all sides and most different interests. However, we see here that they were prohibited; and we never find before this time, that any of them actually did give orders, neither by ordinary power, nor extraordinary dispensation; and the constant tradition of the Church, and practice apostolical, is, that they never could give orders; therefore, this exposition of the canon is liable to no exception, but is clear for the illegality of a presbyter giving holy orders either to a presbyter or deacon,-and is concluding for the necessity of concurrence both of episcopal order and jurisdiction for ordinations: for 'reddendo singula singulis,' and expounding this canon according to the sense of the Church and exigence of Catholic custom, the chorepiscopi are excluded from giving orders, for want of jurisdiction,—and the priests of the city, for want of order; the first may be supplied by a delegate power "in literis episcopalibus;" the second cannot, but by a new ordination, that is, by making the priest a Bishop. For if a priest of the city have not so much power as a chorepiscopus, as I have proved he hath not, by showing that the chorepiscopus then had episcopal ordination, and yet the chorepiscopus might not collate orders without a faculty from the Bishop,-the city priests might not do it, unless more be added to them; for their want was more. They not only want jurisdiction, but something besides, and that must needs be "order."

Q. xi. What is supposed to have been Hooker's reason for adopting the theory, that "inevitable necessity" could render an ordination, not performed by a Bishop valid?

A. It is supposed that he was influenced by regard to the case of foreign Protestants. This feeling induced him to recoil from the consequences of his own principles.1

HOOKER. Ecc. Pol. III. xi. 16. In which respect for mine own part, although I see that certain reformed Churches, the Scottish especially and the French, have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scripture, I mean the government that is by Bishops, inasmuch as both those Churches are fallen under a different kind of regiment; which to remedy it is for the one altogether too late, and too soon for the other during their present affliction and trouble; this their defect and imperfection I had rather lament in such case than exagitate, considering that men

CHAP.
XI.

PART oftentimes, without any fault of their own, may be driven I. to want that kind of polity or regiment which is 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.

KEBLE. Preface to Hooker's Works. Vol. I. p. xxxviii. Am. ed. It is undeniable that here and in many other passages we may discern a marked distinction between that which now perhaps we may venture to call the school of Hooker, and that of Laud, Hammond, and Leslie in the two next generations. He, as well as they, regarded the order of Bishops as being immediately and properly of Divine right; he, as well as they, laid down principles, which strictly followed up would make this claim exclusive. But he, in common with most of his contemporaries, shrunk from the legitimate result of his own premises, the rather, as the fulness of apostolical authority on this point had never come, within his cognizance; whereas, the next generation of divines entered on the subject, as was before observed, fresh from the discovery of the genuine remains of St. Ignatius. He did not feel at liberty to press unreservedly, and to develope in all its consequences, that part of the argument, which they, taught by the primitive Church, regarded as the most vital and decisive; the necessity, namely, of apostolical commission to the derivation of sacramental grace, and to our mystical union with Christ. Yet, on the whole, considering his education and circumstances, the testimony which he bears to the bolder and completer views of the divines of the seventeenth century, is most satisfactory. Their principles, as we have seen, he lays down very emphatically; and if he does not exactly come up to their conclusion, the difference may be accounted for, without supposing any fundamental variance of judgment.

Q. xii. Has the Church in England or America pronounced any judgment on the case of these foreign communions?

A. They have not pronounced any such judgment by a formal public act, but their authorities universally require those who have been ministers in such communions, to be ordained by a Bishop before they officiate within the pale of the Church; thereby overruling the opinion of Hooker.

Q. 13. In maintaining the necessity of Episcopal

Government, are we not guilty of want of charity CHAP. by condemning those who are without it?

A. VERITAS est maxima CARITAS; TRUTH is the greatest CHARITY. It is no charity to connive at error, and to suppress truth; but it is charity to endeavour to remove error, and to maintain and communicate truth. Therefore, our duty is, if we enjoy Episcopal Government, to thank God for it; and to pray to Him that they who have it not, whether from necessity,' real or supposed, from inadvertence, indifference, or deliberate purpose, may at length become able and willing to receive it; and we are bound to be ready and desirous, as far as we are able, to encourage and promote such reception.3

1 HOOKER, III. XI. 16. BRAMHALL, ii. 70.

2

Cp. Note to Christian Institutes, vol. iii. p. 258. GERHARD, de Ecclesiâ, p. 372. vi. 183. 231. Art. Smalcald. art. x.; and the words of Calvin, Inst. iv. 4, 1.

The following is the very important testimony of the writers of the AUGSBURG CONFESSION on this subject, subscribed by CALVIN himself, showing the desires of its framers for the preservation of Episcopacy in the foreign Reformed Churches. See De la Motte, Correspondence Fraternelle, p. 424, and Calvin, Opera, ix. p. 113.

