Catholic Church and Bishop of its own, fully recognised by the British Government.

And, as the Macedonian woman appealed from Philip drunk to Philip sober, so we appeal from Cosin in 1650,-a cowed, dispirited exile, just surviving the total overthrow of the Anglican polity, and finding no such brotherly good-will exhibited to him and his fellows by the Roman clergy in France as their emigrant successors found with us, more than a century later, when they fled to English shelter from the Terror (for the Jesuits had seduced his only son from him, and poached eagerly for converts amongst his scanty congregation in Paris), and so inclined to turn towards foreign Protestants,-to Cosin in 1660, restored to England, powerfully influencing the direction of the last settlement of the Church, and ruling, as Bishop of Durham, for twelve years afterwards, without any action in favour of non-Episcopalian ministers.

No, by that time the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England had learnt through bitter experience what Presbyterianism and Independency, which they had viewed in their French, Dutch, and German forms with too partial eyes, were in their practical working at home, and they took care that no such loophole for the admission of their ministers into places of trust as may have been utilised, however illegally, in the past, should be possible for the future. Accordingly, the clause in the last Act of Uniformity, enforcing Episcopal ordination, is exactly parallel in its object with the new clause in the Coronation oath introduced in 1689. Neither was intended to bring in a new order of things, both were meant to prevent the possibility of evasion and subversion of the laws under colour of a tenable gloss, of which Abbot on the one hand and James II. on the other had been guilty.

There are so many tokens of scanty reading and imperfect knowledge in the Quarterly Reviewer's statements, that a large part of his errors may charitably be set down to that cause; but when it comes to sheer misinterpretation of events which are dead against his theory, it is not so easy to excuse him. A palmary example is the way in which he deals with the notorious fact that Archbishop Bramhall of Armagh reordained the Presbyterian ministers whom he found holding benefices in his diocese after the Restoration. Bramhall, like a Christian, a gentleman, and a practical man of the world, did this in the least irritating and aggressive way that he could, declaring that he did not enter on the question of the validity of their Orders or of the acts performed in virtue thereof, nor yet on that of the Orders of any foreign Reformed bodies,

but that he merely supplied what was lacking according to the Canons of the Church of England, so as to give them the legal status and rights which they did not previously enjoy. This the Reviewer glosses as showing that Bramhall 'emphatically repudiated the assumption that Presbyterian Orders were invalid,' and that it is the authority of the State, and not that of the Church of England, which requires Episcopal Orders.'

We will cite, as the Reviewer has done, the strongest clause from the letters of orders which Bramhall granted to one of these re-ordained pastors, to let our readers see what has been carefully distorted into 'emphatic repudiation of invalidity: '

'Non annihilantes priores ordines (si quos habuit) nec validitatem aut invaliditatem eorum determinantes, multo minus omnes ordines sacros ecclesiarum forensicarum condemnantes, quos proprio judici relinquimus.' We should have thought that it would have been difficult to choose expressions which, without roughly wounding the susceptibilities of the persons concerned, could have more thoroughly conveyed the Archbishop's conviction of the invalidity of their Orders. And while he appeals to the civil law to persuade them for their temporal advantage, it is on the Canon law, not on the Act of Uniformity, that he rests his own action, and by which he supplies what they lacked-namely, everything which constitutes a valid minister.

So much for the question of home relations to non-Episcopalians. Now let us turn to that of formal intercourse between the Church of England and foreign Protestant bodies.

That no such intercourse exists now, or has existed for two centuries past, despite some coquetting with Lutherans at the accession of George I. (one trace of which survives in the Lutheran Chapel Royal within S. James's Palace) and the fiasco of the Jerusalem Bishopric in our own day, is patent to all inquirers. The Church of England is not Protestant at this moment, if this test be applied. How about the past? Our Reviewer, jerking a sneer at a little book by Mr. Homersham Cox, bearing the same title as his own article, quite fails to refute that gentleman's historical statement that Henry VIII.'s negotiations with foreign Protestants broke down, and that as a fact these negotiations were not practically renewed under Edward VI. or Elizabeth. He gives up all that as hopeless, and tries what he can do with the fact that four English delegates-a bishop, a dean, an archdeacon, and a divinity professor-sat and voted in the Calvinistic Synod of Dort. In truth, this is not merely the first, but the only, example producible. And let us see

what it comes to after all. To begin with, who commissioned the deputies? To commit the Church of England, it is necessary that they should have been synodically empowered to represent and pledge the Anglican body. But whereas the Synod of Dort met in 1618, no Convocation of either province assembled in England between 1614 and 1621 (Joyce: England's Sacred Synods, p. 648), so that there was no proper authority in existence to commission them at setting out, or to receive their report on their return. They went purely as political emissaries of King James I.—a fact which Macaulay, using the event for the same purpose as the Reviewer, indiscreetly discloses by the means he adopts to colour the proceeding more highly, for he says that the deputies were 'commissioned by the head of the English Church.'—(Hist. Eng. chap. i.)

