the 
 question ; but how was it constituted ? The laity 
 of the Church were represented ; the first order of 
 the clergy were represented ; but of the second 
 order not one was called to the council : they were 
 utterly disregarded. If the laity and the bishops 
 were to agree, the second order, the presbyters, 
 were to be compelled to submit. The venerable 
 prelates who fonned the commission never once 
 thought of us : far be it from me to blame them ; 
 for so forgetful of their own insulted rights were 
 the other clergy of England, that they were not 
 conscious of the invasion of them. This is one of 
 the evils resulting doubtless from the suspension of 
 convocations ; for I believe that no single eccle- 
 siastical commission was ever formed before in 
 which some of the second order had not been asso- 
 ciated with the first. The commissions formed at
 
 23 
 
 the Reformation — those appointed for the transla- 
 tion and reformation of the Prayer-book, that ap- 
 pointed at the Hampton Court Conference, that 
 appointed for the translation of the Scriptures, that 
 appointed at the Savoy Conference, were all com- 
 posed of presbyters as well as bishops. 
 
 Surely it becomes us dutifully and respectfully, 
 but, at the same time, firmly to remonstrate, when 
 we find a sacred order of Christ's Church, only just 
 inferior to the episcopate, so entirely overlooked as 
 if it were a nonentity. The laity assume that the 
 bishops have a right to determine for the Church 
 what shall or shall not be done ; the clergy of the 
 second order must, however, remind the clergy 
 of the first order, that if they have a right as 
 statesmen, conjoined with lay statesmen, to recom- 
 mend any measures to the crown, they have no 
 right to let it be inferred, that in so doing they act 
 with any spiritual authority, unless they have se- 
 cured the concurrence of the presbyters, their co- 
 rulers. 
 
 And so again with respect to the Church-disci- 
 pline Bill. Into the merits or the demerits of that 
 bill it would be beside my purpose to enter. That 
 some reform is necessary in the ecclesiastical courts, 
 all persons are ready to admit. The state assumes 
 a despotic power, and takes upon itself to prescribe 
 what that reform shall be : of course, we must 
 submit. The bishops, as peers of parliament, may 
 take part with the state ; but let it be clearly
 
 24 
 
 understood, that in so doing they are acting, not 
 as bishops, but merely as peers of parhament, and 
 that their authority, consequently, is not greater in 
 this matter than that of any temporal peer. As 
 bishops, they could not make an alteration in the 
 discipline of the Church without consulting their 
 ecclesiastical senate, the presbyters. It was a feel- 
 ing of this sort, though not fully developed, which 
 induced the Bishops of Gloucester and Exeter to 
 ask for the advice of their clergy through their 
 archdeacons, — the only method left to them, now 
 that the convocation is silenced. But the Bishop 
 of Exeter seems only to have thought of the epis- 
 copal authority, forgetting that of the presbyters. 
 He knew that there is a strong feeling in the coun- 
 try in favour of episcopal authority, and that there- 
 fore the clergy generally are opposed to measures 
 which would interfere with that authority; but 
 even he seems to have forgotten, that the question 
 of presbyterial authority ought to be introduced 
 into the subject. The second order may indeed 
 complain of the unequal justice which the state, in 
 the plenitude of its power, is pleased to dispense. 
 Facilities are introduced for correcting delinquent 
 clerks of the second order, but not a word is said 
 of facilitating actions against delinquent clerks of 
 the first order. Let it not startle the high-church- 
 man that I thus speak ; he is not really a high- 
 churchman who maintains the divine right of the 
 episcopate, and forgets the divine right of the pres-
 
