This theoretical conception of these ordinances will serve greatly to assist us in meeting a theoretical difficulty, not unfrequently brought against the Doctrine of the Succession. It is said: ‘Is it not very conceivable, after all that has been urged, that during the long course of ages, in _some_ countries at least, some one break in the Apostolic chain _might_ have occurred? Is it not a consequence, in that case, that all subsequent Ordinations would be very doubtful?’ To which we reply, ‘Point out _the fact_.’ We challenge you to find it; a bare supposition can have but little force as an argument. And then, supposing the fact to be discovered, That a certain Bishop had obtained his place in the Church by invalid means—what is the consequence? Could he perpetuate such an invalid Succession? Certainly not; for in Ordaining others, he would be associated with _two_ other Bishops, whose valid grace would confer true Orders, notwithstanding the inefficacy of the third coadjutor in the Ordination. But, putting the case at the very worst, even if such an instance could be found, it would only affect the condition of the single Church over which the nominal Bishop presided; and that only so far as the particular functions of that Bishop were concerned; and it would be corrected at his death. And all this may be urged in reply even by Romanists. But we who deny Holy Orders to be a proper Sacrament of CHRIST, can add more than this. We suggest, that in the case of a Bishop obtaining his place in the Church by some invalid means, which the Church had mistaken for valid, the Church’s INTENTION might avail sufficiently, for the time being at least, to counteract the effects of man’s sin; and so give value even to the ministrations of the Church which had been so severely visited, as to have such a Bishop set over them. So we meet the theoretical difficulty by a theoretical answer. III.