thirty-nine articles, as they afterward became, which affirmed the absolute necessity of episcopal government, or any thing which denied the validity of nonepiscopal bodies. On the contrary, it is evident from the circumstances, from the phraseology, and from the testimony of history, that they were expressly intended to acknowledge the Protestant Reformed Churches, which were not episcopal.

We turn to the forty-two articles to see if there is any thing that declares the invalidity of non-episcopal churches. The twentieth article (now the nineteenth), on the Church, says:

"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same."

In this definition of a Christian Church there is no proclamation or suggestion of episcopal government as a requisite, or, indeed, of the necessity of any particular form of polity, but its very wording leads to the inference that, though forms vary, there might be in all the true visible Church. Its definition of "the visible Church of Christ" is "a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly ministered." Even in regard to preaching and the administration of the sacraments, it seems to suggest that there may be differences, for all that is required is that these

shall be done "in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same;" but it does not presume to declare in detail what things are necessary. This article, therefore, gave them latitude to recognize any Protestant body, no matter what its form of government might be, whether Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Congregational; and, from the relations existing between the English reformers and the Continental reformers, the legitimate inference is that this article was so constructed for the express purpose of covering the other Protestant Reformed Churches, which were not episcopal.

The twenty-fourth article (now the twenty-third), defining the ministry, says:

"It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation, to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard."

There is not a single word in this article declaring the necessity of apostolic succession through bishops or others, or of ordination by bishops as distinct from presbyters, or of the necessity of three ministerial orders.

Whatever the Church of England of that day pre

ferred for itself, when it came to define a valid ministry for the Christian Churches in general, it did not specify how many ministerial orders there should be, or by what particular form or method the minister should be set apart for his work. The article merely declares that a minister is one who is "lawfully called" to the work of "preaching, or ministering the sacraments," and that those are "lawfully called and sent" "which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." This is so broad that it recognizes those called and set apart according to the law and form of any church, or, where the church is congregational, by the independent congregation ; and the article distinctly says, in the phrase "we ought," that the Church of England "ought to judge " such persons as "lawfully called and sent," or, in other words, as legitimate Christian ministers. Indeed, it was the evident intention of the makers of this article to recognize the ministry of those Protestant Reformed Churches which were without episcopal government. So Bishop Burnet says: "The general words in which this part of the article is framed seem to have been designed on purpose not to exclude them.”*

That the English reformers intended to recognize diversities of government and usage in the true

*Burnet on the XXXIX Articles. See on Art. XXIII.

Church may be inferred from the thirty-third article (now the thirty-fourth). It says:

"It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies. be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.”

So that though the Book of Common Prayer and the various rites and ceremonies of the Anglican Church were "by all faithful members of the Church of England, but chiefly of the ministers of the word, with all thankfulness and readiness of mind, to be received, approved, and commended to the people of God" (Árticle XXXV of the forty-two articles), yet there is not the slightest disposition manifested to expect them to be received by other churches, or the faintest intimation that churches not conforming to them are not true churches; but, on the contrary, that a Christian body may be a true church, though differing in "traditions and ceremonies," and Bishop Burnet, commenting on the articles, declares "that not only those who penned the articles, but the body of this Church for above half an age after, did, notwithstanding these irregularities, acknowledge the foreign churches so constituted to be true churches as to all the essentials of a church, though they had been irregularly formed and continued still to be in an imperfect state."

* Burnet on the XXXIX Articles. See on Art. XXIII.

It is true that the preface to the Ordinal of 1550 speaks of the orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, but this was an inheritance from the other days. We have seen how it happened that the episcopal form was retained in England, though it was discarded on the Continent, so that the Church in England continued to be episcopal while the Protestant Church on the Continent became presbyterial. Under the circumstances it was quite natural that, having the episcopal form, they would provide for its perpetuity.

Further, in the light of other declarations, such as those which have been quoted, it must appear that the word order in reference to bishops must have been used in a qualified sense, for it was expressly declared, not only by individuals in authority, but also by official and authoritative statements, that bishops and priests were the same order, and that bishop was not indicative of order but of office.

Goode, referring to the preface, says: "The remark there made as to the three orders of the ministry having existed from the times of the apostles is simply the statement of a fact, which does not touch the question of the validity of the orders of the foreign non-episcopal churches." *

To declare that there have been the orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, since the times of the

* The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, by William Goode, M.A., F.S.A., of Trinity College, Cambridge, Rector of All Hallows the Great and Less, London. London, 1855, pp. 290, 291.