exerting all her strength against the Reformed, it surely would have been deemed an uncalled for severity, had the English Church been forward to condemn the Continental brethren; especially as they did not defend the _principle_ of separation from the Episcopacy; but just the reverse. It was surely enough that our Reformers asserted their own principles, (as they plainly did {99b}) without proceeding formally to condemn their “less happy” {99c} brethren abroad. Add to all which, the fact, that that generation of Protestants had, all of them, been baptized in the Catholic Church; and most of their Ministers _had_ received Episcopal Ordination; so that even the next generation might receive valid Baptism. It would be natural of course to pronounce a very careful judgment, if any, concerning such persons. It might have been difficult to say that such communities, however imperfect, were “not Churches.” This might have fully accounted for the reserve of our Reformers, even had it been greater than it was; more especially as the restoration of the lost Succession might not only have been hoped for, but, at one time, even expected. {100} But every one must surely perceive the difference of _our_ position from that of our Reformers. We assert precisely the same principles, and in their _own_ language. But _we_ have to act towards men who on principle _reject_ the Succession; who are not _for certain_ possessed of any Catholically Ordained Teachers, or so surely Baptized people: and who are perpetuating this awfully _doubtful_ and Schismatical state of things. If in our circumstances we were to imitate what is thought the reserve of our Reformers, we might be fairly suspected as not holding their _principles_.