read with great care by many of the other bishops and sev eral learned divines, and that it was published with the strongest expressions of their approbation.

Speaking of the twenty third article, bishop Burnet says, (Lond. Ed. of 1827. p. 257,) I come in the next place to consider the second part of this article, which is the definition here given of those that are lawfully called and sent; this is put in very general words, far from that magisterial stiffness in which some have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. The article does not resolve this into any particular constitution, but leaves the matter open and at large for such accidents as had happened, and such as might still happen. They who drew it 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 track 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: necessity has no law, and is a law unto itself.' (b)

And a little farther on, (p. 258.) he observes, 'If a company of Christians find the public worship where they live to be so defiled, that they cannot with a good conscience join in it, and if they do not know of any place to which they can conveniently go, where they may worship God purely, and in a regular way; if, I say, such a body

(b) This admission of imperfection in the system of the Church of England, may perhaps be fairly understood to apply to those unavoidable defects which arose from her dependence on the State, such as the bish ops being appointed by the king, instead of being elected by the clergy and people, &c. There has been, in truth, a far more perfect exhibition of Church and State in the Puritan days of New England, than has ever been seen in old England, since the Reformation. And as the matter now stands, and has stood with them since that time, the true title of the union would be better expressed by reversing the order of the words. It is not Church and State, so much as State and Church.

* finding some that have been ordained, though to the lower functions, should submit itself entirely to their conduct, or finding none of those, should by a common consent desire some of their own number to minister to them in holy things, and should upon that beginning grow up to a reguated constitution, though we are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could not be done without a very great tin, unless the necessity were great and apparent; yet if ⚫he necessity is real and not feigned, this is not condemned jor annulled by the article; for when this grows to a contitution, and when it was begun by the consent of a body, who are supposed to have an authority in such an extraordinary case, 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 for about half an age after, did, nothwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge the foreign Churches so constituted, to be true Churches as to all the essentials of a Church; though they had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words in which this part of the article is framed, seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them.'

Hooker, speaking on the same point, although without any particular reference to the articles, saith (Ecci. Pol. B. 7. § 14. Lond. Ed. of 1825. 2. Vol. p. 304.) There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reasons to allow ordination made without a bishop.'-' Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labor he useth without requiring that men should authorize them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens himself

from heaven.'-' Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep; where the Church must needs have some ordained, and neither have, nor can have possibly, a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God, hath given oftentimes, and may give place. And, therefore, we are not, simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles, by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops.'

And again, the same author, speaking of the Presbyterian Churches (B. 3. § 2. vol. 1. p. 330.) with respect to the same point of necessity, uses the following words: 'In which respect,' saith he, 'for mine own part, although I see that certain reformed Churches, the Scottish especially and French, have not that which best agreeth with the Sacred Scriptures, I mean the government that is by bishops, inasmuch as both these Churches are fallen under a different kind of regimen; which to remedy, it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present affliction and trouble: yet this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such a case than exaggerate; considering that men oftentimes, without any fault of their own, may be driven to want that kind of polity or regimen which is the best; and to content themselves with that which either the irremediable error of former times, or the necessity of the present hath cast upon them.'

Once more, Hooker, reconciling Jerome to himself, by a paraphrase on the passage, where he speaks of the superiority of bishops being the result rather of the custom of the Church than of any express law of God, uses this

language: (B. 7. ib. 2. vol. 252.) 'Presbyters must not grudge to continue subject unto their bishops, unless they will proudly oppose themselves against that which God himself ordained by his Apostles, and the whole Church of Christ approveth and judgeth most convenient. On the other side, bishops, although they may avouch, with conformity of truth, that their authority had thus descended even from the very Apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops.'-' Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them.'

Chillingworth, although a staunch supporter of Episcopacy, is quite as indulgent towards the defective Churches of the reformation; for he denies that Luther and the other reformers were schismatics for leaving the Church of

✓ Rome. Protestants,' saith he, (vol. 2. p. 204) are peremptory and unanimous in denying that they are truly Schismatics who leave the communion of the visible Church if corrupted; especially if the case be so (and Luther's was so) that they must either leave her communion, or of necessity communicate with her in her corruptions.'

Again, he questions whether the present generation of separatists could be called schismatical, even if their forefathers had been so, 'You say,' saith Chillingworth, addressing his Roman Catholic antagonist, (see Chil. works. Lond. ed, of 1820 vol. 2. p. 189) 'that supposing Luther, and they which did first separate from the Roman Church, were guilty of schism, it is certainly consequent, that all who persist in this division, must be so likewise; which is not so certain as you pretend. For they which alter, without necessary cause, the present government of any state, civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof notwithstanding they may be innocent, who continue this alteration, and to the utmost of their power oppose a change, though to the former state, when continuance of time hath once settled the present.'

Again, he combats the accusation that Luther forsook the visible Church when he left the Church of Rome. Properly speaking,' saith he, (ib. p. 226.) it is not true, that Luther and his followers forsook the whole corrupted Church or the external communion of it: but only that he forsook that part of it which was corrupted and still would be so; and forsook not, but only reformed another part, which part they themselves were; and I suppose you will not go about to persuade us, that they forsook themselves or their communion. And if you urge, that they joined themselves to no other part, therefore they separated from the whole; I say it follows not, inasmuch as themselves were a part of it, and still continued so: and therefore could no more separate from the whole than from themselves.'

Once more, Chillingworth gives an explanation which applies to our nineteenth article, and is worthy of notice. 'Protestants,' saith he, (ib. p. 205) ' do not make the true preaching of the word, and the due administration of the sacraments, the notes of the visible Church, but only of a visible Church: now these you know are very different things; the former signifying the Church catholic, or the whole Church; the latter, a particular Church, or a part of the Catholic. '-' and if it be said (ib. 197.) that preach