opinions only, however, we repeat that if even Archbishop Laud himself did not hold such views, it is very improbable that any other churchman of prominence did so. Bancroft, for example, certainly took high ground on the matter of Episcopacy— such high ground that he, too, like Laud, was attacked as an extremist. Yet even he never went the length of the Tractarians or of the "Catholics" of to-day. As we have seen, when about to consecrate the Scottish Bishops, he expressed his individual opinion as to the validity of their former Presbyterian ordination in no uncertain language, and that this opinion was "applauded" by all the rest of the Bishops, individually, who then, as a collective body, proceeded officially, in the name of the Church, to confer the Episcopate upon this basis. Numberless utterances of similar import, both as to the validity of Presbyterian ordination and the integrity of nonepiscopal Churches, can be cited from the works of nearly all the Caroline divines-even those most prominently concerned in the Revision of 1662. It will be seen, then, that the modern exclusive view of the Episcopate which makes Ministry, Sacrament and Church itself to depend for their very being upon this Order, is so utterly foreign to the teaching of the English Reformers, as well as to all the official acts and utterances of the Church itself of which they, of course, were the authors, and even so foreign to the individual opinions of the more conspicuous divines of the Church for at least 200 years, that it is simply amazing that, when a man undertakes to make such

a statement within the Church to-day, he should be called upon to defend his position at all. For what may seem so strange to those who confine their theological reading to the works of a certain class of Anglican divines only, is simply common talk with historians and scholars outside the fold, and, unfornately, is not unknown, however much ignored, by the best scholars within it. In short, if what we have just asserted seems incredible, we will not attempt to reiterate our own assertions, but will ask a few "catholic" authorities to speak for us. In regard to what the English Reformers thought of this exclusive view of the Episcopate, so popular to-day, no less an authority than Keble (one of the leaders of the Oxford movement) tells us that "it might have been expected that the defenders of the English hierarchy against the first Puritans should take the highest ground, and challenge for the Bishops the same unreserved submission on the same plea of exclusive apostolical prerogative, which their adversaries feared not to insist on for their Elders and Deacons. It is notorious, however, that such was not in general the line preferred by Jewel, Whitgift, Bp. Cooper, and others, to whom the management of that controversy was entrusted during the early part of Elizabeth's reign. . . . It is enough for them to show that the government by Archbishops and Bishops is ancient and allowable; they never venture to urge its exclusive claim, or to connect the Succession with the validity of the Sacraments." (Preface to Hooker's Works.) Remember, these are not our words. It is

the Rev. John Keble who tells you this. It is he who tells you that these men did not "connect the Succession (i.e. of Bishops) with the validity of the Sacraments,” hence with the validity or integrity of a Church, as he (Keble) and his followers, the Tractarians and "Catholics" of to-day have been accustomed to do. Add to this also, the words of John Henry Blunt, another champion of "exclusive" Episcopacy, that “it was not until the close of the Sixteenth Century that the distinction between the Orders of Bishops and Priests was asserted.' (Annot. Bk. Com. Prayer, p. 693, ed. Dutton & Co., 1894.) He means, of course, that before this date Bishop and Priest were regarded as of the same Order. Then what is there in my words which should appear strange? It is simply the testimony of "catholic" authorities themselves. If, therefore, our opponents desire to show that the Church has changed front on this subject, and holds a diametrically different opinion to-day, they must prove that this fundamental doctrinal change was brought about at some point of time after "the close of the Sixteenth Century' since their own authorities admit it was not the teaching of the Church before this period. This is their only hope. Now it is precisely this assumption, so absolutely necessary for the vindication of their views, yet so absolutely without support in actual fact, which they seek to encourage. Thus, by implication, Blunt would have us believe that what was the universally accepted doctrine of the Church down to "the close of the Sixteenth Century," was

subsequently, in some mysterious manner, officially revoked, so that the Church of England to-day officially maintains a doctrine of the Episcopate which is absolutely the reverse of that she held during the Sixteenth Century. He does not, of course, actually make such a statement (since he cannot), but he assumes it. Now it is precisely this fiction we propose to lay bare. We wish to assert most positively, that there is absolutely not one atom of truth in the assumption that this, or any other doctrine of the Church, was officially changed either at the close of the Sixteenth Century, or at any subsequent period in the history of the Church. The Revision of 1662 did not, and could not have changed it, as is popularly imagined, for the plain reason that the Revisers of 1662 tell us themselves in so many words (see Preface to Prayer Book) that they had not attempted to change any “established doctrine” of the Church in anything that they did, which simply means that any construction placed on their acts to that effect to-day, has no authority whatever. That individual opinions upon the subject of the Episcopate may have begun to change at the end of the Sixteenth Century, is one thing, but that the Church as a Church ever changed front officially on that or any other doctrine, either then, or subsequently, is a supposition which has absolutely no evidence in its support. We repeat, it is a generally admitted fact that the only Revision of importance that ever took place after the close of the Sixteenth Century was the Revision of 1662. Since the men who made this revision themselves inform us most clearly and

emphatically that not one of all the amendments then introduced affected any "established doctrine or laudable practice of the Church of England" but were concerned merely with minor, unessential matters, it follows inevitably that the view of the Episcopate, which neither regarded it as an Order separate from the Presbyterate, nor held it to be essential to the validity of the Sacraments and the being of the Church, was in no way affected, but continued, as formerly, the official doctrine. There is no way to escape this conclusion. The doctrinal view of the Episcopate, then, which was entertained by the Reformers, and everywhere assumed in the official acts and utterances of the Church before the close of the Sixteenth Century, continued to be the official view of the Church afterwards. It was never subsequently altered by the Church, and is still the official view, as has been recently stated in the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica in a passage already referred to: "The Church of England expressly recognizes the Diaconate and the Priesthood, but no others, as distinct Orders." (Art. Orders, p. 844.) Right here we may say that what misleads so many persons to-day in regard to the number of Orders recognized by the Anglican Church, and which, we may add, has tended to increase the erroneous impression that the Revisers of 1662 introduced an important doctrinal change (in spite of their emphatic assertions to the contrary) is the statement of the opening words of the Preface to the Ordinal: "It is evident unto all men, diligently reading Holy Scrip