of Christians differ entirely from ourselves, and yet exhibit the most sincere and earnest zeal for the promotion of our common object, there is something very painful to the mind in passing any sentence of blame or censure upon them'; and

The following observations are taken from a Charge delivered by Bishop Hobart in 1817, and printed at New York in 1818, (p. 26.) In opposing, under great, and perhaps, if we may judge from the spirit of the age, increasing odium, those prevalent errors which, if I know my own heart, a profound sense of duty alone has induced me to endeavour to refute; and in maintaining and enforcing correct views of the constitution of the Christian Church, and of the principles of Church unity, we must be consoled and supported by the consideration that we are maintaining the principles of the saints of the primitive ages, and for which, sooner than relinquish them, they would have shed their blood. What though it may be said that these principles would limit the communion of the Church to a small portion of professing Christians, and place in a state of schism a large number of the Christian family? If these principles be true, their obligation cannot be weakened, nor their importance diminished by the number, the piety, or the zeal of their opponents. The general prevalence of error hitherto permitted by the counsels of an inscrutable Providence, is a trial of our faith, but ought not to weaken or subvert it. Was not the revelation of God's will confined from the beginning to a small number of the human race in the Plains of Shinar, and in the fields of Jordan? Are not large portions of the globe still under the dominion of the prince and powers of darkness? It is not for man to arraign the dominion of the Most High! For purposes wise and good, but inscrutable by us, did he not permit heresies early to stain

assuredly, in these days, a proposition which, like that which will appear in my next discourse, tends to cast a shade' on all the congregations of Christians which reject an apostolical Ministry, will be

the purity of the faith? Was there not a period when the divinity of his blessed Son was doubted and denied by a large portion of the Christian world; and when a venerable defender of this fundamental truth was hunted by his persecutors throughout the earth? Did not the dark cloud of Papal superstition for ages disfigure and conceal the primitive splendour of the Christian Zion? And need we wonder then, that for purposes equally wise and good, but equally inscrutable, the Sovereign of the universe still permits heresies to corrupt and schisms to distract the Christian family? He will finally do right: he searches and mercifully judges the purposes of the heart; and assuredly, honest purity of intention, and zealous endeavour to know and to do his will, will not fail of a reward from him who is no respecter of persons, but is the equal and kind parent of all the human race. Still charity, though it should always soften the rigid features of truth, cannot change her divine character, nor dispense with her sacred obligations.'-The Corruptions of the Church of Rome contrasted with certain Protestant Errors; a Charge, by Bishop Hobart, pp. 26—28.

1 'I confess I do not approve tumultuary reformations, made by a giddy ignorant multitude, according to the dictates of a seditious orator. But withal, I must tell him, that God would not permit evil, but that he knows how to extract good out of evil, and that he often useth ill agents to do his own works, yea, even to reform his Church. Jehu was none of the best men, yet God used him, to purge his Church, and to take away the Priests of Baal. The treason of Judas became subservient to the secret

received with dislike and repugnance. For the plan of the present age is to admit that all men,

counsels of God for the redemption of the world, by the cross and passion of Christ. I do also acknowledge, that Episcopacy was comprehended in the Apostolic office, tanquam trigonus in tetragono, and that the distinction was made by the Apostles, with the approbation of Christ; that the Angels of the seven Churches in the Revelations were seven Bishops; that it is the most silly ridiculous thing in the world, to calumniate that for a Papal innovation, which was established in the Church before there was a pope at Rome; which hath been received and approved in all ages, since the very cradle of Christianity, by all sorts of Christians, Europeans, Africans, Asiatics, Indians, many of which never had any intercourse with Rome, nor scarcely ever heard of the name of Rome. If semper, ubique et ab omnibus, be not a sufficient plea, I know not what is.

'But because I esteem them Churches not completely formed, do I therefore exclude them from all hope of salvation? or esteem them aliens and strangers from the commonwealth of Israel? or account them formal schismatics? No such thing. First, I know there are many learned persons among them, who do passionately affect Episcopacy; some of which have acknowledged to myself, that their Church would never be rightly settled, till it was new moulded. Baptism is a Sacrament, the door of Christianity, a matriculation in the Church of Christ. Yet the very desire of it, in case of necessity, is sufficient to excuse from the want of actual Baptism. And is not the desire of Episcopacy sufficient to excuse from the actual want of Episcopacy in like cases of necessity? or should I censure these as schismatics?

'Secondly, there are others, who though they do not long so much for Episcopacy, yet they approve it, and want it only out of invincible necessity. In some places the sovereign prince is

however unfounded, however wild, and however extravagant their schemes, are equally right or

of another communion; the Episcopal chairs are filled with Romish bishops. If they should petition for bishops of their own, it would not be granted. In other places, the magistrates have taken away bishops, whether out of policy, because they thought that regiment not so proper for their republics, or because they were ashamed to take away the revenues, and preserve the order, or out of a blind zeal, they have given an account to God, they owe none to me. Should I condemn all these as schismatics for want of Episcopacy, who want it out of an invincible necessity?

'Thirdly there are others, who have neither the same desires, nor the same esteem of Episcopacy, but condemn it as an antiChristian innovation, and a rag of Popery. I conceive this to be most gross schism materially. It is ten times more schismatical to desert, nay, to take away, (so much as lies in them,) the whole order of bishops, than to substract obedience from one lawful bishop. All that can be said to mitigate this fault is, that they do it ignorantly, as they have been mistaught and misinformed. And I hope many of them are free from obstinacy, and hold the truth implicitly in the preparation of their minds, being ready to receive it, when God shall reveal it to them. How far this may excuse (not the crime but) their persons from formal schism, either a toto or a tanto, I determine not, but leave them to stand or fall before their own Master.'-Archbishop Bramhall's Works, fol. edit. p. 164.

As this is a subject of great interest, I subjoin a passage on the point from another divine. Field says (Of the Church, B. iii. c. 39.) There is no reason to be given but that in case of necessity, wherein all bishops were extinguished by death, or being fallen into heresie, should refuse to ordaine any to serve

equally likely to be so with ourselves-to fraternize with every class and every opinion-and by the aid of unmeaning and indefinite expressions, to give to falsehood and disorder a participation in the blessings and the honour of order and truth. And this is termed charity, this is dignified by the

God in his true worship, but that Presbyters as they may doe all other acts, whatsoever special challenge bishops in ordinary course make unto them, might doe this also, who then dare condemne all those worthy ministers of God, that were ordained by Presbyters in sundry churches in the world, at such times as bishops in those parts where they lived, opposed themselves against the trueth of God, and persecuted such as professed it ?' And again, (B. V. c. 27,)' None may ordaine but they only, unlesse it be in cases of extreame necessity, as when all bishops are extinguished by death, or fallen into heresie, obstinately refuse to ordain men to preach the Gospel of Christ sincerely.' And although he thinks that there is no difference between bishops and presbyters in point of orders, he thinks that 'by the decree of the Apostles, to avoid schism, pre-eminence was given to one called the bishop;' and he concludes this 27th chapter with saying that that decree will make all ordinations by any other than a bishop (except in case of extreme necessity) void.-See also Bennet on Schism, ch. x. xi. Brett (Lay Baptism Invalid, Appendix, p. cxxv.) argues this case, on the other side, very strongly, and says, that in the first place, no one who believes Christ's promises, and believes Episcopacy to be the true form, will believe that it ever can be utterly extinguished. If it were,

he thinks, it would be our duty to wait for a fresh Revelation, and not usurp God's prerogative, by claiming the right of instituting a ministry.