to them those belonging to the offices conferred by the regular ordination. But irregular practice is the parent of irregular principles; and the wider deviation incident to that practice begets a new train of principles. Man must justify himself in his own sight; if then he conform not his practice to his principles, his practice will bend his principles. The legality of even Presbyterian Ordination, the theory, that the right of Ordination resides "in the body corporate of the Church "" (to be of any use in this argument it must be "in any section of the Church”), these and the like, are so many after thoughts to justify what was done in the first instance on Saul's plea of "necessity;" "I forced myself therefore, “and offered a burnt-offering.'

66

2

But while maintaining that they only are commissioned to administer the Sacraments, who have received that commission from those appointed in succession to bestow it, we have never denied that GOD may make His own Sacraments efficacious, even when irregularly administered; we should trust it might be so some of us are bound up by ties of affection to those very Protestant bodies, which it is supposed we should so harshly and wantonly cut off from the Church of CHRIST. The very same affection for them which would make us long to see them safely restored to the full privileges of the Church, makes us trust that the Father of mercies has not

1 Episcopacy, Tradition, and the Sacraments, considered in reference to the Oxford Tracts, p. 21.

2 1 Sam. xiii. 12.

"one blessing" only, but has "a blessing for them "also, even for them."

Still every one would apprehend risk in certain cases of irregularity: few, for instance, would think themselves safe in receiving the LORD's Supper from a layman or from a woman; and the greater the irregularity, and the less excuse for it, the greater would be esteemed the risk. Thus dissenters would obviously run greater risk of having the efficacy of the Sacraments diminished, than the present Presbyterians of Scotland; and these perhaps more than the German bodies, whose forefathers did not wilfully renounce the privilege of Episcopacy, and have not a pure Apostolic Church with which they might unite, nor have had before their eyes the instructive example of her patient and suffering piety. Nor, again, are we called upon to think what mitigating effect inveterate prejudice may have; the present Protestants have been brought into their state not by their own deed, but by the acts of former generations. Their continuance in that state may be an evil and a loss of privileges, entailed upon them by the act of their forefathers, which they have not cut off; but not the same to individuals as if they had been the authors of it. On the other hand, it is for them to consider that they have not the same plea of necessity which their forefathers urged; that they may readily repair the irregularity for the future; that such an act would doubtless be pleasing to GOD, as evincing an anxiety to conform themselves altogether to His will, and so might bring down a blessing on them

selves, as well as contribute to the ultimate restoration of unity in the whole Church.

But our immediate practical question is at home. And what Churchman would venture to say that none of the dissenters, that no shade of them, run any risk? that people were equally safe as to the LORD's Supper, however administered? that if administered by the congregation to each other, that if a family were to administer it among themselves, they would be quite secure? And if there is risk in dispensing with a Minister altogether, why should men be quite certain that there is none in dispensing with one Apostolically ordained? why should we think it an unreasonable thing, that risk should be involved in neglecting an Ordinance of GOD? The Church of old held that the efficacy of the Sacraments, even when administered by ordained but schismatic ministers, was, at the least, suspended, so long as persons remained in Schism. This is the ground which we have taken, not involving ourselves and others needlessly in questions as to GOD's dealings with others, but providing, as far as in us lay, for the safety of our own people. We have told them, that, at the least, they are safer if they abide in the Church. I might cite to this end, one of the earliest tracts in this

66

Tract 4. p. 3. The question, "Do you then unchurch all the Presbyterians?" was also there answered, p. 5, and many hard words might have been saved, had persons read what is said in the Tracts, instead of making inferences from them, unread. The kirk of Scotland was also kindly spoken of, in the very poem, so often cited in proof of want of charity towards it; "Samaria."

"Jesus

series, when the Apostolic succession, being so lost out of sight, was more continually put forward than there is, happily, now, any occasion to do. "Christ's own commission is the best external security "I can have, that in receiving this bread and wine, "I verily receive His Body and Blood. Either "the Bishops have that commission, or there is no "such thing in the world. For, at least, Bishops "have it with as much evidence as Presbyters with“out them. In proportion, then, to my Christian anxiety for keeping as near my Saviour as I can, I shall of course be very unwilling to separate myself "from Episcopal communion. And in proportion to

66

66

There is certainly an analogy between the proceedings of Jeroboam and those of John Knox. The making of the calves, although eminently, "the sin wherewith Jeroboam made Israel to sin" was not his only sin : it is added," he made priests out of all the people, "which were not of the sons of Levi," (the Hebrew word means rather, out of the people, indiscriminately," than as in the E. V. "of the lowest of the people,") and these were to offer not to the calves, but "on the high-places," where the true God was worshipped, though not as He had appointed. This sin then was a self-chosen ordination. And this Scotland likewise committed, in rejecting Episcopacy, which she already had in a pure Church. As God, however, left not Samaria without seers, so also has He raised up gifted men for Scotland, and has doubtless among those, who have forsaken the Apostolic Church, His 7000, who have not been involved in any of the further consequences of that first sin. Tract 47 (on the "Visible Church," No. 4), contains a warm statement how the sense of the superior privileges of our Church is compatible with charity, and tends to individual humility.

"my charitable care for others, will be my industry "to preserve and extend the like consolation and

66

66

66

6

security to them." And again', "Why should we "talk so much of an establishment', and so little of an 'Apostolical Succession? Why should we not seriously endeavour to impress our people with this plain truth-that by separating themselves "from our communion, they separate themselves not only from a decent, orderly, useful society, but "from the only Church in this realm which has a right to be quite sure that she has the Lord's Body to give to the people."

66

66

66

And this language does not at all go beyond the glowing words of Hooker, in vindicating the divine commission which must necessarily belong to "the

66

ministry in things divine." And he too, however he might make allowances for cases of apparent necessity (which was the more natural in those times, when the tendency of Ultra-Protestantism had not been developed), held that the Episcopal Ordination was the only authorized transmission of that authority. He says then... "In that they are Christ's am“bassadors and His labourers, who should give them "their commission, but He Whose most inward af"fairs they manage? Is not God alone the Father

1 Tract 4. p. 5.

2 See Mr. Keble's Preface to Hooker, p. lxv.-lxx.

3 Eccl. Pol. V. lxxvii. 1, 2. 7. ed. Keble, quoted Tracts, No. 74. Catena, No. 1. " Testimony of writers in the later English Church to the doctrine of the Apostolical succession."

66