Dr. Bowden does not deny that Wickliffe held the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. But in order to diminish the weight of this fact, he endeavours to destroy the character of that illustrious reformer, by repeating the accusations brought against him by some virulent papists. I must say that I expected more prudence, if not more consistency, from this gentleman. It is really astonishing to find a protestant divine so often obliged to avail himself of the arguments, the cavils, and even the violence of papists, in order to support his cause. But his attempt, in this instance, is as impotent as it is reprehensible. Wickliffe will continue to be hailed as the "morning star of the reformation," and honoured as an eminent "witness for the truth," and that by the great body of learned and pious Episcopalians, as well as others,when the slanders with which his character has been aspersed shall have "gone the way of all such mis-begotten things."

With respect to Tyndal, Lambert, Barnes, Hamilton, and other distinguished martyrs for the truth in Great Britain, before the time of Cranmer, it is notorious that they, with one voice, maintained the doctrine of Presbyterian parity. Dr. Bowden, indeed, denies this, with respect to Tyndal and Lambert, or rather endeavours to put an unnatural gloss on their language. It really surprises me that such an attempt should be made by a gentleman who professes to be acquainted with the history of the reformation in Britain.

But Dr. Bowden seems to be most of all offended at my having asserted, that archbishop Cranmer, and the fathers of the reformation in England, generally, believed that bishop and presbyter were the same, by divine right; and that ministerial parity was the doctrine and practice of the primitive church. He denies this position with warmth and confidence; and insists that those venerable reformers were firm believers in the divine institution of prelacy. Mr. How takes the same ground, with even greater warmth, and with much acrimonious remark. On this point, my observations shall be few and short...

Dr. Bowden, in many of his statements concerning the reformation in England, avowedly relies on the authority of Heylin and Collier. With respect to these writers, I think proper, once for all, to declare, that I place no reliance either on the candour or the truth of their representations. And of course that no alleged fact, which does not rest on some other testimony, will be acknow

bishops, together with Dr. Redmayn, and Dr. Cox, delivered a similar opinion in still stronger terms; and that several of them quoted Jerome as a decisive authority in support of their opinion.

To this, Dr. Bowden 'replies, in the first place, that he can see nothing in Cranmer's answer inconsistent with Episcopal pre-eminence. Indeed! Were any one to ask Dr. B. himself, as King Edward did that assembly, "Whether bishops or priests were first; and if the priests were first, whether the priests made the bishops?" would he answer as Cranmer did; that bishops and priests were not two things in the beginning of Christ's religion, but one and the same office? Could he lay his hand on his heart, and say that he would consider such an answer as agreeable to his principles? The archbishop not only declares that the names of bishop and priest were interchangeably applied; but that they were one thing or one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. The Bishop of London's answer, in the same assembly, is in a similar strain. "I think," says he, " the bishops were first; and "yet I think it is not of importance whether the priest then made "the bishop, or the bishop the priest; considering (after the sen"tence of St. Jerome) that in the beginning of the church there 66 was no (or if it were, very small) difference between a bishop " and a priest, especially touching the signification." The man who can say that this answer only asserts the indiscriminate application of names in the primitive church, must have a strange method of interpreting language.

Dr. B.'s second objection to my argument drawn from this answer, is, that the assembly, in which Cranmer, and his associates delivered these opinions, was not called in 1547, but seven years before, in the reign of Henry VIII. when the minds of the Reformers, just emerging from the darkness of Popery were unsettled and immature. He asserts, that afterwards, on further inquiry, they entertained a different opinion. In this representation also Mr. How concurs.

It is certain that Stilling fleet, with the original manuscripts relating to this subject in his hand, declares that this assembly was called by Edward VI. about the year 1547. It is certain that Bishop Burnet quotes the very same manuscripts, under the name of Bishop Stillingfleet's. And it is equally certain that the former

I also asserted, that another book, drawn up and published by the same high authority, in 1542, taught, in the most explicit terms, a similar doctrine. To this Dr. Bowden replies that he has examined Collier, who undertakes to give an abstract of both these books, and that he does not find in him" a syllable of what I have quoted, but much to the contrary." My authorities are Calamy's Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, p. 91. and Neal's History of the Puritans, in both which the writers profess to quote the very words of the books in question: And whether a direct and positive statement, by authors of undoubted character, does not more than countervail the silence of a writer, who, as Episcopalians themselves acknowledge, is not to be depended on, let every impartial reader decide.

