intents of princes to their own commodities. And this was the fruit of their auricular confession." And then he adds, "But to speak of right and true confession," that for the grieved in conscience to go to a learned man and get comfort from him, of the Word of God, "I would to God it were kept in England, for it is a good thing."-Latimer's Remains, Park. Soc., p. 180.

In short, the teaching of the Church of England in thelanguage of the Prayer Book is, that the absolution of the burdened, in the cases specified in the Communion exhortation, is to be found from "the comfortable salve of God's Word," for the quieting of their consciences. "As for the absolution for our sins, there is none but in Christ," as Bishop Latimer truly declares. The teaching of Pusey is, that the burdened come, not for comfort merely, nor for advice, but for absolution, at the mouth of the absolvingpriest. What wonder, then, that finding the deficiences and silence of the Prayer Book so discouraging, he has resort to a semi-reformed formulary to substantiate his views ; and failing to find any fair warrant in the Prayer Book, as it now stands, for his general auricular confession, he boldly flings the gauntlet of defiance at text-matter and rubrics by the audacious advocacy of lawlessness. "What I and others desire is that we should, both clergy and laity, be free to do what we severally think (sic) right before God.”—Pusey : Advice on Hearing Confessions, Preface, p. 25.

8.-APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

Does the Church of England teach this doctrine?

To answer the question is somewhat difficult, for the reader must remember that there are two distinct theories

associated with this term, one of which the Church of England certainly teaches, the other of which she certainly loes not.

The one doctrine or theory is this:

That, according to reasonable inference from Holy Scripture, and the facts of primitive Church history, there were three orders in the ministry; and as a matter of fact there has been a succession of carefully ordained episcopal ministers from the Apostles' times to the present.

That the ordaining power is properly exercised by bishops who represent, for example, Timothy and Titus, to whom, and not to mere presbyters, the ordaining function was committed.

That all ordinations performed by such bishops are valid and regular, and that ordinations by others are irregular.

That this, moreover, is a matter which concerns the form and ecclesiastical government of the Church, but is not to be considered as touching the very nature and essence of a Church.

It is, in short, the theory of the Historic Episcopate.

This theory or doctrine is the theory or doctrine of the Church of England. The Preface to the Ordinal, the Twentythird and Thirty-sixth Articles, unquestionably teach it.

The other theory is altogether different, viz., that along with this historic episcopate, or the episcopal succession, and inseparable from it, there is a well-defined system or scheme of doctrine as essential to the Church as the body to the soul or the soul to the body.

This scheme of doctrine is:-
:-

That apart from the episcopal succession there can be no valid ministry.

That all ministers not episcopally ordained are not really ordained.

That without this ordination no minister can administer

valid sacraments.

That without valid sacraments no grace can be conveyed to the soul.

In the terse and emphatic language of Haddan, in his "Apostolical Succession": "This scheme of doctrine obviously is of one piece, and holds together as one complete and homogeneous view. . . It means, in few words, without bishops no presbyters, without presbyters no legitimate certainty of sacraments, without sacraments no certain union with the Body of Christ, viz. His Church, without this no certain union with Christ, and without that union no salvation."

With regard to this clearly defined and logical scheme, we remark three things:

(1) It is not to be found in the Articles, which alone contain the true doctrine of the Church of England, nor in the Prayer Book. The Nineteenth Article declares the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject of the Church, and lays down the notes of the Church—the things that are essential to the very being of the Church.

But it says nothing whatever about the necessity of episcopal ordination to salvation.

It is silent about the idea of the grace of Orders, and those sacraments only being valid which are administered by the ministry of the episcopal succession.

The scheme of doctrine set forth by Pusey and Haddan, and now so widely known as "the" doctrine of the Apostolical Succession, is so bold, and clear, and essential to the very being of the Church, that it is as the keystone to the arch of their whole Church system.

It is not one of a series of notes of the Church, a note which might be inserted or omitted without much matter. It is not, nor could it be, a note at all. It is the note or

nothing. It is the one great, essential, and clearly indispensable note. Without it, the whole system of (falsely so-called) Catholic doctrine falls to the ground.

It is impossible, therefore, to believe that the Church of England, if this were its doctrine, could formulate an Article on the Church, and say nothing about it. As easily could one believe that the Nineteenth Article was written by the Pope of Rome, as believe that the Nineteenth Article was written by Churchmen who held the Haddan theory of Apostolical Succession.

The Twenty-third Article lends no support to this novel theory either. It states, in a very positive way, the necessity of ministerial ordination; and then, in an equally positive but very general way, that lawful ordination is ordination by men who have public authority given to them in the congregation. To extract "without bishops, no salvation," out of the Twenty-third Article is like getting the Papacy of the fifteenth century out of 1 Peter v.-3. As Dean Goode has pointed out, only a man ignorant of the history and theology of the Church of England could fail to admit that this Twenty-third Article was purposely so worded as not to exclude the ministry of the foreign non-episcopal Churches; and Bishop Burnet, also, in his "Exposition of the Articles,” states that the general phraseology of the Article was designed "on purpose not to exclude them.”

The Thirty-sixth Article is equally wanting in support to this novel doctrine. It is inclusive, not exclusive. That is, it declares the lawfulness of the ordination of its own ministers, but is silent about others. To make it prove all other ordinations invalid would be to make it prove too much, for it would then invalidate the ordination of all other episcopal Churches, Eastern and Western.

The Twenty-fifth Article distinctly states that Orders is not a sacrament, and the Thirty-fourth Article that ceremonies

can be changed, or ordained by the various particular churches, so that all things be done to edifying. These Articles joined together disprove completely this Romish theory of the Apostolic Succession.

So with the Preface to the Ordinal. It declared in its first form that the threefold order of the ministry and episcopal ordination should be continued in the Church of England; and since 1662 it has held that, for the purpose of continuing and reverently using and esteeming these orders in the Church of England, no man shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful bishop, priest, or deacon in the Church of England, unless he has, or has had, Episcopal ordination or consecration. See Bishop Fleetwood's "Judgment of the Church of England," pt. ii., p. 24. "They shall not exercise the functions of either Priest or Deacon, but this is in the Church of England." (The italics are the Bishop's.)

(2) It is not to be found in the writings of the great and representative exponents of Church doctrine.

If, as is natural, nothing is said about any scheme of doctrine in the Preface to the Ordinal (though the same cannot be said of the Articles, where the argumentum e silentio is unanswerable), it is only reasonable to look for the systematic and dogmatic exposition of this scheme in the writings of the great Church divines. Certainly, if this great doctrine is the doctrine of the Church of England-the greatest of all Church doctrines-the keystone to the arch of the Church-system-it will be elaborately outlined, and as clearly expounded by them as it is by Keble, Pusey, or Haddan. Yet we look for it in vain.

Not only do the leading Church divines ignore this idea of the connection of sacramental grace and salvation with an episcopally ordained ministry absolutely and purposely (for it is childish to say this theory was not a live question in their day, when the "without bishops, no salvation" dogma was