of Sir Harry Trelawney's opinions in 1831, sufficient space is given for an exceeding great amount of industry. Into the details of each chapter we cannot enter, since their consideration would require a volume bulky as that of our author; but we hope by discussing the main points, historical and theological, of the controversy, to afford our readers ample proof of our assertion that the fortress of Anglican Orders is not defensible or safe. The canonical questions connected with it we purposely leave untouched, because the validity, which is all that Dr. Lee contends for, is not affected by them.

The first part of the book is taken up by a long series of extracts from various sources, consisting of the forms for ordination and consecration; and they are quoted as so many arguments in favour of the theory that the Anglican form is valid. How far they support this theory we shall see in the course of our examination. The groundwork of our argument shall be an extract from the book itself. At page 81 the author says: "Martene sums up what is essential for the ordination of a priest in the eighteenth section of the ninth article of his treatise-a conclusion which harmonizes completely with the principles which underlay the revised Ordinal of the English Church from the year 1549 to its final revision in 1662, and which equally characterizes it in its existing form. He thus states his decision-Cum igitur materia presbyteratus dici non possit traditio instrumentorum, nec consequenter forma verba illa solemnia, quæ tunc profert cum illa tradit episcopus; restat ut totam ejus essentiam in impositione manuum et orationibus, quæ consequenter recitantur, tertiâ præsertim prolixa, quæ per modum præfationis cantatur, in antiquis Pontificalibus Consecratio dicta, constituamus. Hanc solam hactenus agnoscunt omnes Orientales, hanc solam Patres antiqui, hanc solam Scriptura." Dr. Lee here accepts the decision of Dom Martene regarding the validity of matter and form; nay more, he professes from that decision to make his own case good. Now Martene says that "the whole essence" of the priesthood consists in "the imposition of hands and the prayers which are said after, especially the third long one, which is sung in the style of a preface, and called in the old Pontificals The Consecration." In these prayers the bishop expressly prays "super hos famulos tuos benedictionem Sancti Spiritus, et gratiæ sacerdotalis infunde virtutem"; and again, "Da, quæsumus, Omnipotens Pater, in hos famulos tuos Presbyterii dignitatem." From this we justly infer that in the form some words indicative of the order to be conferred should be expressed in order to render it valid. This conclusion is greatly strengthened by the very examples which Dr. Lee adduces; and we cannot help wondering at the state of mind which could induce him to believe that they tell for, instead of against himself. For

instance, in the form taken from the Apostolical Constitutions (p. 71) the Bishop prays thus, "Look down also now upon this Thy servant, elected by the consent of the whole clergy into the order of presbyters." At page 92 he confesses that in the Greek MS. quoted by Morinus, there is in the form "a prayer asking for special graces fitting and appropriate for each respective office." In the Oriental form (p. 101) the Bishop prays, "O God, who hast honoured with the title of priest those accounted worthy to discharge the holy ministry of the word of Thy Truth in this degree make Thy servant perfect, in all things well-pleasing unto Thee, and guiding well this great Priestly honour given unto him by Thy foreknowing power. Looking at all these testimonics drawn from such various sources, seeing (as a perusal of Dr. Lec's book shows) that in every case these prayers are recited after the imposition of hands, we can arrive at but one conclusion, that the expression in all these forms of the priestly office or its functions is without doubt a sine quá non for the validity of the form of ordination. We have no intention of disputing the validity of priestly ordination in the Anglican Church on the ground of inadequate form; on the contrary, we confess that the form in the Ördinal of 1549 may be sufficient, though its terms are ambiguous; but the consideration of Martene's decision leads to the second part of our argument.

