364 OBSERVATIONS ON BISHOP BURNET‘’S 
Usher.° Every theological student is aware that the former pre- 
late leaned at one time to Erastian principles, or something very 
like them: a circumstance not to be surmised in the history of a 
divine so deeply read as he was in the fathers’ councils and canons. 
The fact, however, seems irresistibly clear, that the primate had en- 
tertained “ singular opinions’? of the prelatical functions; for we 
have upon record his refusal to proclaim the apostolical institution 
of episcopacy ; and his belief that the offices of bishop and priest 
were at first one and the same; though afterwards, in the book 
which passes under the name of Cranmer’s Catechism,® he fully 
assented to the divine institution of each, having now quite laid 
aside, as Burnett observes, “‘ those singular opinions.” Well, indeed, 
® To those who are acquainted with the writings of this most learned pre- 
late, the assertion of his holding opinions at variance with the orthodox on 
the subject of episcopacy, may well excite the surprise of the readers of his se- 
veral tracts in favour of that institution. Admitting that, in his treatise con- 
cerning the original of bishops, or a Chorographical and Historical Disquisi- 
tion touching the Lydian on Proconsular Asia, and the seven Metropolitical 
Churches contained therein, that after proving from Acts xix, v. 17, supported 
by Rev. ii, v. 1, that bishops and metropolitans were instituted by the Apos- 
tles, a few passages may be selected from this treatise, which shall bear a 
doubtful character as to the degree of superiority in which he placed the or- 
der of episcopacy ; yet there is sufficient evidence, from the commencement 
to the end of this book, that the Archbishop of Armagh was a most decided 
episcopalian. 
7 “Tt is true that he had some singular opinions about ecclesiastical func- 
tions and offices, which he seemed to make wholly dependent on the magis- 
trates, as much as the civil were; but he never studied to get his opinion in 
that made a part of the doctrine of the church, reserving only to himself the 
freedom of his thoughts, which, I have reason to think, he did afterwards 
either change, or at least was content to be overruled in it.” Hist. of the Re- 
form. vol. i, p. 348. But though, at the accession of Edward VI, he inti- 
mated to his brother bishops that the possession of their sees depended on the 
pleasure of the crown, and accordingly accepted a new commission to execute 
the functions of an archbishop, yet assuredly he was not under the influence 
of Erastian principles when that book of high authority, though not of law— 
for it never received the royal confirmation—the Reformatio Legum, appeared, 
the chief execution of which belonged to him (Summe negotii preefuit Tho- 
mas Cranmerus archiepiscopus Cantuar. Preef. Reform. Legum ). For the first 
head asserts that the four first general councils are to be received; and in 
that of Chalcedon, one of the four, we have this decree :—‘Ericxorm es xesc- 
Burigay Babuov dvadigey legrvasia cori. It is sacrilege to bring back a bishop to 
the degree and order of a presbyter. 
8 It was translated from a German catechism, and a latin version of it was 
made by Justus Jonas, a man of considerable note among the Lutheran party. 
—See Burton’s Preface to Cranmer’s Catechism. Oxford, 1829. 
