Dr. Redmayn and Dr. Cox, delivered a similar opinion, in still stronger terms; and several of them adduced Jerome as a decided authority in support of their opinion. An attempt has been made to place this transaction a number of years further back than it really stood, in order to show that it was at a pe. riod when the views of the Reformers, with respect to the order of the church, were crude and immature. But if Bishop Stillingfeet and Bishop Burnet are to be believed, such were the language and the views of Cranmer and other Prelates, in the reign of Edward VI. and a very short time before the forms of ordination and other public ser: vice in the church of England were published; in compiling which, it is acknowledged, on all hands, that the Archbishop had a principal share ; and which were given to the public in the third year of the reign of that Prince.

Another circumstance, which serves to show that Archbishop Cranmer considered the Episcopal system in which he shared, as founded rather in human prudence and the will of the magistrate, than the word of God, is, that he viewed the exercise of all Episcopal jurisdiction as depending on the pleasure of the king; and that as he gave it, so he might take it away at pleasure. Agreeably to this; when Henry VIII. died, the worthy Primate regard. ed his own Episcopal power as expiring with him; and therefore would not act as Archbishop till he had received a new commission from king Edward.

Accordingly, when these great Reformers went further than to compile temporary and tugitive ma

nuals; when they undertook to frame the fundamental and permanent Articles of their Church, we find them carefully guarding against any exclusive claim in behalf of diocesan Episcopacy. If they had deemed an order of Bishops superior to Pres byters, indispensably necessary to the regular organization of the church, and the validity of Christian ordinances, can we suppose that men who showed themselves so faithful and zealous in the cause of Christ, would have been wholly silent on the subject? And, above all, if they entertained such an opinion, would they have forborne to ex-' press it in that article in which they undertook formally to state the doctrine of their church with respect to the Christian ministry? That article (the 23d) is couched in the following terms. "It is not

66

who drew up the Articles of the church of England, is expressly asserted by Bishop Burnet, who will he pronounced by all a competent judge, both of the import and history of these articles. This ar ticle, he observes, is put in very general words, "far from that magisterial stiffness in which "some have taken upon them to dictate in this "matter. They who drew it up, had the state of "the several churches before their eyes, that had "been differently reformed; and although their "own had been less forced to go out of the beaten "path than any other, yet they knew that all things "among themselves had not gone according to "those rules, that ought to be sacred in regular "times." And, in a subsequent passage, he explicitly declares, that neither the Reformers of the church of England, nor their successors, for nearly eighty years after the articles were published, did ever call in question the validity of the ordination practised in the foreign Reformed churches, by Presbyters alone. And again, he declares "Whatever some hotter spirits have thought of "this, since that time, yet we are very sure, that "not only those who penned the articles, but the "body of this church, far above half an age after, "did, notwithstanding these irregularities, acknow "ledge the foreign churches, so constituted, to be true churches, as to all the essentials of a church.”

Those who wish to persuade us, that the venera ble Reformers of the church of England, held the Divine right of diocesan Episcopacy, refer us to the Ordination Service drawn up by them, the lan

a

guage of which, it is contended, cannot be interpreted, and far less justified on any other principle. But those who insist on this argument, forget that the Ordination Service, as it now stands, differs considerably from that which was drawn up by Cranmer and his associates. If I mistake not, that Service, as it came from the hands of the Reformers, did not contain a sentence inconsistent with the opinions which I have ascribed to them. Above an hundred years afterwards, in the reign of Charles II. this Service was revised and altered ; and it is remarkable, that the greater part of the alterations were such as indicate a decided intention in their authors to make the whole speak a language more favorable to the Divine appointment of Episcopacy than formerly. In the opinion of good judges, the Ordination Service of the church of England does not, even now, assert the Divine institution of prelacy; but as left by the Reformers, it certainly contained no such doctrine.

In conformity with this principle, an act of Parliament was passed, in the 13th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, to reform certain Disorders touching ministers of the church. This act, as Dr. Strype, an Episcopal historian, informs us, was framed with an express view to admitting into the church of Eng, land, those who had received Presbyterian ordina. tion in the foreign reformed churches, on their subscribing the articles of faith. But can we suppose that both houses of Parliament, one of them in cluding the bench of Bishops, would have consento

ed to pass such an act, unless the principle of it had been approved by the most influential divines of that church?

Nor was this all. The conduct of the English Reformers corresponded with their laws and public standards. They invited several eminent Di. vines from the foreign Reformed churches, who had received no other than Presbyterian ordination, to come over to England; and on their arrival, in consequence of this formal invitation, actually bestowed upon them important benefices in the Church and in the Universities. A more decisive testimony could scarcely be given, that those great and venerable Divines had no scruple respecting the validity of ordination by Presbyters. Had they held the opinion of some modern Episcopalians, and at the same time acted thus, they would have been chargeable with high treason against the Re. deemer's kingdom, and have merited the reproba tion of all honest men.

But further; besides inviting these distinguished Divines into England, and giving them a place in the bosom of their church, without requiring them to be re-ordained, Archbishops Cranmer and Grin dal, and their associates, corresponded with Calvin; solicited his opinion respecting many points in the reformation of the church'; and not only ackpam. ledged him in the most explicit manner, to be a res gular minister of Christ, and the church of Gene pa, to be a sister church; but also addressed him in terms of the most exalted reverence, and heap