place of the pope, and whatever the bishops possessed in the way of authority, they got from her. Here is a section of the Act of Supremacy: "Such jurisdiction, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority have hitherto been, or may lawfully be, exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall forever, by the authority of the present Parliament, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of the realm." Now, it would seem, that whatever apostolical succession was brought over from Rome was "united and annexed to the imperial crown of the realm," the wearer of which, at that time, happened to be the Virgin Queen. Elizabeth was constituted "head over all things to the church." It was not her nature to be a figure-head. She was disposed to magnify her office. When the Bishop of Ely refused compliance with her command, she wrote him the following note: "Proud Prelate, you know what you were before I made you what you are. If you do not immediately comply with my request, by G-d, I will unfrock you." It is evident from this that she could dispense the disgrace of orders; and it would seem to follow, logically, that she possessed the "grace of orders." As she was made head of the church, it is charitable to suppose that she was credited with possessing some grace, and she gave proof of possessing no other grace except the grace of orders. Our author tells us that "in her speech to Parliament in 1584, her majesty informed the bishops that if they did not amend their ways, she would depose every one of them. For there seems to have been,' says Hallam, 'no question in that age but that this might be done by virtue of the crown's supremacy."" Elizabeth understood that the cleavage between the papacy and the Church of England was absolute; that no bond of spiritual or ecclesiastical power of any kind remained intact, that no bishop or archbishop in her realm was authorized to perform any ecclesiastical function in virtue of an ordination previously received from Rome. They were all required to take oath acknowledging her supremacy. Those who

refused were no longer bishops. Apostolic succession, apart from the oath, availed nothing. Not merely theoretically, but practically, authority to discharge spiritual and ecclesiastical functions proceeded from the throne. Elizabeth claimed to be the repository of all kinds of power. When Matthew Parker was to be consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, there was a doubt whether the persons named in the queen's mandate for his consecration were canonically qualified to act. The queen commanded them to go forward, promising to supply, "by our own supreme royal authority, of our mere motion and certain knowledge, whatever, either in the things to be done by you, pursuant to our aforesaid mandate, or in you, or any of you, your condition, state, or power for the performance of the premises, may or shall be wanting of those things, which either by the statutes of this realm, or by the ecclesiastical laws, are required, or are necessary on this behalf, the state of the times and the exigency of affairs rendering it necessary." The queen virtually says: "When your own qualifications are exhausted, draw on me for whatever is still wanting." One point in dispute was whether two of those appointed to consecrate Parker were bona fide bishops. "If not," says the queen, "we will supply the defect by our supreme authority, of our own mere motion." She was equal to the occasion. She was like the pedler's mill, of which we used to hear in our boyhood. The pedler went from house to house grinding out pepper, spice, salt, or any kind of condiment called for, in any quantity demanded. The queen, out of her inexhaustible resources, "of her mere motion," supplied any and all kinds of deficiencies. Froude is quoted as saying of the Anglican hierarchy: "It drew its life from Elizabeth's throne, and had Elizabeth fallen, it would have crumbled into sand. The image in its outward aspect could be made to correspond to the parent tree, and to sustain the illusion it was necessary to provide bishops who could appear to have inherited their powers by the approved method as successors of the apostles." Elizabeth cared nothing about the inner nature of ecclesiistical things. Her whole con ern was to so shape the outside as best to promote the interests of her throne. Green, in his short history of the English people, says: "No woman ever

lived who was so totally destitute of the sentiment of religion. While the world around her was being swayed more and more by theological beliefs and controversies, Elizabeth was absolutely untonched by them. Her mind was unruffled by the spiritual problems which were vexing the minds around her; to Elizabeth, indeed, they were not only unintelligible, they were ridiculous. She looked at theological differences in a purely political light. She agreed with Henry IV., that a kingdom was well worth a mass. It seemed an obvious thing to her to hold out hopes of conversion as a means of deceiving Philip, or to gain a point in negotiation. by restoring the crucifix to her chapel." Such was the woman who did more than any and all others to fix the metes and bounds of the Anglican hierarchy, and to determine the extent of variation between the English church and the papacy.

