one allows that, under any variety of circumstances, Episcopacy may be dispensed with, he and the Church to which he belonged did not hold the jure divino theory!

But he is not satisfied even with this representation of the doctrine, for he afterward says:

Another element was requisite to constitute the full-blown doctrine of jure divino Episcopacy. This was the Sacerdotal theory-the doctrine of a continued particular priesthood.

This is a very different definition from the other. He has given us a new, but not a better, explanation. He confounds things that have no necessary connection or likeness. No particular doctrine of the priesthood can be a necessary part of the doctrine of the Episcopate, and the reverend gentleman's own knowledge of the pre-Reformation times should have prevented his hazarding such an assertion. It was by those who wished to elevate the priesthood, as well as to flatter the Pope, that the Episcopate was first denied its ancient and Scriptural character. The Reverend Dr. Thompson reminded Professor Fisher of this, and he replied that he had himself drawn attention to the fact, and he seemed disposed to claim some credit for the discovery of its importance in this controversy. But if he will look at pages 117-122 of "Vox Ecclesia" (published in 1866), he will find it stated and explained in full. There it is plainly shown that the "Sacerdotal theory" was, in effect, antagonistic to the jure divino theory of Episcopacy, though Dr. Fisher thinks it an element of it. I do not say that the two cannot be held by the same person, for many thousands have held, and do hold, both; but the lower office can never be inordinately magnified without encroaching upon the prerogatives of the other.

As regards persons in the Church of England, or the Protestant Episcopal Church, who hold what is really "the Sacerdotal theory (the doctrine of a sacrificing priesthood), it may be safely asserted that they are very few. The opinion is that of a class aggressive, indeed, but neither numerous nor influential; while the jure divino theory of Episcopacy is that of the whole Church, except the few who, like the late Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, are willing to hold office among Episcopalians while they are Presbyterians at heart.

Let us try to get a clear understanding of the opposite doctrines of Episcopacy. The jure humano view is, that it was not established by Christ or His Apostles, but grew up in the Church. Some say it was a convenience-a good thing, and therefore allowable. Others say it originated in ambition, and is to be credited only to the work

ings of the mystery of iniquity. Persons who hold this latter view would properly find their place among High Church Presbyterians, especially the signers of the "Solemn League and Covenant," who pledged themselves to extirpate "prelacy" as well as " popery." The other view might be held by moderate Presbyterians, and by such Episcopalians as Archbishop Whately, Dean Goode, and Dr. Cummins.

The jure divino doctrine, on the other hand, is, that the threefold ministry was divinely instituted (some say by our Lord Himself); that the Episcopal Order was established by the Apostles, and that, when they had finished their course, the bishops succeeded them in the possession and exercise of all the powers necessary for the government and perpetuation of the Church; and, also, that among the rights belonging exclusively to the Episcopal Order is that of ordination to the ministry. This, and neither more nor less than this, is the doctrine of "divine right Episcopacy." It is what we maintain as a law of God's house. Yet it, like every law, may be interfered with, by persecution or other untoward circumstances. Where this is the case, the circumstances excuse the defect or wrong that they really cause; but when the Church is free, the law must be observed (See "Vox Ecclesiæ,” pp. 46–50).

Now, then, we may understand each other better; and so if Dr. Fisher asks me when the jure divino theory of Episcopacy was first broached in the English Church, I reply, just as soon as there was any English Church! If he denies that the English divines of the sixteenth century taught it, I refer him, as in my former letter, to Whitgift and Cranmer, to Sutcliffe, Bridges, Bancroft, and Hooker, as well as to Bishop Bilson, Dr. Saravia, and that very Dean Field whom he quotes on the other side.

The Doctor gives his own view of this point in these words: "The jure divino theory dates from the era of Laud." Whether this is correct or not can be easily ascertained. Laud became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633. If it is said his personal influence was felt before then, and so his "era" must be dated farther back, I have no objection. Let us say it began in 1621, when he was consecrated Bishop of St. David's. But thirty-three years before that, viz., on 12th of January, 1588, Dr. Bancroft (at that time chaplain to Whitgift, and afterward his successor as Archbishop of Canterbury) preached, at Paul's Cross, his famous sermon in defence of the Church against the attacks of the Puritans. Concerning this sermon, Dr. Fisher says, "It is a controverted point whether he broached the jure divino theory in it or not. Hallam maintains

that he did not!" Mr. Hallam's opinion, as I have said before, deserves respectful consideration, but it will not satisfy any sensible person who has the means of judging for himself. Reading the sermon gives me a very different impression of it. But let us see how it was regarded by others. Is it not notorious that Knollys (who was, at Court, the Attorney-General for the Puritans, as Leicester was their Lord Chancellor) made complaint of that sermon, on the very ground that it did openly defend the order and office of bishops jure divino, and was, therefore, an injury to the Queen's supremacy! Knollys said that Dr. Bancroft "avouched the superiority of bishops over the clergy to be of God's own ordinance, though not by express words, yet by necessary consequence," and that "he affirmed their opinion to be heresy, who impugned that superiority." In furtherance of the Jesuitical design to bring the ecclesiastical authorities in conflict with the Crown, a "Tract with a Syllogism," against this sermon, was drawn up by some members of the faction, and introduced at Court by Knollys. Of the syllogism, the minor proposition was to the effect that the preacher had maintained "that the bishops had superiority over the inferior clergy otherwise than by and from Her Majesty's authority,-namely, JURE DIVINO."