 25 
 
 byterate. In the primitive ages, bishops were, not 
 frequently, but as occasion required, deposed. It 
 is true that care was taken to prevent the bishops 
 from being exposed to the mahcious cahmmies and 
 slanders of every false accuser ; that, according to 
 the rule of the apostle, the testimony of two or 
 three witnesses was required before he was con- 
 demned ; that a heretic was not permitted to give 
 evidence against a bishop ; nor a single witness, 
 though he were one of the faithful :* many other 
 provisions were made, but the primitive Christians 
 seem never to have carried their episcopal notions 
 so high as to have supposed, like some of our legis- 
 lators, that bishops were impeccable. If things 
 remain in their present state ; if there be not some 
 provision made for controlling the ministerial power 
 of nominating to bishoprics ; if the enemies of the 
 Church should, by chance, come into power, and 
 seek its injury by placing at its head persons hostile 
 to its doctrines (and things more improbable have 
 come to pass), — it may be very important to have 
 facilities afforded us for bringing bishops, as well as 
 presbyters, to trial. At all events, for the mere 
 decency of the thing, when the first order of the 
 clergy are increasing their own powers by law to 
 control the second order, they ought to make pro- 
 vision by law so as to enable the second order to 
 obtain redress against those whom they reverence 
 as the successors of the apostles, but do not regard 
 * Can. Apost. c. 75.
 
 26 
 
 as either infallible in their opinions, or impeccable 
 in their conduct. The Bishop of Exeter, indeed, 
 assumes to himself, by right of office, a power 
 almost despotic ; and by the circular against the 
 Church-discipline Bill, pubhshed at Oxford, such 
 power seems to be conceded to the bishop. The 
 Bishop of Exeter deserves the thanks of the Church 
 for venturing to look out fi*om the House of Lords, 
 and to look to the Church itself; for thinking less 
 of his peerage, and more of his episcopate ; for 
 desiring rather to exercise his spiritual authority, 
 than to receive temporal magisterial power ; and 
 the publishers of the Oxford circular at all times 
 deserve well at the hands of their brethren. But I 
 do humbly conceive, that they have not studied 
 this subject sufficiently : I do humbly conceive, 
 that they have so dazzled their eyes in looking at 
 the glories of the episcopate, that they are unable 
 to see the glories of the presbyterate. The sun is 
 brighter than the moon, but he only sees rightly 
 who can also admire the lesser glory of the moon 
 and all the starry host. It is with a reflected glory 
 that the moon and planets shine, and yet we may not 
 despise their light ; and if the authority of priests, 
 and even of deacons, be less than that of bishops, 
 and be derived from the episcopate, he would not 
 be a Newton in the spiritual world who should 
 overlook them. I deny, for my part, that bishops 
 have despotic authority ; and for many reasons, I 
 quote the following passage from Bingham. Having
 
 27 
 
 observed, that, according to the disciphne and cus- 
 tom of the prhnitive tmies, bishops seldom did any 
 tiling relating to delinquent clerks " without the 
 consent of their presbyters, who were their assessors, 
 and, as it were, the senate and council of the 
 Church," he adds : '' And here it is to be noted, 
 out of the preceding canons, that if any clergyman 
 thought himself injured by his bishop, he had liberty 
 to appeal either to the metropolitan or a provincial 
 synod. And in some places, the better to avoid 
 arbitrary power, the canons provided that no bishop 
 should proceed to censure a presbyter or deacon 
 without the concurrence of some neighbouring 
 bishops to join with him in the sentence. The 
 first Council of Carthage requires three to censure 
 a deacon, and six to censure a presbyter. The 
 second Council of Carthage requires the same num- 
 ber The true reading of the canon 
 
 (of that Council) is this : the criminal cause of a 
 bishop shall be heard by twelve bishops ; the 
 cause of a presbyter by six ; the cause of a deacon 
 by three, joined with his own bishop."* Whether, 
 when a bill is next introduced into parliament for 
 Church-discipline, it may be possible to simplify it 
 by appointing the dean and chapter, i. e. a certain 
 number of presbyters, to act as assessors with the 
 bishop, when an accusation is brought against a 
 clergyman ; or whether a synod of bishops may be 
 appointed for his trial, to be selected by the metro- 
 * Bingham, Origines EcclesiasticcB, lib. ii. c. iii. s. 9.
 
 28 
 
 politan, it is not for me to say ; but I doubt whe- 
 ther the dignity of a bishop would be more lowered 
 by such a regulation, according to which he will 
 be the judge, but not the arbitrary judge, of his 
 clergy, than by his becoming, as in the measure 
 lately proposed, the public accuser of the diocese 
 before a tribunal presided over by a layman. Into 
 so deep a subject I have no occasion to enter ; but 
 what I have said may serve to shew some of my 
 high-church brethren, that there is no reason for 
 their feeling shocked, as they sometimes do, at the 
 powers possessed by the standing committee of each 
 diocese in the North American Church. 
 
