Généviéve, at Paris. In the Appendix will be found a sketch of this man's character, from which it will be evident that the Anglicans have little cause to glory in him as a partizan; and in the course of the following investigation, it will be rendered manifest that notwithstanding the talent and learning with which he advocated their .claims, he has failed to establish them on a solid foundation.

CHAPTER II.

Sentiments entertained by the Reformers, and first bishops of the Anglican Church, on the necessity of orders.

ALTHOUGH the investigation on which I am about to enter, is one relating principally to facts, real or supposed, and not an examination of doctrines or opinions, it may not be unnecessary to begin by stating, what were the sentiments concerning the necessity of ordination and consecration, entertained, and publicly professed, by the first Reformers, and especially by the first prelates of the Anglican Church. The doctrines of Luther, Zuingle and Calvin on this subject, must have naturally influenced those who in England professed to adopt their opinions on other points. If it appear that these latter highly prized, and loudly proclaimed the necessity of receiving, episcopal consecration, then, indeed, we shall be prepared to believe that they omitted nothing which on their parts was required to obtain it; whereas, if it can be shown, that they regarded-the ceremony of consecration as an useless, if not a superstitious, rite; that they publicly declared that the royal authority was all sufficient to confer order and jurisdiction; and that they frequently ridiculed the importance which Catholics attached to the sacred ceremony of consecration; it will not be too much to ask the reader to

bear this fact in mind, while engaged in the important investigation of another fact, namely, whether the first bishops of the Anglican church were actually consecrated? -and if so, in what manner?

The great parent of the so called Reformation, Martin Luther, openly taught that the ministers of religion differed in nothing from the laity, but by their election to the office of teacher. According to him, every christian is a priest. His words are: "Let every christian, therefore, acknowledge that we are all equally priests; that is, that we have the same power in the Word and in every sacrament; but that it is not lawful for each one to use that power, unless elected by the community, or called by the RULER.”* According to this theory, there would be no necessity for ordination, as each member of the church is supposed to be invested with equal powers "in the word and in every sacrament," by baptism; and election is only required, to prevent the confusion which would arise from each individual exercising the power he possessed. It is not necessary to refer to the sentiments of the other continental reformers on this subject; it being sufficiently notorious that they denied the efficacy of ordination.

To confine myself, then, to the English Reformers. We learn from a public document in Burnet, what were the sentiments of Archbishop Cranmer on this important subject. The record, 21, in the Appendix to Burnet's History of the Reformation, is entitled, "The Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines of some questions concerning

* Agnoscat itaque quicumque se christianum esse cognoverit, omnes nos aequaliter esse sacerdotes, hoc est eamdem in verbo et quocumque sacramento habere potestatem: verum non licere quemquam hac ipsa uti, nisi consensu communitatis, aut vocatione majoris." Lib. de Capt. Bab. t. ii. fol. 298.

the sacraments." One of these questions, the ninth, is thus proposed: "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 by God?" In reply to this, the Archbishop of Canterbury, that is, Cranmer, said: "All Christian princes have committed unto them immediately of God the whole cure of all their subjects, as well concerning the administration of God's word for the cure of souls, as concerning the administration of things political and of civil governance." In answer to the tenth question: "Whether bishops were before priests, or priests before bishops; and if so, did not the priests make the bishop?" he replied: "that the bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's Religion." To the eleventh question, he answered:-" A bishop may make a priest by the Scripture, and so may princes and governors also; and that by the authority of God." He says that laymen may make priests by election ; and in answer to the twelfth question, he replies: "In the New Testament, he that is appointed to be a bishop or a priest, needeth no consecration by the Scripture; for election or appointing thereto is sufficient."*

Besides these answers, we have the sentiments of Cranmer on this subject thus given in the words of Burnet's abridger. "Cranmer had at this time some particular opinions concerning ecclesiastical offices; that they were delivered from the King as other civil offices were, and that ordination was not indispensably necessary, and was only a ceremony, that might be used or laid aside; but

* Burnet's History of the Reformation. Appendix, Records. No 21, p. 220-228. Edit. Lond. 1679.

that the authority was delivered to churchmen only by the King's commission."* Nor was this royal supremacy, which, as we learn from the same writer, the clergy placed "in some extraordinary grace conferred on the King in his coronation,"t suffered to lie dormant. In common with all the other time serving bishops of that reign,with, however, the glorious exception of Fisher of Rochester, who suffered death, rather than acknowledge the royal supremacy, Cranmer gave a practical proof of his principles, by throwing up his commission, and consenting to receive jurisdiction from the lustful and sanguinary tyrant, Henry VIII. In the address to Henry on this occasion, the bishops state, "that all jurisdiction, civil and ecclesiastical, flowed from the King, and that they exercised it only at the King's courtesy; and as they had it of his bounty, so they would be ready to deliver it up, when he should be pleased to call for it." Accordingly, the King did empower them, in HIS STEAD, to give institution, and to do all the other parts of the episcopal function, which was to last during his pleasure; so that, as Burnet remarks, they were the King's bishops.‡

Cromwell, a layman, whom Henry had appointed his Vicar-General, took his seat in the convocation of the clergy, as head over them ;§ at his coming into the house of convocation, all the bishops paid him honour,-and he sat in the highest place; he sent forth injunctions to all bishops and curates throughout the realm, charging them to execute various duties of their calling.||

On the accession of Edward, Cranmer took out a new commission to exercise his episcopal functions; in order

* Burnet's Abridg. 1. 1. 250. † Ib. lib. 2. 56. Abridg. 228. § Baker. p. 303. Stowe. p. 574.