deposed

and Pres

§ 39. And this is not merely an inference Case of fairly deducible from the principles of the system. Bishops I have even met with persons who acknowledged byters. that, if a Bishop, of our own Church for instance, who had been, for some crime, removed and degraded by regular process, should think proper afterwards to ordain men Priests or Deacons, though he and they would be legally punishable, still his Ordinations would be valid, and these men consequently (however morally unfit) real Clergymen, capable of exercising the spiritual functions. This is to recognise a fearful power, and that, placed in the very worst hands, of producing and keeping up schism with something of an apparent divine sanction to give it strength. For on this principle, a Bishop of some other Church-the Roman-catholic for instance, or the Greek-who should have been ejected from his Diocese, might take upon him to ordain men according to the rites of our Church, and we should be bound to recognise his Ordinations as valid.

I need hardly remark, that, according to the principles I have been endeavouring to maintain, a Bishop when removed from his Diocese, (whether for any crime, or otherwise) and not appointed to any other, though he may continue a member of the episcopal Order, (unless reguSee above, § 32.

larly removed from it by competent authority,) ceases altogether, ipso facto, to be a Bishop, in respect of episcopal functions; and has no more right to ordain, or to perform any other act, in the capacity of a Bishop, than a Layman would have: that is, till the same, or some other Christian Church shall think proper to receive him in that capacity.d

If indeed any Church should be so very unwise as to recognise as Clergymen persons ordained by a deprived Bishop, these would undoubtedly be Ministers of that Church; because that recognition would constitute them such; and a Christian Community has power (though in that case there would be a gross abuse of its power) to determine who shall be its Officers. But what I

For it is evident that as, in respect of Church-regulations, the powers of "binding" and of "loosing" have, equally, the divine sanction, so, the power of any Christian Church to admit any one, either simply into the number of its Members, or into any particular Order or Office, implies a power to remove him from either, when the case shall be such as to call for his removal.

For a Bishop, it should be observed, does not, in becoming such, enter on a new Profession, (as he did on taking orders) but only on a new description of Office in his profession. A person may indeed, as I have said, continue to belong to a certain Order of Clergy, though with suspended functions; but the important point to be insisted on is, that no official acts have any validity but what is derived from the Community to which, in each case, the Officer belongs.

am contending against, is, the notion of an inherent indefeasible sacramental virtue conveyed by the imposition of hands, and giving validity to the official acts, regular or irregular, of the persons possessing it. And this does seem to me a most pernicious as well as groundless tenet, tending to destroy the rightful authority of a Church, by unduly exalting the pretended privileges of its Functionaries.

On the same principle which has been now set forth in respect of Bishops, the acts of a Presbyter, or Deacon, or other Minister, of any Church cease to be valid, as soon as ever the Christian Community in which he was appointed, withdraws its sanction from his acts. If another Church think fit to receive him as a Minister, they have an undoubted right to do so; and he then becomes a Minister of that Church. So he does also, when not expelled from the Society to which he originally belonged, supposing the Church to which he transfers himself thinks fit to recognise the Ordinations of the other; which they may do, or refuse to do, entirely at their own discretion. This is a point which every Church has a full right to determine according to its own judgment.

And as for the individual himself who is regularly deprived by his Church, if, on becoming a Clergyman, he engaged (as is required by,

I believe, most existing Churches) that he would follow no other profession, of course he cannot absolve himself from that engagement; but must continue so far a Clergyman, though with suspended functions. Moreover a Church has a right, though I think such a regulation a very unwise one, to recognise as valid the acts of a degraded Minister; (while subjecting him nevertheless to penalties for performing such acts) or of a Layman.

Concerning several points of this class,—such as the validity of lay-baptism, or of baptism by heretics or schismatics, &c. questions have been often raised, which have been involved in much unnecessary perplexity, from its being common to mix up together what are in fact several distinct questions, though relating to the same subject. For instance, in respect of the validity of Laybaptism, three important and perfectly distinct questions may be raised; no one of which is answered by the answering, either way, of the others: viz. 1st. What has a Church the right to determine as to this point? 2dly. What is

It would be, I am convinced, very advantageous that this rule should be modified as regards Deacons. We might avail ourselves of the services of some very useful assistants, if we would admit to this subordinate office some who could not maintain themselves wholly, without resorting (as the Apostle Paul did) to some secular employment.

the wisest and best determination it can make? and, 3dly. What has this or that particular Church actually determined? Now persons who are agreed concerning the answer to one of these questions, may yet differ concerning the others; and vice versa.1

f

tradition

ble of being

by clear ar

guments.

§ 40. But to return to the consideration, System of generally, of the whole system of what is called ists incapa"Catholic tradition," &c. which I have been supported censuring; it is calculated, as has been said, to produce at the first glance a striking and imposing effect, and to recommend itself strongly to the imagination and the feelings of some persons: but will not stand the test of a close examination. The advocates of these doctrines, accordingly, either from a consciousness of this, or else from indistinctness in their own conception, often set them forth with something of oracular obscurity and ambiguity, half concealed behind a veil, as it were, of mystery; as something of which the full import and complete proof were to be reserved for a chosen few. And when clear evidence is demanded of a sufficient foundation for the high pretensions put forth, and the implicit submission that is demanded, we are sometimes met by a rebuke of the “pride

See Appendix, Note (0.)