human
On page 313, an extract from the same Saravia is given, as follows:
gpt
Although I am of opinion that ordinations of ministers of the church properly belong to bishops, yet NECESSITY causes that, when they are wanting and CANNOT BE HAD, _orthodox presbyters can, in case of necessity_, ordain a presbyter; and the author says of it,
human
We take this as Mr. Goode gives it. It is the strongest sentence in the whole passage, and yet it contains no more than what nine tenths of all Episcopal writers gladly allow, viz., (to use the words of Archbishop Parker,)
gpt
Extreme necessity in itself implieth dispensation with all laws. Again, on page 70, after noticing certain objections to this plea of necessity, put forward by individual writers in the church, he continues;
human
There is great force in these objections: nevertheless we think it far better to grant all that the foreign churches claimed in the way of necessity, inasmuch as the English Church certainly did so at the time. A still more definite statement of the same
gpt
occurs on pages 82 and 83:
human
As regards the question before us, the High Churchman and the Low Churchman unite in considering episcopacy a divine institution, and a properly derived authority a _sine qua non_ to lawful ministering in the church. They also agree in believing that real necessity in this, as in every other matter, abrogates law and makes valid whatever is performed under it. We have no wish to multiply quotations, but on this important point we desire to fall into no error and to be guilty of no misrepresentation. We have preferred to give the
gpt
in its own words, rather than in ours, and have no hesitation in repeating the definition we have already given, as setting forth the High Church doctrine, strictly according to its acknowledged organ:
human
Episcopacy is a divine institution, and necessary, where it can be had. Where it cannot be had, presbyters may validly ordain.
gpt
Vox Ecclesiae