but disorderly papists will say that order is a sacrament." And he asks: "where can it be seen in Holy Scriptures that orders or priesthood is a sacrament? What form has it? What promise? What institution from Christ?”*

The assertion of Bishop Burnet, that for eighty years after the foundation of the English Church, very loose notions with regard to the necessity of episcopal consecration prevailed in England, is illustrated by two facts, mentioned by Courayer. In the year 1610, James I. of England, wishing to introduce episcopacy into Scotland, caused some presbyterian clergymen of that country to receive episcopal consecration at the hands, I believe, of Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. They had already been made presbyters, by the kirk: and the question was, whether they should be re-ordained presbyters, or be at once made bishops. Some, at least one, of the English bishops insisted on the necessity of their being re-ordained deacons and presbyters; inasmuch as they had never received these orders from a bishop; but "Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury," says Courayer, "maintained that the ordination given by priests ought to be esteemed valid, tho' it was not administered by bishops; for otherwise the greatest part of the reformed Churches would be found to want ministers."+

In the year 1664, two years after the famous addition to the ordinal of Edward VI., of which I shall speak more at length hereafter, a similar case occurred. Four Presbyterian ministers of Scotland coming into England for the purpose of receiving orders, were ordained deacons and subsequently promoted to higher orders. This opposite line of conduct, in circumstances precisely similar, *Defence of the 39 articles, p. 154, 155.

† Defence of English ordinations; pa. 22. Collier, t. 2. p. 887.

shows that a silent reformation had taken place in the minds of the English hierarchy, on the all important subject of the necessity of episcopal ordination. These facts, however they may be attempted to be explained away, are in strict accordance with what we learn from Burnet, concerning the change in the sentiments of the English Church.

If further proof were required, to show the light in which "orders" were viewed by Parker and his fellow bishops, it is afforded by the Convocation of 1562,-the same in which the thirty nine articles were agreed to. The Bible, which was published by authority of this Convocation, and, therefore, called the "Bishops' Bible," clearly shows the Calvinistic tendency of the Anglican bishops. None but those imperfectly acquainted with the real character of these men, will be astonished to hear, that they wilfully corrupted the Sacred Text, in order to sanction their erroneous principles. Not to speak at present of other changes made for the same purpose, the 22nd verse of the 14th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles was thus translated: "And when they had ordained elders BY ELECTION, in every congregation." This corruption

continued in all the editions of the Bible, until the reign of James I., when the present authorized version was made. Further on, I shall have occasion to direct attention to other corruptions of the Sacred Text, made for the same purpose; but what is here said appears abundantly sufficient to show that to use the words of Dr. McCrie"the first English Reformers, by no means considered ordination by the parent church, or descending from the parent church, as necessary. They would have laughed at the man who would have asserted seriously, that the imposition of the hands of the bishop was essential to the validity of ordination. They would not have owned that

person as a protestant, who would have ventured to insinuate, that, where this was wanting there was no christian ministry; no ordinance; no church;—and, perhaps, no salvation. The private opinions of the first English reformers were similar to those of the reformers of Switzerland and Geneva; Hooper, in a letter, dated Feb. 8, 1550, informs Bullinger that the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St. David's, Lincoln, and Bath, agreed, in all things, with the Helvetic churches. Packhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, does the same.'

99

From all these facts, and many others which might be adduced, it is obvious that neither Cranmer in 1536, nor Parker and his associate in 1562, attached any importance to the rite of episcopal consecration:-a conclusion which should be constantly kept in mind, while engaged in the following investigation.

37

CHAPTER III.

First Anglican bishops reproached by their Catholic contemporaries with having received no ordination.

AMONG the earliest of the public denials of the consecration of Parker and his associates, the most remarkable dates so far back as the year 1566; and had all the notoriety that a public fact could possibly acquire. The matter is thus narrated by Mr. Ward. "By the first session of that parliament, 5 Eliz. I. power was given to any bishop in the realm, to tender the oath of supremacy, enacted 1 Eliz., to any ecclesiastical person within his diocese; and the refuser was to incur a premunire. By virtue of this statute, Mr. Robert Horn, pretended bishop of Winchester, tenders the oath to Dr. Bonner, bishop of London, but deprived by Queen Elizabeth, and then a prisoner in the Marshalsea, which was within the diocese of Winchester: Bonner refuses to take it. Horn certifies his refusal into the King's Bench: whereupon Bonner was indicted upon the statute. He prays judgment, whether he might not give in evidence on this issue: that he was not culpable, because the said Horn, called bishop of Winchester, was not bishop when he tendered the oath.' And it was

resolved by all the judges at Sergeant's Inn, in judge Catlin, the Chief Justice's chamber, That if the verity and matter be so, indeed, he should well be received to give in

evidence upon this issue, and the jury should try it.' Now, what the trial was appears by that he was not condemned, nor ever any further troubled for that case, though he was a man especially aimed at. And at the next sessions of that Parliament, which was the 8th of Elizabeth, they were forced, for want, you see, of a better character, to beg they might be declared bishops by act of Parliament."* The account given by the protestant historian, Fuller, in his Church History, so exactly coincides with that of Mr. Ward, that I shall only quote that part of it that throws light on what was the real difficulty of the case. After mentioning that Bonner's counsel pleaded three legal informalities, as a bar to the indictment, which were, however, over-ruled by the Judges, he says," The main matter, which was so much debated among all the Judges, in the Lord Cateline his chamber, was this:

"Whether Bonner could give in evidence of that issue that he had pleaded of not guilty, that Horne bishop of Winchester was not a bishop, tempore oblationis sacramenti, at the time he tendered the oath unto Bonner.

"And it was resolved by them all, that if the truth of the matter was so indeed, that he might give that in evidence upon that issue, and that the Jury might trie whether he was a bishop then or not."+

After stating the interference of the Queen's Parliament, he says::-"The seasonable interposing of the statute made it a drawn battell between Horne and Bonner."‡

in

* See Abridg. of Dyer's Reports, 7. Eliz. fol. 234, quoted by Ward his Errata to the Protestant Bible, p. 71. Philadelphia, 1824.

† Fuller, Church History, Book IX., p. 80.-He also quotes Dyer, fol. 234. Mich. 6 and 7 Eliz. placito 15.