 When our prelates leave the House of Lords, 
 and come down to the provinces to act as bishops, 
 we certainly find the same oblivion of the rights 
 and privileges of the second order of the clergy ; 
 not that I blame the prelates, for presbyters are 
 equally oblivious of those rights ; I merely lament 
 the circumstance. It is said, though it is a subject 
 on which I have not made sufficient inquiry to 
 qualify myself to give an opinion, that the dean 
 and chapter of a diocese form the ecclesiastical 
 senate, which the bishop ought to consult :* it is 
 certain that they possess many of the powers, sede 
 vacante, which are exercised by the standing com- 
 mittee in America. Whether any bishop ever does 
 consult his dean and chapter, I cannot take it upon 
 myself to say ; but I have been directly or indirectly 
 
 * See Blackstone, b. i. c. xi.
 
 29 
 
 connected with cathedrals for more than thirty 
 years, and I certainly have never heard of their 
 having, at any time, been troubled in this respect. 
 And it is quite certain, that we never hear a bishop 
 stating in his charge, that having consulted with 
 his dean and chapter, he has decided on this or that 
 line of conduct in the government of his diocese ; 
 his regulations are all enunciated as the result of 
 his own unassisted judgment. 
 
 But whether the dean and chapter be the council 
 of the bishop for the general government of the 
 diocese or not, if the bishop is ever to consult his 
 presbyters, it is abundantly clear that he is bound 
 to do so when he enters their parishes for the dis- 
 charge of episcopal offices. He enters a parish, 
 not to supersede the incumbent thereof, but either 
 to discharge one of those offices, such as confirma- 
 tion, or the consecration of a church, which the 
 presbyter himself has no authority to discharge; 
 or to act as an episcopus episcojn, the overseer of 
 the incumbent, who is overseer himself of the dis- 
 trict assigned to him, and to be assured no duty 
 prescribed by the Church is omitted. Now, when 
 he comes to discharge his episcopal offices, it 
 stands to reason that he ought to take counsel of 
 the parish priest as to the best method of discharg- 
 ing them in his parish. But is this ever done ? 
 It is so by some excellent prelates, whom it would 
 be invidious to name ; but it is very rarely the case. 
 Perhaps the parish priest feels this invasion of his
 
 30 
 
 rights at no time more severely than at the time of 
 confirmation. Instead of being consulted as to the 
 age at which circumstances render it most expe- 
 dient for the young persons in his parish to be 
 confirmed, he receives an official notice of the 
 bishop's intention to confirm ; and the age of the 
 persons to be confirmed is fixed, sometimes at four- 
 teen, sometimes at fifteen, sometimes at sixteen. 
 There are parishes in which it is most important 
 that children should be confirmed while they re- 
 main at school, and are under the control of the 
 clergyman ; in other places, where the minister 
 has been assiduous in catechising, young persons 
 of thirteen are as well qualified as those of other 
 parishes at fifteen or sixteen. Then, again, there 
 are in every parish some parents (you may call 
 them, if you will, weaker brethren, superstitious, 
 and the like), who look in ordinances more to God's 
 grace than to the human preparation, and desire 
 that their children may at an early period receive 
 the grace of cpnfirmation, that they may also, at 
 an early period, be brought to the Lord's table. 
 With these circumstances the bishop cannot be 
 acquainted ; he has omitted his duty in consulting 
 the parish priest as to the exigencies of his parish ; 
 he resents as an insult any remonstrance ; his man- 
 date has been issued, and it is irrevocable ; and the 
 poor presbyter consults with his weaker brother 
 as to the precise meaning to be attached to the 
 injunction of the Church, " Ye are to take care
 
 31 
 
 that this child be brought to the bishop, to be con- 
 firmed by him, so soon as he can say the Creed, the 
 Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments in the 
 vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the 
 Church Catechism set forth for that purpose." 
 " All these things can be done by my poor child," 
 says the weaker brother, " why should he be de- 
 prived of his privilege ?" The presbyter can only 
 answer by recommending to him in private the 
 doctrine of passive obedience ; a doctrine which he 
 could not assert in public without exposing himself 
 to the censure of the bishop. I allude to this cir- 
 cumstance because the practice is becoming com- 
 mon, and I know that the clergy feel the grievance. 
 Surely our bishops, who are bound to consult their 
 presbyters, may at least have such confidence in 
 their judgments as to permit them to decide on 
 such a subject for themselves. 
 