Now when it is considered, that those venerable reformers unquestionably drew up and published the books which have been just mentioned: When we find professor Raignolds, one of the most learned and pious episcopal divines of his day, and who lived within about half a century after Cranmer and his associates, expressly asserting that they did not place prelacy on the footing of divine right:* When we find bishop Stilling fleet, in his Irenicum, and several other eminent episcopal divines, strongly asserting the same thing, not as their opinion merely, but as a fact: And when we find Dr. White, of Pennsylvania, now bishop of the episcopal church in that state, declaring, after the best examination that he had been able to give the subject, that those illustrious divines did not establish or defend prelacy as a matter of divine right-When these things are considered, I presume every impartial judge will admit, that they form a mass of evidence incomparably more weighty than the opinions of Dr. Bowden and Mr. How, with the partial and prejudiced Collier to aid them.

I asserted, that, about the year 1547, in an assembly of divines called by Edward VI. archbishop Cranmer, in answer to a question respecting the office of bishops and presbyters, replied, "bishops and priests were at one time, and were not two things, but one office in the beginning of Christ's religion." And that two other

* See my former Letters, p. 160.

The Case of the Episcopal Churches in the United States considered. 12mo. Philad. 1782.

bishops, together with Dr. Redmayn, and Dr. Cox, delivered a similar opinion in still stronger terms; and that several of them quoted Jerome as a decisive authority in support of their opinion.

To this, Dr. Bowden replies, in the first place, that he can see nothing in Cranmer's answer inconsistent with Episcopal pre-eminence. Indeed! Were any one to ask Dr. B. himself, as King Edward did that assembly, "Whether bishops or priests were first; and if the priests were first, whether the priests made the bishops?" would he answer as Cranmer did; that bishops and priests were not two things in the beginning of Christ's religion, but one and the same office? Could he lay his hand on his heart, and say that he would consider such an answer as agreeable to his principles? The archbishop not only declares that the names of bishop and priest were interchangeably applied; but that they were one thing or one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. The Bishop of London's answer, in the same assembly, is in a similar strain. "I think," says he," the bishops were first; and "yet I think it is not of importance whether the priest then made "the bishop, or the bishop the priest; considering (after the sen"tence of St. Jerome) that in the beginning of the church there "was no (or if it were, very small) difference between a bishop "and a priest, especially touching the signification." The man who can say that this answer only asserts the indiscriminate application of names in the primitive church, must have a strange method of interpreting language.

Dr. B.'s second objection to my argument drawn from this answer, is, that the assembly, in which Cranmer, and his associates delivered these opinions, was not called in 1547, but seven years before, in the reign of Henry VIII. when the minds of the Reformers, just emerging from the darkness of Popery were unsettled and immature. He asserts, that afterwards, on further inquiry, they entertained a different opinion. In this representation also Mr. How concurs.

It is certain that Stilling fleet, with the original manuscripts relating to this subject in his hand, declares that this assembly was called by Edward VI. about the year 1547. It is certain that Bishop Burnet quotes the very same manuscripts, under the name of Bishop Stillingfleet's. And it is equally certain that the former

does not charge the latter with mistake in his date. I readily grant, however, that when the several passages of these two writers are carefully compared, it is not easy to decide on the correct date, with absolute certainty. But at whatever period this assembly was called, Bishop Burnet speaks of the answers which its members gave in the following strong terms of approbation. "paper the reader will find in the collection, of which, though it "be somewhat large, yet I thought such pieces were of too great "6 importance not to be communicated to the world; since it is "perhaps as great an evidence of the ripeness of their proceedings, as can be shown in any church, or any age of it."+

*

Both Dr. Bowden and Mr. How assert that Archbishop Cranmer published a Catechism in 1548, and a Sermon, about the same time, in both which they assure us he delivered doctrines" as highly Episcopal as any thing can be." Dr. Bowden has given a short extract from the latter of these publications, and took care, no doubt, to select the strongest and most decisive passage he could find. But, strange to tell! this passage affords no proof that the archbishop believed in the divine institution of prelacy at all. It speaks of the ministry of the word being derived from the apostles by the imposition of hands. And do not many Presbyterians speak the same language? It speaks of the apostles making bishops and priests. And does not every Presbyterian grant that there were many presbyters in the apostles' days who had no pastoral charge, and who were, of course, no bishops? Is Dr. B. unable to understand this? or does he close his eyes against it? I take for granted that all Cranmer's "high church notions," as Mr. How calls them, if candidly examined, would be found to be of a similar kind.

Dr. Bowden admits that in the 13th year of the reign of Elizabeth, there was an act passed which admitted into the Church of England, those who had received ordination in the foreign reformed

* Dr. Bowden undoubtedly mistakes when he dates this assembly in 1538, and assigns as a reason that a certain paper is signed by Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who died that year. Dr. B. is here confounding two very different things, as he will instantly see by comparing several passages in Burnet, Vol. 1. p. 248. 289. Collection XXI. Addenda V.

+ Hist. Ref. 1. p. 289.