rue Bishops at first, could become such,

subsequent event, without being reSted: the Presbyters ordained by them, og at the same time true Presbyters, their Ordination had been invalid. It s like maintaining that a woman, who, g her husband's life-time marries another man, and has a family, becomes, on her real husband's death, the lawful wife of the other, und her children legitimate.

More recently still, an attempt was made of the same nature, on the occasion of the suppression (as it was called) of some of the Irish Bishoprics; that is, the union of them with others. It has been publicly and distinctly declared that an effort was made to represent this measure as amounting to an "interruption of Apostolical succession;" though it is not very easy to say how this was to be made out, even on the above principles.

I do not mean to maintain that this was seriously believed by all those some of them men of intelligence and learning— who put it forward. It may very likely have been one of their "exoteric doctrines," designed only for the Multitude. But, be this as it may, they evidently meant that it should be believed by others, if not by themselves.

f According to this view, the Apostolical succession must have been long since lost in some parts of England, and the greatest part of Ireland. For there were many such unions existing before the Act in question; such as Bath and Wells,

In short, there is no imaginable limit to the schisms that may be introduced and kept up through the operation of these principles, advocated especially with a view to the repression of schism.

formations

Communi

§ 32. Some have imagined however that since Irregular no rule is laid down in Scripture as to the num- of Christian ber of persons requisite to form a Christian ties. Community, or as to the mode in which any such Community is to be set on foot, it must follow that persons left to Scripture as their sole decisive authority, will be at liberty, -all, and any of them,-to form and dissolve religious Communities at their pleasure;-to join, and withdraw from, any Church, as freely as if it were a Club or other such institution; and to appoint themselves or others to any ministerial Office, as freely as the members of any Club elect Presidents, Secretaries, and other functionaries.

And it is true that this licence has been assumed by weak and rash men; who have thus given occasion to persons of the class who "mistake reverse of wrong for right," to aim at counteracting one error by advocating another. But so far are these anarchical consequences from being a just result of the principles here

Cork and Ross, Ferns and Leighlin, Lichfield and Coventry,

and several others.

Analogous case of civil Governments.

maintained, that I doubt whether, on any other subject besides Religion, a man would not be reckoned insane who should so reason.

To take the analogous case of civil government: hardly any one in his right mind would attempt a universal justification of rebellion, on the ground that men may be placed in circumstances which morally authorize them to do what, in totally different circumstances, would be rebellion.

Suppose, for instance, a number of emigrants, bound for some Colony, to be shipwrecked on a desert island, such as afforded them means of subsistence, but precluded all reasonable hope of their quitting it or suppose them to have taken refuge there as fugitives from intolerable oppression, or from a conquering enemy; (no uncommon case in ancient times) or to be the sole survivors of a pestilence or earthquake which had destroyed the rest of the nation: no one would maintain that these shipwrecked emigrants or fugitives, were bound, or were permitted, to remainthemselves and their posterity-in a state of anarchy, on the ground of there being no one among them who could claim hereditary or other right to govern them. It would clearly be right, and wise, and necessary, that they should regard themselves as constituted, by the very circumstance of their position, a civil Community; and should assemble to enact such laws, and appoint

such magistrates, as they might judge most suitable to their circumstances. And obedience to those laws and governors, as soon as the Constitution was settled, would become a moral duty to all the members of the Community: and this, even though some of the enactments might appear, or might be, (though not at variance with the immutable laws of morality, yet) considerably short of perfection. The King, or other Magistrates thus appointed, would be legitimate rulers and the laws framed by them, valid and binding. The precept of “ submitting to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake," and of "rendering to all, their due," would apply in this case as completely as in respect of any Civil Community that exists.

nary emer

tify what

otherwise

And yet these men would have been doing what, Extraordiin ordinary circumstances, would have been mani- gencies jusfest rebellion. For if these same, or any other, would individuals, subjects of our own, or of any ex-be wrong. isting Government, were to take upon themselves to throw off their allegiance to it, without any such necessity, and were to pretend to constitute themselves an independent Sovereign-State, and proceed to elect a King or Senate,-to frame a Constitution, and to enact laws, all resting on their own self-created authority, no one would doubt, that, however wise in themselves those laws might be, and however personally well

qualified the magistrates thus appointed,—they would not be legitimate governors, or valid laws: and those who had so attempted to establish them, would be manifest rebels.

A similar rule will apply to the case of ecclesiastical Communities. If any number of individuals, -not having the plea of an express revelation to the purpose, or again, of their deliberate conviction that the Church they separate from is fundamentally erroneous and unscriptural—take upon themselves to constitute a new Church, according to their own fancy, and to appoint themselves or others to ministerial offices, without having any recognised authority to do so, derived from the existing religious Community of which they were members, but merely on the ground of supposed personal qualifications, then, however wise in themselves the institutions, and however, in themselves, fit, the persons appointed, there can be no more doubt that the guilt of Schism would be incurred in this case, than that the other, just mentioned, would be an act of rebellion. If the Apostle's censure of "those that cause divisions" does not apply to this case, it may fairly be asked what meaning his words can have.

On the other hand, men placed in the situation of the supposed shipwrecked emigrants or exiles above spoken of, would be as much authorized,