Wordsworth to the Conference, that in view of the above measure, "we should now recognize the full ministerial standing of clergymen presbyterially ordained, providing that hereafter all their ordinations should be by Bishops," was agreed to by "ten out of the twelve members of the Committee," the Archbishop of Canterbury adding his "very full and hearty sympathy with it." The Conference refrained only from actually taking this last step because "being only a Conference, it had no authority so to act." Moreover Dr. Vincent, the Assistant Bishop of Southern Ohio, who appears to have been in a position to know the mind of the Committee, openly assured the public shortly after that this was the intent of the clause. Says he: "Nothing is said here of Episcopacy as of Divine institution or necessity, nothing of "Apostolic Succession," nothing of a Scriptural origin or a doctrinal nature in the institution. It is expressly proposed here only in its 'historical character' and as 'locally adapted to the varying needs of God's people.' All else, unless it be its Scripturalness, is a matter of opinion, to which this Church HAS NEVER FORMALLY COMMITTED HERSELF. Her position here is the same broad and generous one taken in the Preface to her Ordinal. That phrase, 'the Historic Episcopate,' WAS DE

LIBERATELY CHOSEN AS DECLARING NOT A DOCTRINE BUT A FACT, AND AS BEING GENERAL ENOUGH FOR ALL

VARIANTS." (Cited in Church Reunion on Basis of Lambeth Conference Propositions, p. 48.) There can be no doubt whatever, therefore, that this was the meaning of the phrase, and the cordial response of Dr. Briggs and other prominent divines to the proposition on this understanding, fully evidences what was, and is, the attitude of Protestant leaders, towards a rational and sane conception of the Episcopate. Had it not been for the agitation immediately aroused in "Catholic" circles lest this broad and comprehensive view of the matter should be allowed to pass, it is quite safe to say the effect of the famous Quadrilateral would have been far reaching. As it was, the Protestant Churches, generally, dropped all further consideration of the matter, until the Episcopal Church could give official assurance that nothing further was demanded than what the plain wording of the clause implied. In short, Brethren of the Anglican Communion, you hold the key to the solution of one of the most difficult as well as one of the most important problems confronting the Church Catholic to-day. Only exercise a little commonsense moderation, and commendable Christian liberality, a liberality, remember, which involves the sacrifice of no principle whatever, the surrender of no essential dogma of the Faith, nor even a single OFFICIAL doctrine of your Church. Only exercise such a commendable spirit and, with the probable exception of the Roman Communion, you may ultimately bring the whole Christian World into one common organization. Whereas, once lose your heads, and be led away by vain dreams of "exclusive" authority and catholicity, and all hope of organic unity is lost. The one view makes for Church Unity, because, while sacrificing no ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLE, it simultaneously recognizes every denomination as a part of the Church Catholic which it seeks to unite. The other places an insuperable obstacle in the way of such Unity by insisting upon a principle as INDISPENSABLE, which can never be shown such, and which simultaneously excludes at least one fourth of those "who profess and call themselves Christians" from membership in the Church Catholic. We repeat: to consider these pages an attack upon Episcopacy per se, is wholly to misunderstand, or else intentionally to misrepresent us. We are not attacking anything that is really true and valuable in this institution, but only the_false and superficial accretions which have been from time to time added to it. In fact, we are not attacking Episcopacy but Prelacy, not attacking the reasonable and just claims that it has a right to offer, but only those unjust pretensions too often made in its behalf, which can never be substantiated. The Episcopate proper is of too great value and importance to the Church, possesses far too much genuine worth, ever to need to be bolstered up by such unscholarly and utterly indefensible pretensions. Indeed, it is these very false, superfluous, and unnecessary claims that have created the present antipathy towards it upon the part of the Protestant Churches generally. Such EXAGGERATIONS are not going to secure victory for it, but only ruin-simply because they are exaggerations-simply because they are narrow, intolerant, exclusive, and are further WELL KNOWN TO BE UNTRUE. On the other hand, a moderate, rational, common-sense view of the Episcopate, such as the English Reformers maintained, and such as this Church has ever OFFICIALLY recognized, is impregnable. To put it squarely, if you are going to insist that the Episcopate is, by Divine appointment, an absolute ESSENTIAL to the very BEING of EXISTENCE of the Church so that all those bodies that are without it are entirely cut off from the CATHOLIC CHURCH, and cannot be recognized as parts of it, you are going to make a claim: which (1) You can never demonstrate to be true; which (2) Is contrary to the OFFICIAL teaching of your own Church; which (3) Will never be admitted by Protestants generally, because satisfied that it is wholly false; and which (4) Because of the obstacle it presents to Christian Unity, will largely place upon you the awful responsibility of continuing the spirit of schism in the Church Universal. On the other hand, if you will defend the Episcopate upon the reasonable ground: that (1) No matter what view may be taken of its origin, it unquestionably possesses DIVINE AUTHORITY; that (2) It is that form of Government which is HISTORIC and was PREVALENT down to the Reformation; that (3) It continues still to be the PREVAILING form of Government in the Christian world; that (4) This antiquity and universality naturally demand a consideration and respect, to which no other form of government can lay claim; that (5) Experience has proved it to be the most expedient for insuring stability, order, unity, and continuity in the Church; that (6) The further fact that it is even at this day the form under which the MAJORITY of Christian people are living, makes it the only form of government that it can reasonably be expected the Christian World can agree upon. If you will defend it upon these grounds asking Protestant Churches to adopt it, not because it is a sine qua non, and their own forms without validity, but because it is the only form that has PREVAILED, that is really Historic, that has, speaking generally, been characteristic of the Church Universal throughout its entire History, and because it is for many other reasons the BEST and the most EXPEDIENT,