to question the validity of a given law, but he is further permitted to go before the proper legislative assembly at any time and seek its repeal.

While he

is not expected to believe in its truth or efficacy, he is expected, so long as it is a Law of the land, to respect it as such-to conform to its demands. So also no man is required to believe in the infallible Truth of the Thirty-nine Articles, or any other declaration of the Church, as such. On the contrary, he may seek the repeal or revision of any of these authorized Articles and Formularies before the proper authorities, and as an actual matter of fact, the Articles and other Formularies have been repeatedly revised and altered. But while he is not required to profess belief in them, he is required to acknowledge their authority, as the existing doctrines, statutes, and laws of the Church, which as such must be obeyed and conformed to, until they have been legitimately repealed or amended. "Even with respect to those statements (of the Articles) which have been viewed as no more than probable opinions, or which are in truth only matters of history and morals, the candidate for Holy Orders must certify his own willingness to shape his teaching by the public standard, and to yield his unwavering assent to the fitness of the whole collection" (Hardwick's Hist. Art., p. 206). It would be chaos in any Church if such conformity and respect to her individual doctrines or views were not required, and each Clergyman might elect for himself to teach and to preach in her name what he individually conceived to be the truth of any contro

verted matter. Yet this is precisely the sophistry underlying the whole "Catholic" position. Because the Church of England is but a part of a still larger Church, the Holy Catholic Church, it does not follow from this that each individual clergyman of the Church is to teach and to preach in the name of the Church of England (claiming her authority) whatever he, individually, conceives to be the true, original doctrine of the primitive Catholic Church, in utter disregard of the official interpretations and expositions of such "Catholic Truth" which the Church of England herself has authorized. In short, even accepting the hypothesis, as ordinarily stated, to be correct, and that we owe allegiance to the primitive teaching of the Undivided Church before all else, yet who is to determine authoritatively what that primitive doctrine really was: the Church of England as a body, or each individual clergyman as a man? While harping upon the precedence of "Catholic Doctrine" and practice, they forget that the Articles and other formularies of the Church are her official interpretations and expositions of what "Catholic Doctrines and practices" really were. While, therefore, it is perfectly true that the Church of England must bow to what was the teaching of the Church at the very beginning, it is not for individual clergymen of the Church, but rather for the Church as a body, in Convocation assembled, and through official acts and authorized formularies, to determine authoritatively what these primitive doctrines were. Now, it is precisely this that the Church of England has done in her Articles, Prayer

Book and other formularies, hence these, and not the speculations of individual "Catholics" must be accepted and respected by all members of the Church of England as authoritative declarations as to what true Catholic Doctrine really is. We repeat, then, that the declarations of individual clergymen, calling themselves "Catholics," as to what the true doctrines of the primitive Church were, have no authority whatever in this Church. Their opinions as to the nature and extent of the Church Catholic, its doctrines, usages, and practice, are individual opinions-nothing more. It is the interpretation and exposition of all these matters set forth in the Articles and other formularies that are alone to be accepted as authoritative. Moreover, that the Reformers in framing these formularies for the Church of England had always in view the primitive teaching of the Church, and claimed to be loyal to all that was truly catholic, is evident everywhere in their writings. Bishop Jewel in his reply to the Jesuit Harding who charged that they had forsaken the Catholic Church, says: "Nay, we are returned to the Catholic Church of Christ!” Again, he tells us-"We have returned to the Apostles and the ancient Catholic Fathers." (Works, iv., p. 12.) He further asserts in his "Apology" that the faith of the Church of England "is established by the words of Christ and the writings of the Apostles, and by the testimonies of the Catholic Fathers. (Works, iv., p. 15.) It is quite true that his interpretation of what constituted the essential "catholicity" of any given doctrine, was based upon principles foreign to

those employed by our modern "Catholics," but this does not change the fact that both he, and his brother reformers generally, had always the same end in view, viz:-the discovery and establishment of Catholic Doctrine. Thus, unlike our "Catholic" friends, they denied that there was any necessary infallibility in a General Council per se (Art. XXI.), and maintained that only in so far as the decisions of such Councils could be shown to be in conformity with the statements of Holy Scripture, were they to be regarded as authoritative. Even the Creeds were not to be accepted merely because authorized by General Councils, but only because the actual statements contained in them could be shown to have the "most certain warrant of Holy Scripture" (Art. VIII.). While, however, they denied the infallibility of such assemblies, they attached great importance to their decisions as testimony or evidence. Nor was it the decrees of Councils only. All the early Fathers were looked upon as witnesses to the primitive truth, and their writings were searched for statements regarding all matters of controversy. Thus, while nothing but the plainest and most unequivocal teachings of Holy Scripture were to be regarded as infallible, doctrines necessarily to be believed, all conclusions that could be derived by logical deduction from the statements of Holy Scripture, and could further be supported by the testimony of the Fathers and the General Councils of the Church, were to be regarded as Catholic Doctrine. On the other hand, no doctrine, however supported by the statements of the Fathers

and the declarations of General Councils, however prevalent either in Time or Space, that could not show warrant of Holy Writ was to be looked upon as either necessary or Catholic. For, as Bishop Jewel again expresses it, "the Catholic Church of God standeth not in multitude of persons, but in weight of truth." Thus while the Anglican Reformers did not hesitate to apply the Vincentian formula, yet they did so after a rational, not a mechanical fashion. There was no blind, unreasoning appeal to the mere prevalence of a doctrine, "semper, ubique, et ab omnibus," the mere number of witnesses attesting, the "multitude of persons, but rather to the character of their testimony, its "weight of truth" or "fitness in view of other circumstances, its credibility in the light of actual statements of Holy Writ, in connection with the historic position of the witnesses themselves, etc. In short, it was the sane appeal of every Court of Law to-day to the testimony of reliable witnesses-i. e., not to the mere number of witnesses, but to the rational character of the testimony adduced-the evidence which the logic of time, and space, and circumstance warranted as reliable and justifiable. Moreover this appeal to "catholicity' is everywhere apparent in their official acts, as well as in their private writings. They retained the Catholic Creeds as the official expression of the fundamental doctrines of the Church of England. In those Creeds they openly professed their belief "in the Holy Catholic Church." In many official acts they referred approvingly thereto, authorizing particular