As in the ordination of priests, so in the consecration of bishops the matter and form consist in "impositione manuum et orationibus quæ eam consequenter recitantur." This is proved, as in the former case, by an appeal to the forms of consecration quoted by Dr. Lee. We need not reproduce them; it is sufficient to say that in every one the episcopal order or functions is mentioned. But there is in these forms one curious coincidence which we cannot refuse ourselves the pleasure of noticing. Amongst his other forms Dr. Lee quotes one "most ancient" from the Missale Francorum, to which he gives the date 550. It is a beautiful prayer, and contains ample reference to the office of a bishop, as for instance "chosen to the ministry of the High-Priesthood"-" complete in the Priest. the chief (summam) of Thy ministry "-" give unto him the episcopal chair," &c. This form is, almost word for word, the prayer which is recited (quæ consequenter recitatur) after the imposition of hands, and the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum in the Roman Pontifical of to-day. So that the form which Rome now uses has at least the antiquity of nearly 1400 years to recommend it; and we may learn how much reliance is to be placed on Dr. Lee's testimony when he tells us that in "the prayer which immediately follows these words (Accipe Spiritum Sanctum) no mention is made of the episcopal function or dignity!" But we thank him nevertheless for the evidence he has adduced, and we realize once more the

truth" Fas est et ab hoste doceri." Comparing these forms, in each of which the office or dignity of bishop is designated, with that which Dr. Lee offers for our inspection in the Ordinal of 1549, we must confess a feeling of amazement at the supposition that there is anything in common between it and them. While in them everything is precise, every word weighed; in it we have a form as vague as words could make it; which would serve equally well for Confirmation as for Orders; and which, if it be sufficient, raises in our minds a doubt whether the Samaritans were not all bishops, since we read" they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. We examine it word by word and line by line, only to rise from our deliberation convinced that it stands, like the Church to which it belongs, alone and isolated from the world. If we test it by the conditions which we find in the other forms we must declare it insufficient, null, and invalid. We say this in no spirit of triumph over Dr. Lee, it is simply the result of the evidence which he himself has placed before us, and which we have drawn out to its logical conclusions.

Before we turn to a consideration of the historical part of the work, we must turn aside for a few moments to study the new theology which we find laid down by Dr. Lee regarding Baptism and its effects. He opens Chapter XXI. with the theological axiom "Baptismus est janua Sacramentorum," and then after declaring its necessity, he goes on to say that actual baptism by water may be supplied in two ways, by desire or by martyrdoin, as far as regards salvation. In this he is but declaring Catholic doctrine; but the conclusion which he ventures to deduce from this statement is so new that it deserves to be placed on record, if only to show what arguments men will dare to employ in a hopeless cause. Dr. Lee concludes (from the fact that baptism by desire is sufficient for salvation) that in the case "of persons who had never been validly baptized becoming bishops and consecrating others, it does not follow that their episcopal acts would be invalid. Because the baptism by desire is universally admitted to be sufficient for salvation when the baptism of water cannot be obtained, Dr. Lee says, "it seems to follow that he (who has only baptism by desire) is capable of receiving other sacraments, as ordination, though of course he would not be capable of receiving this validly had he knowingly neglected baptism, or should he neglect to supply the omission on becoming aware of it." We are told there is nothing new under the sun; but we venture to affirm that such a conclusion as this has been unknown hitherto to most people, if not to all. It might not be dangerous if it were recorded only as Dr. Lee's opinion; but he insinuates, if we rightly understand him, that his conclusion is endorsed, or, at least, VOL. XV.—NO. XXIX. [New Series.]