Next, what is really needed to make out the case is to show, not that Dutch Protestants admitted English clergymen, whose ministerial character they had no ground for disputing, to vote in their Synod; but that Anglicans allowed Dutch Protestants to sit and vote in Convocation. The reciprocity,' so far, 'is all on one side,' and that the wrong one for the Reviewer's purpose. The argument, in short, is much as if the Reviewer, endeavouring to prove that no marked social distinctions exist in England, were to cite the presence and share of some ladies and gentlemen of rank at a servants' dance, in proof of the thesis that footmen and housemaids are eligible as guests at a Court ball.

Thirdly, if the English deputies had been there in any true official capacity, they must have discharged a function cognate to that of plenipotentiaries at an international congress, must have exchanged ratifications, and their signatures, like those to a treaty, must have pledged their senders, unless their action were subsequently repudiated at home. But the decrees of the Synod of Dort have never even been suggested or thought to have been received in this country as of authority, and therefore the action of the deputies, whatever it may have effected in Holland, was wholly inoperative so far as England was concerned.

And lastly, the most eminent Englishman there, Joseph Hall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, became wiser in later life, and published in 1640 his Episcopacie by Divine Right Asserted. Accordingly the presence of Hall, Carleton, Davenant, and Ward at Dort in 1618 proves as much as and no more than the presence and voting of Bishops Harold Browne and Wordsworth, Dean Stanley, Lord Charles Hervey, and

several other English ecclesiastics, in the Old Catholic Congress at Cologne in 1872; whereas there is definite synodical action in the refusal of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1689 to permit the phrases Protestant Religion' and 'Protestant Church' to be applied to the Church of England in a formal address from the clergy to King William III., and that on the express grounds that Socinians, Anabaptists, and Quakers styled themselves Protestant Churches, and also that the Church of England would suffer diminution in being joined with foreign Protestant Churches.'—(Lathbury, Hist. of Convocation, p. 331.)

It is worth while, in closing this part of the argument, to refute a cavil which may be raised on the ground that the Church of England, while practically securing Apostolical succession, nowhere declares its absolute necessity. The fact is, that only the Oriental Church does make such an express declaration, and that in the Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Council of Bethlehem in 1672; for even the Tridentine decrees come short of this, and are not so worded as to clearly exclude the other hypothesis, since their most stringent clauses merely condemn those who say 'that bishops are not superior to priests, that they have not the power of confirming or ordaining, or that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests.' But it is nowhere asserted in the decrees that this power might not be communicated to priests by ecclesiastical arrangement, and, as a fact, a simple priest may, by Papal dispensation, act as the minister of confirmation. (Dens: Theologia. Tract. de Confirmatione,' vii. 2.)

Having established so far the Catholic polity of the Church of England, and shown that her theory has always been the same, even when her practice, owing to the unfaithfulness of her prelates, was most lax, we will now turn to the doctrinal question raised by the Quarterly Reviewer, which he has most conveniently narrowed to the single issue of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' ' around which,' he alleges, 'the final struggle of the Reformation centred.'

We may fitly preface its discussion by a few words on the manner in which he has been good enough to refer to ourselves, because it serves as a pattern of the controversial method of his school, from which its moral honesty can be readily gauged. He has carefully selected a number of passages, spread over several of our articles, sedulously disjoined from their context, and so emptied of half their meaning, on which he bases a charge of Romanising tendencies against us, while passing over in entire silence all those articles

wholly or partially devoted by us to the refutation of the Roman system and claims, so as to leave those of his readers. who are not also ours under the impression that nothing of the kind has appeared in our pages. And there is an indiscreet admission at the beginning of his paper, that his motive for writing it at all was that the havoc effected by the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England in Mr. Mackonochie's case has made the general public suspect, what all experts know, and what his scathing reply to Lord Penzance and the Chief Baron's recent letter to Earl Cairns have further confirmed, that the findings of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in all the recent ecclesiastical causes are of too flimsy material to last much longer, so that unless a new and effective cry can be got up to exasperate the ignorant against the High Church school, the machinations of its enemies are likely to fail.

The particular sentences of our penning which seem to have chiefly excited his wrath, are those in which we stated that the religion of the Breviary and Missal, as distinguished from popular Romanism, 'does not vary very essentially from that of the Book of Common Prayer,' and that it is 'comparatively pure.' We have reason to doubt his possession of the information necessary to express any opinion on the subject, because he says in one place: 'The Roman Catholic service-book is a Missal. The Mass in it is everything. In the English Common Prayer-Book the service for the administration of the Holy Communion occupies no such prominence.' Now this is exactly as if an illiterate Dissenter were to take up one of those portable altar-books issued for the use of officiating ministers by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, containing only the Communion Office, Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, and were to describe it as the whole of the Common Prayer. The truth is, that the Missal is only one, and not the largest, out of several volumes, which in their totality make up the Roman Catholic service-book, equivalent to our Prayer-Book, namely the Breviary, Missal, Ritual, Pontifical, Processional, and some minor and merely occasional ones not needful to specify in detail. The Breviary is the bulkiest of these, and is usually in four volumes; but if a Totum (or one-volume edition), it is far larger than a Missal of similar form and type, having about 1,100 pages compared with 650, as it contains the Psalms, Hymns, Collects, and Lessons for every day in the year, and thus answers to the Morning and Evening Prayer, Psalter, Collects, and Lectionary of the Prayer-Book. The