 But so far from consulting their presbyters, there 
 are some bishops of the Church of England who will 
 not hesitate to head a faction against the incumbent 
 of the parish. The injury which is thus done to the 
 cause of religion is often great. Let us suppose a 
 hard-working painful parish-priest to have matured 
 all his plans for the management of the parish over 
 which the Holy Ghost has made him overseer ; let 
 us suppose him to have united the churchmen, al- 
 ways excepting a factious few ; to have shewn, from 
 Scripture and the teaching of the Church, the prin- 
 ciple upon which he gives his support to some and
 
 32 
 
 withholds it from other rehgious societies ; to have 
 been proceeding cautiously, introducing first one 
 institution, then another, —we can easily under- 
 stand his feelings, if, all of a sudden, he shall hear 
 that the Dissenters, having united with the factious 
 few of the Church who happen to be opposed to 
 him, have determined to hold a meeting of the 
 Bible Society, or the Religious Tract Society, or 
 the Lancasterian School Society, or some similar 
 institution, and that the bishop, without deigning 
 to consult him, or even to apprise him of his inten- 
 tions, will preside at it. The spiritual peer attends, 
 accompanied perhaps with one or two temporal 
 peers, and other great men desirous to conciliate 
 the Dissenters before the next election ; and thus 
 he, who ought to be the centre of unity, becomes 
 the rallying-point of schism. The liberal senti- 
 ments of the spiritual peer are applauded the more 
 loudly because they are contrasted with the ex- 
 clusive Church principles of the pastor of the parish ; 
 and as his lordship passes through the street, his 
 condescension on the platform to his reverend bre- 
 thren of the Baptist, Independent, and Unitarian 
 *' churches," is compared with the cold distant bow 
 with which, in the embarrassment occasioned by 
 some undeveloped consciousness of having done 
 wrong, he meets the minister of the " established" 
 Church, i. e. of that Church which, in common with 
 his Independent and Unitarian brethren, he does 
 not regard as the church of the parish, but as that
 
 33 
 
 one church out of many which happens to be esta- 
 bhshed by law. And so all parties separate ; the 
 Dissenters to laugh at " the humbug of the bishop's 
 apron ;" the factious churchmen to eulogise the 
 spirituality of the episcopal leader of their schism ; 
 the spiritual peer to declaim to the temporal peers 
 on the extreme want of judgment in the incumbent 
 of the parish, who ought to concede something to 
 the Dissenters, while his lordship is, in turn, con- 
 gratulated on the popularity he is, by his liberality, 
 securing for '' the establishment ;" the profane to 
 laugh at " the flooring" of their pastor ; the worldly- 
 minded to express their indignation at the idea of 
 an incumbent with only 150/. a-year thinking that 
 the Church and her principles are dearer to him 
 than they are to a bishop with 4000/. a-year ; the 
 poor to lament the insult offered to their best friend ; 
 the presbyter himself to weep in private, and to 
 pray ; and of prayer he will have ample need, lest 
 he should be disgusted into inactivity. The true 
 churchmen will also grieve in private, and ask — 
 what ought to be done ? They will know intuitively 
 that some wrong has been done, and yet they will 
 not know how to remedy it. They will bemoan 
 the injury done to the Church ; for if the incum- 
 bent justify himself for not attending, he must, by 
 implication, blame the bishop : if he does not justify 
 himself, he will be lowered in the eyes of his 
 parishioners, since he will appear to have been 
 censured himself.
 