2. One of the most telling points made by Dr. Cooke against Anglican pretensions is in connection with the refusal of the Anglican authorities to recognize the validity of the orders of the Reformed Episcopal Church. In 1873, during a meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York, Dr. Cummins, then Assistant Bishop of Kentucky, partook of the Lord's supper in a Presbyterian church. This was a heinous offence in the eyes of the high churchmen. They were more incensed at this act of fraternity than they were at Dr. Heber Newton for preaching the baldest rationalism. Bishop Cummins withdrew from the Episcopal Church, and united with a few kindred spirits in founding the Reformed Episcopal Church. What about his apostolic succession? He had been regularly ordained a bishop in the Episcopal Church. His ecclesiastical pedigree was as pure as that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Had any one called in question the validity of his orders, every man of the high-church persuasion would have risen up to defend it. His title to the true apostolic succession was without a flaw at the time he withdrew. What became of it then? Did he lose it, or was he deprived of it by the church whose communion he had renounced? Could they deprive him of it? Did he not, by his ordination, receive the character indelebilis? This is an interesting question. If he did, then the discipline of the Anglican Church is a mere brutum fulmen.

That church tried to obliterate the mark, and claimed that it had succeeded. The Anglican Bishop of St. Albans warned his flock against the new bishops as "intruders in the guise of real bishops," and denied that they had any valid jurisdiction. Bishop Gregg, of the Reformed Episcopal Church, wrote a note to the Bishop of St. Albans, in which he said: "The bishop through whom the historical succession reached me had his connection directly through the Anglican communion, and had not been deposed when the succession was transmitted through him to the three bishops by whom I was validly and canonically consecrated." To this the Bishop of St. Albans replied: "Reverend sir, you assert that the bishop through whom the historical succession reached you had his consecration directly through the Anglican communion, and had not been deposed when the succession was transmitted. I presume the bishop to whom you refer was Dr. Cummins. This bishop, though not yet formally deposed, lay under prohibition from performing any episcopal act, which prohibition was publicly notified December 1, 1873, just a fortnight before he proceeded to consecrate that bishop through whom, as you say, you received the historical succession. I have authority to state that none of the American bishops have ever recognized the act of pretended consecration performed by Dr. Cummins, or any act growing out of it." What became of Bishop Cummins' apostolic succession? The church that gave it to him claimed to take it away from him, or, at any rate, to deprive him of the power of transmitting it. When that church laid its prohibition on him, forbidding him to perform any episcopal act, at that very moment his power to confer the grace of orders was paralyzed. He could not add another link to the chain of historical succession. He could do the same things and say the same words which before this had resulted in making successors to the apostles, but the things and words have been deprived of their efficacy. His consecrations are "pretended" consecrations; his bishops are "intruders in the guise of real bishops, but having no jurisdiction."

It seems very reasonable that a church should be able to depose its officials and strip them of every prerogative with which it had invested them. The power that can make can destroy. But if

this holds good as between the Anglican Church and its deposed officials, why should it not hold good between the Church of Rome and her deposed officials? How happens it that the papacy could not stop the flow of the grace of orders? When she laid her prohibition on the English prelates who dared to disobey her voice, why did not this paralyze their power to transmit apostolic succession? Rome did not spare her excommunications and anathemas. She hurled them thick and fast on the heads of her revolting subjects. Were not her interdicts as powerful as those of these same revolting subjects? If we are to believe our Anglican friends when they profess to deprive refractory bishops of the power to impart valid orders, are we not bound to believe our papal friends when they profess the same thing? But if we believe our papal friends, then we must believe that our Anglican bishops never had any power to impart valid orders.

Look at the position of the Anglican Church. It looks down on the Reformed Episcopal Church, and says: "You are no church. Your bishops have no apostolic succession. When they rebelled against me, I at once severed the tie that bound them to the apostles." At the same time the Church of Rome is looking down on the Anglican Church and saying: "You are no church. Your bishops have no apostolic succession. When they rebelled against me, I at once severed the tie that bound them to the apostles." In the meantime the Protestant sects stand off and wonder what the dear Lord thinks, and whether the apostles know what folly is being perpetrated in their name.

3. We will mention but one other point insisted on by our author, and that is that the noble reformers of the sixteenth century did not wish to bring over any apostolic succession or grace of orders from the Church of Rome. They wanted to separate themselves from the papacy by a "great gulf fixed," across which there should remain no single strand of vital connection. Perhaps the shortest and surest way to get at what the English reformers thought of the Church of Rome is to look at the Homilies, appointed to be used by the clergy of that time. There were two Books of Homilies, the first published under Edward VI. in 1547, the second under Elizabeth in 1563. We have an

5