I

"An

can be gathered from the ordinary teaching of Western Catholic doctors. Now, without one moment's hesitation, we declare that no Catholic could teach such a doctrine. Bellarmine, to whom Dr. Lee refers, and whom we choose as one of many, does not accept the conclusion; and we cannot help asking, did Dr. Lee read the whole chapter to which he refers, or did he read only so much as favoured his own opinion? For, after explaining in what baptism by desire supplies for baptism by water, Bellarmine gives his fourth proposition in these words :-"Martyrium, et Conversio ad Deum, licet Baptismata quædam sint; non sunt tamen Sacramenta." But for the reception of sacraments, it is necessary to pass through the gate of the sacraments, in other words, to receive sacramental baptism. If this be not true, then it must inevitably follow, from Dr. Lee's reasoning, that there can be a sacrament without any matter or form; which is manifestly absurd. The whole state of the question is so clearly put by Sardagna that we will quote the passage entire for the benefit of our readers; and that men may see how widely different is Dr. Lee's opinion from the teaching of the Catholic Church. baptismus sanguinis, seu martyrium suppleat in adultis virtutem baptismi aquæ ? Resp: affirmative quoad effectum gratiæ, remissionem peccatorum, omnisque pœnæ peccato debitæ tam temporalis quam æternæ ; quoad alios autem effectus, baptismus aquæ suppleri nequit; videlicet, quoad impressionem characteris, capacitatem proximam suscipiendi alia sacramenta, jus participandi bona Ecclesiæ, incorporationem cum Ecclesiâ, ac subjectionem potestati et jurisdictioni Ecclesiæ." Having drawn his own conclusion, Dr. Lee finishes his chapter on baptism by a "consolation" for his friends, that the supposition of unbaptized persons conferring orders frequently enough to break the apostolic succession is "an improbability so great as to be morally inconceivable." He speaks as if care in the administration of the Sacraments was the one thing of all others for which the English Church has been remarkable; as if there had been no time, of which Lingard speaks, when "it became necessary to establish for the moment a class of lay instructors, consisting of mechanics, licensed to read the service to the people in the church"; as if there had been no Commonwealth or reign of Puritanism; as if the Restoration had brought back with it times of apostolic purity and reverence, instead of deluging the kingdom with licentiousness, and forgetting even the very forms of religion; as if, in fine, the present position of what Dr. Lee would call the Catholic Church in England was not the development of our own days, but a natural inheritance handed down from father to son in every age, and in whose title-deeds no flaw or defect could by any means be traced. Would that, for the sake of the English Church, we could think so! but the whole

history of the times since the Reformation speaks too loudly to be doubted, and is too well-known to need repetition.

Dr. Lee's "doctrine of intention," too, deserves a passing notice, if only to point out its sophisms. In matters of Common Law we might bow to his decisions; but we are compelled to dissent widely from his theological reasonings. He mingles things which ought to be kept separate, and draws conclusions from premisses. which have no connection with each other, insomuch that we sometimes ask in wonder if he is attempting to mislead rather than guide the readers of his book. The chapter on Intention begins by stating fairly enough the various kinds of intention, and what kind is necessary for the administration of a sacrament; then the author proceeds to apologize for the Reformation Patriarchs by saying that, with regard to their consecrations and ordinations, "We may reasonably and properly assume that they acted in good faith, unless there exist direct reasons for an opposite conclusion." So far, good."Now, in the cases of Barlow and Scory, it has been asserted that, owing to certain loose principles which were current at the period of Parker's consecration, and which, at one period, Barlow certainly, and Scory probably, shared, they could have had no such intention in conferring holy orders, as is needful to ensure the validity of the Sacramental Act." These "loose principles," were nothing less than a denial of sacramental orders, as instituted by our Lord; and, as "Barlow certainly, and Scory probably, shared them, the natural inference would seem to be that there do exist direct reasons for concluding that they did not act in their ordinations in good faith, and therefore had no intention of conferring the sacrament. But Dr. Lee's mind is superior to the claims of logic, where his position has to be defended coûte qui coûte, and so he replies in this manner: "To this it may be broadly answered" (we cannot help asking if "broadly" should be interpreted "wide of the mark?")"that the unworthiness of the minister hinders not the effect of the sacraments." The proposition is sound; the only difficulty in our mind is what has it to do with the subject. are not considering the unworthiness of the minister but his intention; and we can see no parallel between the priest who says Mass in mortal sin, to quote S. Isidore's example, and Barlow conferring orders which he scorned and disbelieved. There is between the two the world-wide difference between faith and unbelief; and it is not moral guilt which would render Barlow's ordinations null; it is his want of intention to do what the Church does, which we assume, with reason, to be the natural sequence of his avowed disbelief in orders as a sacrament. His opinions on the subject, expressed at the Windsor Conference, are too well-known to admit of doubt, and therefore the onus lies on Dr. Lee to prove that those opinions were renounced or recalled. Instead of proof, he merely affirms

We