 34 
 
 Now it is one of the objects of this pamphlet, 
 by asserting the rights of the presbyterate, to let 
 people see what ought to be done. They ought to 
 remonstrate. The presbyter should protest against 
 the invasion of his rights : he may even appeal to 
 the metropolitan. I contend that he may do, that 
 he ought to do this, on high-church principles. The 
 day is coming — it may come shortly, unless there 
 be some great change in the political world — when 
 we shall have bishops coming into our parishes to 
 support some government-plan of irreligious educa- 
 tion. It becomes us to be prepared, and to assert 
 the principle, that the bishop has no right to enter 
 into our parish and to hold a meeting there, with- 
 out having first consulted with the incumbent and 
 the other clergy of the parish. If he do so, he 
 commits an act of schism. Let no fear of being 
 deemed unfilial deter us. If the bishop be our 
 father, the church is our mother ; and if our father 
 injure our mother, we must protect her even against 
 him. I once heard of a man of rank, who was about 
 to strike his wife ; his son interposed, bound his 
 arms, and carried him out of the room, and then he 
 immediately loosed him and let him go : the father 
 instantly raised his hand to strike his son ; the pious 
 son put his hands behind him, and said, *' You may 
 strike me, if you will — I will bear it all; but you 
 shall 720t strike my mother." And so must we deal 
 by our bishop, when he would damage the Church 
 by violating her principles. I do not say that the
 
 35 
 
 bishop may not support the Bible Society, or any 
 similar institution, if he will. He may be able to 
 explain away all the texts which command us to 
 keep the unity of the body — i. e. the visible church 
 — as well as of the spirit ; he may be able to explain 
 away Romans xvi. 1 7, Nozu I beseech you, brethren, 
 •mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary 
 to the doctrine which ye have heard, and avoid them ; 
 and Heb. xviii. 17, If he neglect to hear the Church, 
 let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publicati ; 
 and 2 Thess. iii. 6, Now we command you, brethren, 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with- 
 draxo yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- 
 orderly, and not after the tradition he received of us ; 
 and 2 John x. 11, ^ there come any unto you, and 
 bring not this doctrine, ?'eceive him not into your house, 
 neither bid him God speed. Presbyters and laymen 
 have explained away these passages, and others 
 more important ; and as bishops are not infaUible, 
 a bishop may do the same. If he can do so, no 
 one will blame him for presiding at one of the 
 meetings of such a society in a parish where the 
 other clergy, the incumbent and his curates, desire 
 his attendance. All that I contend for is, that, on 
 the principles shewn to be those of the Church in 
 this pamphlet, he has no right to enter into a parish 
 to support the society where the presbyters are 
 opposed to it. 
 
 But the tendency of the present practice of 
 defying presbyters, instead of consulting with them.
 
 36 
 
 to produce schism, and the watch fuhiess it becomes 
 us to exercise over the attempts so frequently made 
 by some of our bishops to arm themselves with the 
 terrors of acts of parliament, may be more clearly 
 seen by reference to the Church-building acts. If 
 it be needful to erect a new church in a parish, 
 w^ho is so worthy to be consulted on the subject as 
 the incumbent of the parish ? But I have known 
 it frequently happen, that a faction opposed to the 
 incumbent, and determined to forsake his ministry, 
 have resolved to build a church in preference to a 
 meeting-house. They are building for themselves, 
 not for the poor; they determine, therefore, to 
 erect the church in the most opulent part of the 
 parish ; to make it a fashionable church, such as 
 may support a popular preacher ; and they resolve 
 on having a district assigned to it which shall take 
 away from the incumbent of the mother church 
 some of the most influential of his parishioners. A 
 mere formal notice is given to the incumbent, which 
 adds insult to injury. They apply to the bishop, 
 who, utterly ignorant of the locality and the cir- 
 cumstances, without condescending to consult the 
 incumbent or other clergy of the parish, imme- 
 diately gives his consent. The insulted incumbent 
 respectfully remonstrates. His remonstrance is un- 
 heeded: the bishop waves in his hand the act of 
 parhament. He abets the factious parishioners 
 when they take a field out of the incumbent's 
 estate ; and they look upon the bishop as the con-
 
 37 
 
 stable, who, by consecrating the church, shall, so 
 far as an act of parliament can, put them in pos- 
 session of it. And here is a schism rendered per- 
 petual ; for the incumbent of the parish, if he knows 
 his rights, will defy every act of parliament in such 
 a case. Neither act of parhament nor bishop can 
 take away from him, without his consent, the flock 
 over whom he has been made overseer. An act of 
 parliament may punish, and he may submit to the 
 punishment ; but he will ever consider the detached 
 portion to be still his flock, and he will look upon 
 the intruder as nothing more than his curate ; and 
 so, probably, an endless controversy will go on.* 
 
