I must, however, direct more particular attention to one part of his system which did not require to be brought out prominently. We have seen that he thought it possible for the Church to lose whole members. In fact, although he thought that the truth was kept up by the succession of bishops _throughout the Church_, and that it was a mark of truth to be so kept up, he still believed that presbyters or bishops might, through pride, or other evil motives, make schisms in the Church(184); and he taught that those were to be adhered to who, with the succession, keep the Apostles’ doctrine, and lead good lives(185); implying, of course, that some who were in the succession might depart from the Apostles’ doctrine. The succession was not, therefore, in his opinion, an infallible test of truth in the individual Church. Any individual Church, or even a considerable number or collection of Churches, might fall into heresy, and thus become cut off from the Church; but it is evident that he did not think this possible to happen to the great body of the Church. It is manifest from this that he thought the private Christian must sometimes pass judgment upon his bishop, and might be called upon to separate from him, and to adhere to those who were more orthodox. In what cases this was requisite, or what was to be the extent of the alienation, he does not give any hint; but this clearly establishes that he thought private judgment upon religious controversy to be sometimes a duty: for without the exercise of private judgment upon the part of the layman, it would be in some cases impossible for him to show his preference for those bishops who adhered to the Apostles’ doctrine.