But it may be said this was the representation of an enemy who had an object to serve in making it. Well, then, let us look at Bancroft's reply:

I deny the major, and grant THE MINOR. For they (the Bishops) may well hold in some superiority, both jure divino and jure humano. . . . in some things, as in superiority of ordaining and consecrating ministers, and excommunicating jus humanum, and her Majesty's supremacy do approve, maintain, and corrobo

rate JUS DIVINUM.

Probably, then, with the testimony of his opponents, and with his own profession of the fact, we may venture to hold that Bancroft did on that occasion broach the doctrine of Episcopacy by divine right, even though the great Mr. Hallam maintains that he did not!

Thus we trace the open defence of this doctrine to a date fortyfive years before that at which Laud became Archbishop, and thirtythree years before he was advanced to the Episcopal Order. Dr. Fisher's chronology, then, must be, so far, amended. But that which we have reached is only the starting-point. Strype says:

For the preaching of this sermon, I am apt to believe he had the instructions of the Archbishop.

If Strype's opinion, then, would prove the fact, I might claim

the full sanction of Whitgift for the doctrine his chaplain had proclaimed in the great pulpit of England. But though there can be little doubt of the correctness of the opinion, I prefer dealing with facts, and shall take another mode of connecting him with the doctrine.

In 1570, the Puritan leaders, having gained great boldness, Cartwright began at the University of Cambridge (where he held a Fellowship of Trinity College, and was Lecturer in Divinity) to infect the younger students with dislike to the Episcopal Government and the Liturgy. For these offences he was (after due remonstrance) tried and expelled. Whitgift, then Master of Trinity College, had to exercise this discipline and to maintain the controversy with him. In 1572, he and the rest of the faction, having gone so far as to organize one or two presbyteries, ventured to challenge the whole Church. They issued an "Admonition" to Parliament, in which it was maintained that in the Church of England there was "neither right ministry nor right government of the Church; that the prescript form of service maintained an unlawful ministry,” etc. This libel had to be answered, and was answered, clearly and boldly, by Dr. Whitgift. Cartwright defended the Admonition, and Whitgift defended his reply. And the controversy, as summed up by Whitgift, having received the approbation of the authorities, has ever since been regarded in the light almost of a Standard. Strype says that in it

May be seen all the arguments and pleas used in those times for laying Episcopacy and the Liturgy aside, and all the exceptions to them, drawn up to the best advantage; and herein, also, are subjoined a full and particular answer and refutation of the one and vindication of the other, together with the favorable sense of the learned men in the Reformed Churches abroad, as Peter Martyr, Bucer, Zuinglius, Bullinger, Calvin, and Gualter, comprised in their letters or other of their writings, and THEIR APPROBATION of this Church's form and discipline and the government of it by Bishops. So that this book may be justly esteemed and applied to as one of the public books of the Church of England containing her profession and principles, and being of the like authority in respect to its worship and government in opposition to the Disciplinarians as Bishop Jewel's Apology and Defence in respect of the Reformation and doctrine of it, in opposition to the Papists.

What, then, is the teaching of this great work on the constitution of the Church? Cartwright attacked Episcopacy as merely a human institution. Is it supposed by any one that Whitgift maintained the same opinion? Is not the contrary evident to all who examined the book? Cartwright having said :

If you will restore the Church to its ancient officers, this you must do—

instead of an Archbishop or Lord Bishop, you must make equality of ministers;

Whitgift replies that he has already proved the name and office most ancient and most necessary in the Church of Christ, and "that this equality of ministers which you require is both FLATLY AGAINST THE SCRIPTURES, and all ancient authority of councils and learned men, and the example of all Churches, even from Christ's time. He then quotes Bucer thus:

We see by the perpetual observation of the Churches, even from the Apostles themselves, that it hath pleased the HOLY GHOST that among ministers, to whom the government of the Church especially is committed, one should have the chief care, both of the Churches and of the whole ministry, and that he should go before all others in that care and diligence; for the which cause the name of a Bishop (overseer) is given to such chief governors of Churches.

This (and I can give scores of such extracts) shows plainly enough whether Whitgift held Episcopacy to be jure divino or not, and it gives the equally clear and positive opinion of Bucer on the same subject.

Cartwright having objected that when he produced arguments out of Scripture, his antagonist met him with "men's authority," Whitgift replied thus:

I oppose them to your authority, and to your reasons, who spurn against that Order WHICH THE HOLY GHOST hath placed in the Church, and most shamefully abuse the Scripture to maintain your errors (Vol. ii. page 405, Parker Soc. Ed.).

From pages 427 to 433, inclusive, the reader will find a long array of testimonies to the universality, antiquity, and apostolic authority of the Episcopal Order, which Whitgift winds up by asserting that "there is not one writer of credit that denieth this superiority to have been always among the clergy." In vol. ii. (page 355) we read as follows:

That Bishops do succeed the Apostles in this function of government may appear by sundry learned writers. Cyprian (Lib. iii. Epist. 9) writeth thus: "But Deacons must remember that the Lord hath chosen Apostles-that is to say, Bishops and chief governors. . . . And Ambrose saith Apostoli Episcopi sunt. ZUINGLIUS, also, in his Ecclesiastes, saith that the Apostles, when they left off going from place to place, and remained in one Church, were no more called Apostles, but Bishops, as James at Jerusalem, and John at Ephesus.' Whereby it may appear that it seemeth strange, neither to the old writers nor to the new, to say that Bishops succeed the Apostles, and come in place of them.

I have copied these extracts for the purpose of vindicating the