 But I shall proceed no farther : my object is not 
 to point out all the evils which result from the 
 depression of our order, but merely its tendency to 
 evil. And in alluding to the above circumstances, 
 I do not mean to implicate all the bishops in the 
 acts of spiritual despotism to which I have referred, 
 for the majority of our kind and excellent prelates 
 
 * I am aware that there may be a perverse presbyter, as well 
 as an indiscreet bishop, and that the former may be improperly 
 hostile to the erection of a church much needed in his parish. 
 All that I contend against is, against leaving the decision to the 
 bishop, when a dispute arises, without a power of appeal. If the 
 metropolitan were called in to decide, where the bishop and his 
 presbyters disagree, thus forming a third party, we should have 
 no reason to complain. Nor would there be injustice in the 
 transaction as to future incumbents, who would take possession 
 of their parishes with an understanding that a division of it might 
 possibly take place.
 
 38 
 
 would shrink from such acts; but what is done 
 by some, ffia?/ be done by all ; and it is needful, 
 therefore, to fall back upon our principles. I be- 
 lieve that most of our prelates and most of the 
 presbyters imagine bishops to possess, of divine 
 right, a power more despotic than is really the 
 case. If I succeed in convincing our right re- 
 verend fathers that they are encroaching on the 
 rights of the second order of the ministry — (and in 
 encroaching on our rights, they are most effect- 
 ually undermining their own), — I have such confi- 
 dence in the majority of them, that I feel quite 
 sure we shall have no cause to complain of future 
 encroachments. And if I shall succeed in arous- 
 ing my brethren of the presbyterate to a sense of 
 their authority and their rights, so as to induce 
 them respectfully to demand the observance of 
 them fi'om their bishops, I shall have done the 
 Church some service. For as Mr. Palmer, a high 
 authority, observes : " The wealth and temporal 
 power of bishops during the middle ages may have 
 induced some of the ignorant to suppose that pres- 
 byters were exceedingly inferior to bishops ; but the 
 Catholic Church, which sees with the eye of faith, 
 as she acknowledges the same sacred dignity of 
 priesthood in every bishop, whether oppressed with 
 extreme poverty, or whether invested with princely 
 dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and 
 sanctity of the office of presbyter as little inferior to 
 those even of the chief pastors who succeed the
 
 39 
 
 apostles ; and the Church has never flourished 
 more, nor has the episcopate been held in truer 
 reverence, than under the guidance of those apos- 
 tolical prelates who, like St. Cyprian, resolved to 
 do nothing without the consent of the Church, and 
 who have most sedulously avoided even the appear- 
 ance of 'being lords over God's heritage.' The 
 spirit of genuine Christianity will lead the presby- 
 ters to reverence and obey the bishops as their 
 fathers, and will induce bishops to esteem the pres- 
 byters as fellow-workers together with them, and 
 brethren in Jesus Christ."* 
 
 I conclude with expressing a hope, that in vin- 
 dicating the rights of my own order, I have not 
 spoken disrespectfully of a higher order. In elevat- 
 ing the presbyterate, I do not wish to depress the 
 episcopate. I shall ever value a bishop's blessing ; 
 1 shall ever maintain the honour of those who are 
 the successors of the apostles : but when they are 
 tempted by circumstances to assume an authority 
 which does not pertain to them, and when they 
 apply to parliament for the power of the sword, I 
 shall not think that I am transgressing my duty, 
 or acting an unfilial part, if I adopt the words of a 
 brother presbyter of former times, St. Jerome, and 
 say, " Contenti sint honore suo ; patres se sciant 
 esse non dominos, amari debent, non timed." f 
 
 * Palmer on the Church, part vi. c. il. 
 f Hieron. Ep. 62. ail Theopli.
 
 PRTNTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND PRANKLYN, 
 
 46 St. Martin's Lane.
 
 THE 
 
 REFORMERS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, 
 
 MR. MACAULAY'S HISTORY OP ENGLAND.
 
 ):-t< 
 
 rT^^- 
 
 1% .!» '^^ '■'^*' 
 
 
 A