LIBRI SYMBOLICI Ecclesiæ Evangelicæ, &c. Lipsia, 1837. p. 204. Apologia Confessionis, (a P. MELANCTHON,) art. vii. 24. "Hac de re in hoc conventu sæpe testati sumus, nos summâ voluntate cupere conservare politiam Ecclesiasticam, et gradus in Ecclesiâ factos etiam humanâ auctoritate. Scimus enim bono et utili consilio a Patribus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam hoc modo, ut veteres canones describunt, constitutam esse. Sed Episcopi sacerdotes nostro aut cogunt hoc doctrinæ genus, quod confessi sumus, abjicere et damnare, aut novâ et inauditâ crudelitate miseros et innocentes occidunt. Hæ causæ impediunt, quo minus agnoscant hos Episcopos nostri sacerdotes. Ita sævitia Episcoporum in causâ est, quare alicubi dissolvitur illa canonica politia, quam nos magnopere cupiebamus conservare. Ipsi viderint, quomodo rationem Deo reddituri sint, quod dissipant Ecclesiam.

"Porro hic iterum volumus testatum, nos libenter conservaturos esse Ecclesiasticam et Canonicam politiam, si modo Episcopi desinat in nostras Ecclesias sævire. Hæc nostra

XI.

PART

I.

voluntas et coram Deo, et apud omnes gentes, ad omnem posteritatem excusabit nos, ne nobis imputari possit quod Episcoporum auctoritas labefactatur, ubi legerint atque audierint homines, nos injustam sævitiam Episcoporum deprecantes, nihil æqui impetrare potuisse."

The above is the LUTHERAN statement; for the ARMINIAN, the language of GROTIUS (above, ch. x. ans. 8, 16, and below, pt. ii. ch. v.) may be referred to; and the following are the words of CALVIN and BEZA:

CALVINUS, Epist. ad Cardinal Sadolet. Disciplinam, qualem habuit vetus Ecclesia, nobis deesse non diffitemur-sed cujus erit æquitatis nos eversæ disciplinæ ab iis accusari qui eam penitus sustulerunt? Episcopatus a Deo profectus est; Episcopi munus Dei authoritate constitutum est et legibus definitum.

CALVINUS, de Necessit. Reform. Eccles. Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant in quâ sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent, ut ab Illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad Ipsum referantur; tum vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, si qui erunt, qui non eam revereantur, summâque obedientiâ observent.

BEZA ad Sarav. Tract. de Ministrorum Gradibus. Si qui sunt qui omnem Episcoporum ordinem rejiciant, absit ut quisquam sanæ mentis furoribus illorum assentiatur!

2 See the desires to this effect, expressed by Abp. Laud, Bps. Andrewes and Sanderson; Christian Institutes, iii. pp. 261. 216.

3 The exhortation of GROTIUS to the Reformed Churches of his own times may, it is to be hoped, find some persons in the present day able and willing to give it effect.-Epist. p. 975. Suaderem eis ut constituerent inter se quosdam in eminentiore gradu ut Episcopos, et ut iis xepoleoían sumerent ab Archiepiscopo Hiberno, qui ibi est, et ita ordinati ordinarent, deinde pastores cæteros, atque sic initium facerent redeundi ad mores et antiquos et salutares; quibus contemptis licentia invaluit pro novis opinionibus faciendi novas Ecclesias, quæ quid post aliquot annos redituræ sint, nescimus. It would be superfluous to remark how fully the sad forebodings of these last words have been realized.

CHAPTER XII.

OF BISHOPS AS DIOCESANS, METROPOLITANS, AND
PATRIARCHS.

XII.

Q. 1. You have spoken of Bishops in general, CHAP. and of their institution and offices; is not the per-, formance of their duty, individually, and the exercise and application of their powers, restrained habitually in Christian States by laws ecclesiastical and civil, within certain limits?

A. Yes.

Q. 2. And do not Bishops bear certain titles according to the limits within which their functions are exersised?

A. They do.

Q. Can you give any instances of such restrictions from Holy Scripture?

Gal. ii. 7-9.

xv. 13. xxi.

ii. 12.

A. Yes. Our Lord Himself says, He was not Matt. xv.24. "sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." Rom. xi. 13. St. Peter was specially the Apostle of the circum-Acts xii. 17. cision, and St. Paul of the Gentiles. St. James 18. Gal. i. 19. had special jurisdiction at Jerusalem, St. Timothy 1 Tim. i. 3. at Ephesus, St. Titus at Crete; and the seven Rev. i. 20. Asiatic Churches had each their own Bishop respectively.1

1 Archbp. USSHER, Original of Bishops and Metropolitans, Oxford, 1641. Archbp. De MARCA, De Concordiâ, vi. 1.

Q. 4. Does this principle of distribution and restriction appear to have been generally received in the Church in ancient times?

A. Yes and there were certain circumstances

Tit. i. 5.