from Salisbury in 1552, the very year in which the Articles were first passed in the reign of Elizabeth, says :

"As to matters of doctrine, we have pared everything away to the very quick, and do not differ from your doctrine by a nail's breadth."

At page 135 there is a letter from Bishop Horne to Bullinger, of whom we have heard nothing yet, but shall hear now very shortly:

"We have throughout England the same ecclesiastical doctrine as yourselves."

There follows a sentence as to Rites and Ceremonies, which is imperfect, the original MS. being illegible; but the sentence which I have read is perfect, and the sense complete. There is also a letter from Grindal to Bullinger; and these being all in Elizabeth's time, they are very important. This is dated 1556, and occurs at page 169:

"We who now are Bishops, on our first return, and before we entered on our ministry, contended long and earnestly for the removal of those things that have occasioned the present dispute: but as we were unable to prevail either with the Queen or the Parliament; we judged it best, after a consultation on the subject, not to desert our Church for the sake of a few ceremonies, and these not unlawful in themselves; especially since the pure doctrine of the Gospel remained in all its integrity and freedom; in which, even to this day (notwithstanding the attempts of many to the contrary), we most fully agree with your Churches and with the Confessions you have lately set forth."

There is a note to shew that this was the Helvetic Confession of Faith, enlarged and improved in 1656. I shall not quote from it; though I might find an opportunity from this letter of shewing in what entire ignorance of its contents the Bishop of Exeter wrote his Charge. But I pass on.

Grindal, in July, 1573, two years after the Articles had been sanctioned by Parliament, writing from York to Rodolf Gualter, says (page 293) :—

66

Although you are not personally known to me, you are well known to me by your writings, abounding, as they do, in singular erudition and learning: and on account of the excellent piety which they breathe, and, I will add too, on account of our most close agreement in the true doctrine of Christ, you are most dear to me."

These are testimonies to what was proceeding on the Continent.

There is another letter from Grindal, in 1562, contained in the second volume of the Zurich Letters, page 73, addressed to Conrad Hubert (June 1562), in which he says,

"It is astonishing that they are raising such commotions about Predestination. They should at least consult their own Luther on the 'bondage of the will.' For what else do Bucer, Calvin, and Martyr teach that Luther has not maintained in that Treatise? . . . . Do you, most learned Conrad, persevere in defending the fame of Bucer and in maintaining the truth. The Lord will not suffer this cause, which is his own, to be always kept under."

....

Thus I have connected Bucer and Martyr, and what was said of them, with the doctrine taught in Elizabeth's reign, which Archbishop Grindal, of course, well understood. In the first edition of the Bishop of Exeter's Charge, at page 10, I find this sentence:

"Now, at the time when the Articles were first compiled, in 1552, and even ten years afterwards, when they assumed their present form, the point on which, of all others, there was the least difference either between us, or the German Protestants, and Rome, was the doctrine of Baptism, to which this defence of the Articles is mainly directed. On that all were in the main agreed, the voice of controversy was almost or altogether unheard. Look at the formularies set forth in this country during the reign of Henry VIII., in all of which Cranmer, the compiler of our Articles, had the principal hand; look at the early Confessions of Faith of foreign Protestants-the Helvetic, that of Augsburg, the Saxon, the Belgic, and the Catechism of Heidelberg,ALL THESE, ON THIS GREAT PARTICULAR, AGREED NOT ONLY WITH

EACH OTHER, BUT WITH ROME ITSELF. Of Baptism, every one of them asserted the cardinal doctrine of its being the blessed instrument by which God worketh in us spiritual regeneration."

A startling assertion, assuredly, this; and some kind friend must have whispered in the Bishop's ear, that perhaps it would be as well to publish a second edition of the Charge, omitting the statement and appending a note, which, accordingly, we find introduced in the second edition:

"I have here withdrawn a statement made by me, when I delivered

this Charge, respecting the early Confessions of Faith of foreign Protestants. Closer inspection (especially of the Confessions of those bodies which adopted the doctrines of Zuingle and Calvin) has discovered, under a seeming agreement with the doctrine of our Articles and Liturgy on Baptism, a real and considerable difference. In more than one of these documents there are statements, seemingly inconsistent with each other, which it is not for me to attempt to reconcile."

Certainly not no one asked, or expected, it of the Bishop of Exeter-all that he had to do, was to explain his own extraordinary misstatement: but, I think it would have been as well for his credit, if the information, which any one at all acquainted with the subject, and the ecclesiastical history of those times, could have given, had been obtained prior to the first publication of the Charge, and even prior to its delivery; for it had already gone throughout the diocese. And the limited nature of his Lordship's discovery (at least of its acknowledgment) is still worthy of remark; for while seeking out points of difference between the Reformed Churches on the Continent and in England, he has lost sight altogether of that which was the great mistake of all, viz., their imaginary agreement with Rome. It is but one of the many blunders which have been made in connexion with this case; still, it may suggest the reflection, that persons who are liable to fall, and have fallen, into such grievous mistakes, should beware of using a tone of asperity in respect to others.

