in the Church of England were inadequate and insufficient for their purpose, and consequently invalid, is an imputation at once too rash and improbable to be considered. For if the forms were insufficient, it follows directly that the Ordinations and Consecrations made, or supposed to have been made, were invalid. And it is obvious that no new forms, however superior to those previously used, or however perfect in themselves, could have repaired and rejoined the chain of succession, in which the links for more than a century were held to have been wanting. Therefore to impute such ignorance of Catholic doctrine and tradition, as well as of ordinary facts, to men like Bishops Cosin, Morley, Sanderson, and Gauden, Doctors Heylin, Pearson, Hacket, Gunning, and Sparrow, as would be involved in such a line of reasoning is to adopt a canon of criticism likely to be rudely set aside and repudiated. Many of these distinguished theologians no doubt regretted that in the Revised Ordinal there was an absence of certain words and ceremonial acts which expressed with singular clearness both the general character of the office conferred and the character imparted: in fact, Cosin, Sanderson, and Sparrow have left such opinions on record, but no indication exists that they believed the revised forms to be invalid. Any such as did so believe would have left the communion of the Church of England for some other part of the Christian Family.

The changes in question, therefore, were obviously made with a sincere desire to carry out the terms of the Commission, and the Church's needs of that particular period. The Commission ordered those appointed to undertake the work of revision

"to compare the Book of Common Prayer with the most Ancient Liturgies that had been used in the Church in the most primitive and purest times," enjoining them "to avoid as much as possible all unnecessary alterations of the Forms and Liturgy, wherewith the people were altogether acquainted, and had so long retained in the Church of England." The arguments regarding the jus divinum of Presbyterianism, to which reference has already been made, were reproduced in every variety of shape and form by some of the ablest supporters of that newly-invented system: for, at the Conference, the King with singular liberality, and the Bishops with true Christian condescension, had consented to allow the upholders of Presbyterianism to state their newly-originated case and to plead their cause.

It was highly desirable, therefore, that, in the work of revision undertaken, such additions to the Forms for Ordination and Consecration should be made, as should once for all set at rest the question whether or not Bishops were essentially superior to Presbyters in the character of their order. And this particular revision, which completely and finally closed the question, was carried out with singular skill and resolution. After the whole Book of Common Prayer had been considered and brought into that shape in which it now stands, the two Houses of both the Convocations of Canterbury and York solemnly and unanimously subscribed to, and ratified the alterations, on the 20th of December, 1661. Three months later Parliament regularly legalized the changes, when Lord Chancellor Clarendon, on behalf of the House of Lords, formally returned thanks to those Bishops and clergy who by

their care and industry had so ably completed the important work intrusted to them.

Alterations made did not

imply, on the

part of those

who made sufficiency of forms.

them, the in

the previous

Now, if in the judgment of competent persons, not excluding Roman Catholic writers, the changes in the Ordinal then made were each and all improvements in every particular, it by no means follows from such a premiss that the Ordinal prior to its revision under consideration, was insufficient for conferring a valid ordination. That Baptism is good and valid which is administered by the river side, or in the peasant's hut, where are secured the integrity of the matter, the integrity of the form, the context of the matter with the subject, and the essential oneness of the action in combination of matter and form together. Other rites, expressive in themselves, superadded (a) for the glory of God, (3) for the greater dignity of the Sacrament, and (7) for the instruction of the faithful, are superfluous as regards the simple validity of the act. So, likewise, in the case under consideration. Validity not being a question of degree, the additions to our Revised Ordinal in 1662, in no respect touch the question. The forms in use from the year 1549 to the last-named date, may have been-as no doubt they were-bald and bare in comparison with the rich and expressive symbolism of medieval rites and additions; but that they, as well as the Revised Forms, were good for their purpose, in substantial agreement with the rules and customs of universal Christendom, and truly valid, it has been the Author's aim to maintain and to prove.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

CONCLUDING REMARKS, AND SUMMARY OF THE AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT.

BEFORE a brief summary is made of the chief

arguments embodied in this treatise, it is necessary in the first instance to call special attention to the great care and regularity with which every detailed act concerning Ordination has ever been done since the religious changes of the sixteenth century.

1. The laws of the Church, duly legalized by the State, save and except during the period of the Great Rebellion-have been continually and consistently enforced; while an examination of any of the Episcopal Registers will abundantly show that it would be impossible in any portion of the Christian Family to have observed greater order, or to have exercised more care, in duly transmitting the graces of the priesthood and the character of the Episcopate. There is no single case in the consecration of a Bishop, in which the Canon of the First Council of Nicæa, the rule laid down by the Apostolical Constitutions, as well as by the first and second Canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage, have not been most strictly observed. In the great majority of instances at least four Bishops have taken part in the act; sometimes as many as six or seven; and any one who has been present at an English Consecration cannot for a moment doubt that all things are done decently

*

and in order. At Lambeth Palace, in the chapel of which the great majority of the Episcopal Consecrations during the past three centuries have taken place, the old traditions of the Church are carefully followed. The chapel, though restored before the present ecclesiological revival had obtained an influence, remains substantially what it is recorded to have been in times past. The order in arranging the service is identical with what it was in Archbishop Parker's day. Precisely the same customs, even as to certain details of entrance and exit, are to the present time duly followed and observed. The traditions of the archiepiscopate of Laud, though rudely broken by the times of civil war and anarchy, were taken up and scrupulously put into practice again under Archbishop Juxon. And so they have remained until now.

With reference, moreover, to the ancient ecclesiastical machinery of the Church of England, it went on without any break or material change. The

* Mr. John Williams, the recent Roman Catholic controversialist evidently unacquainted personally with the nature of such documents, thus comments on certain details in the Register of Parker's Consecration:-"I ask, was there ever such a record of an Episcopal Consecration? Can it be matched, even were you to ransack the Episcopal archives of the whole world? Why, a very large portion is occupied with sheer puerilities! Let us analyse it. Tapestry here, red baize there; a table with a carpet and cushion in one place, a bench with carpet and cushion in another; four chairs in one spot,- -one chair, with a bench, carpet, and cushion in another. A retired naval captain must surely have written it, so precise a reference being made to all points of the compass. Tapestry in E.; a table ditto. Four chairs, S. by E.; chair and bench, N.E. Then the Archbishop sails in, with his whole convoy, due W.: he goes out, and then comes in due N. The next time he leaves is by N.E, returning by the same, and at length makes his final exit W., after a rather intricate voyage."-Letters on Anglican Orders, Second Edition, p. 55. London: 1867.

Y