As so much has been said regarding Zuinglius and Calvin; and as their views have been represented as differing so widely from the Church of England; I will call attention to the writings of Archdeacon Philpot, as published by the Parker Society, page 45. Archdeacon Philpot is there addressed by Dr. Saverson:

"Dr. Saverson. I wonder you will stand so stedfast in your error to your own destruction.-Philpot. I am sure we are in no error by the promise of Christ made to the faithful once, which is, that he will give to his true Church such a spirit of wisdom that the adversaries thereof should never be able to resist. And by this I know that we are of the truth; for, that neither by reasoning, neither by writing, your Syna

gogue of Rome is able to answer. Where is there one of you all that ever hath been able to answer any of the godly, learned, ministers of Germany who have disclosed your counterfeit religion? Which of you all at this day is able to answer Calvin's 'Institutions,' who is Minister of Geneva?"

Subsequently, at page 153, entitled, Bonner's Exhortation, Philpot says this:

"I allow the Church at Geneva, and the doctrine of the same, for it is una catholica et apostolica, and doth follow the doctrine that the Apostles did preach; and the doctrine taught and preached in King Edward's day's was also according to the same."

I have thus shewn that there was a consent in England to all that was going on on the Continent; and that both in Edward the Sixth's reign, and in that of Queen Elizabeth, this testimony was borne to the foreign Reformers; that the doctrine taught in England was precisely the doctrine taught by them.

Sir, in the course of this argument we have been favoured with a reference to some writers as of authority; and something has been said about the Savoy Conference, and what the twelve Bishops said to those who came before them. These Conversations, for they are in truth nothing more, have been treated as though they were a part of the Ecclesiastical Law, unchanged and unchangeable. I incline to think that we may as well go a little into Convocation itself as to what has been considered to be the doctrine of the Church of England. I am not putting it as law. I do not at all mean to say that it was actually law. I have no wish to mislead the Court about it; but still I solicit attention to it. In the Convocation of 1586 there were certain Orders introduced into the Upper House by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, a name of no inconsiderable importance; and I now quote from Cardwell's "Synodalia," vol. ii., page 562:

"In hac synodo (2 die Decembris) ab archiepiscopo Cantuariensi

introducebantur Orders for the better increase of learning in the inferior ministers and for more diligent preaching and catechising."

What are these orders?—

"1. Everie Minister, havinge cure and beinge vnder the degrees of Master of Arte and Bach. of Lawe, and not licensed to be a publique preacher, shall, before the second daye of Februarie next, provide a Bible and Bullinger's Decads in Latin or Englishe, and a paper booke; and shall everie daye reade over one chap're of the Holie Scriptures, and note ye principall contents thereof brieflie in his paper booke; and shall everie weeke reade over one sermon in the said Decads, and note likewise the cheife matters therein conteyned, in the saide paper. And shall once in everie quarter, viz., within a fortnight before or after the ende of the quarter, shewe his said note to some preacher neere adioyning, to be assigned for that purpose.

"2. Item. The Bushope, Archdeacon, or other Ordinarie beinge a publique preacher, shall appoint certayne graue and learned preachers who shall priuatlie examine the diligence and vewe the notes of the said Ministers, assigning sixe or seaven Mi'sters as occac'on shall require to everie such preacher that shal be next adioyning to him, so as the Ministers be not driven to travill for the exhibitinge of their notes above sixe or seaven miles (if it may be). And the said preachers shall by l'res or otherwise truely certifie to the Archdeacon, or other Ordinarie of the place,-themselves being publique preachers and resident within or nere to their jurisdictions, and for want thereof to the Bushoppe himself, whoe doe performe the said Exercises-and howe they haue profited therin; and whoe do refuse or neglecte to performe the same; the Archdeacons and others receiving the said Certificats shall signifie the same once in the yeare to the Bushope, and that about Michaelmas."

This Order is dated January, 1557, and was brought by the Archbishop into the Upper House of Convocation; and though it does not appear to have passed through the Lower House, it was approved by the Queen, and is among the State papers. It was also registered at Lambeth Palace on the 28th of March, 1557, and is referred to in "Strype's Life of Archbishop Whitgift," vol. i., page 131.

That there may be no mistake upon the subject of this Order, I beg leave to repeat, that its authority consists in this, viz., that it passed through the Upper House of