through which they passed? Lucifer indeed, it is plain, ordained Paulinus bishop of Antioch without waiting for the authority of the synod, for Paulinus was there represented by his legates.' Yet Lucifer was never reproached for the performance of an uncanonical act, though Eusebius, finding that it had been done without the full consent of the diocese, did doubt his wisdom. On the other hand, notwithstanding the schism that ensued, Paulinus was ever considered the orthodox bishop.

In the same way Germanus and Lupus were deputed by a Gallican synod to purify the British Churches, themselves the applicants, from Pelagianism, (A.D. 429.) It should not of

course be omitted that Baronius and others of the same school consider Eusebius and Lucifer, Germanus and Lupus, to have been Papal legates: but never was there a more groundless assertion. All history, it may be said, expressly attests the contrary, and in the former case facts are utterly irreconcilable with the supposition, as Valesius shows. Why, the Pontiff of the day, Liberius, had lapsed himself only four years before; and from age and infirmity, and the peculiar circumstances of his position, was quite incapable of interfering. In the latter case the express testimonies of Constantius, Bede, Paulus Diaconus, Freculphus, Erricus, and Ado, are met by a single passage of the Chronicle commonly attributed to Prosper, which Pithæus,* however, in his preface to the genuine version, has pronounced to be the work of a different hand. Not a word on the subject occurs in the genuine Chronicle-and is it likely that Bede, ascribing as he did, in a former chapter,' the appointment of the first Scottish bishop to Celestine, would have attributed the mission of SS. Germanus and Lupus to a different source, had they been sent by him? And it is observable that the account which he has given of the second coming of S. Germanus, when Severus accompanied him, fully bears out the account given of the first. But as to what the bishops did when they came'the anonymous author of the Chronicle in Leland tells us,' says Collier, 'that SS. Germanus and Lupus, having suppressed 'the Pelagian heresy, consecrated bishops in several parts of 'England, and among the rest, they erected a cathedral at 'Llandaff, and made Dubricius archbishop of late.'

:

So much therefore for the theory. Now let us look at the case which it has been alleged to invalidate, viz. the consecration of Archbishop Parker.' How unfair here once more to

1 Soc. Eccl. Hist. iii. 5; and Vales. ad 1.

3 Ad Soc. Eccl. Hist. iii. 5.

5 Eccl. Hist. i. 13.

NO. LXIX.-N.S.

7 Allies, p. 43, et seq.

2 Baron. ad A. D. 362, n. 15.

4 Operum, p. 331.

6 Eccl. Hist. i. p. 111.

regard his case absolutely, and not with reference to the circumstances which led to it. It is well known who consecrated Archbishop Parker, and it is objected that, having no actual jurisdiction themselves, it is quite impossible they could have conferred what they had not. We ask, how they came to be deprived of jurisdiction? and the answer must be, by a most unconstitutional exercise of the Regale, by one who ought to have been the last to have arrogated it-the so-called Catholic Queen Mary. When she came to the crown, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskin had jurisdiction, and she, and no other power,' deprived them and others. It is true, that in some cases actual force was not required. Fire bishops, like S. Athanasius, had retired before the storm burst; no less than seven were dispossessed by her six commissioners; and several were most unrighteously murdered. We say nothing about the Archbishop, as treason was the crime upon which he was first apprehended. Consequently those who supplanted them were bare intruders, and as injustice cannot prejudice just rights, Barlow, Hodgskin, Coverdale, and Scory, were de jure possessors of their former sees at the time when they consecrated Parker. Whatever confusion or irregularity there may have been in the proceeding, when strained to the letter of the law, the blame rests with Mary; and those who object to the jurisdiction of the Elizabethan Bishops, should be prepared to vindicate the still more questionable jurisdiction, assumed by the Marian intrusionists: those, we mean, who before Cardinal Pole arrived, and consequently before Cranmer was, even according to their principles, formally deposed, were substituted for the ejected bishops by her commissioners.2

As to the subordinate case of the power of the keys in the matter of private confession and absolution, as it is practised amongst ourselves at the present day, it is easy to see that a communion in which private confession is voluntary, would be most unreasonably judged by the rules of a communion in which it is compulsory. Moreover, there are distinct grounds for supposing that our Church has formally conceded3 greater liberty to the individual.

Now what was it but the judgment of particular Churches in the first instance, though eventually of the whole Church, that substituted private confession for the public, and made that all-sufficient and obligatory, which before, though it may perhaps have been obligatory, was certainly not all-sufficient. We will be bold to say, that auricular confession might be abolished 2 Collier, vol. vi. p. 67. 3 E. g. vide Exhortation to the Holy Communion.

1 Collier, vol. vi. p. 67.

altogether for a like cause, and by the same authority that abolished altogether public confession; much more therefore the regulations concerning it changed and remodelled.

And now for a few words on the grievance of which Mr. Maskell complains so bitterly, namely, the want of positive dogmatic teaching in our Church. This defect, coupled with our acquiescence for nearly three centuries in the Royal Supremacy, Mr. Maskell thinks conclusive against our Catholicity, and consequently against the depths and solidity of our late revival, except so far as it leads elsewhere. Alas! had he mentioned many still more grievous defects untold, we fear it would not have been difficult to have paralleled them in the annals of the Church, or to have proved from the past, that their existence for so long a time (granting the full extent to which he says they have prevailed) had neither necessarily destroyed our Catholicity, nor supplied a valid argument against our entire resuscitation. We invite his attention to the period preceding the revival of the eleventh century, which Mr. Maskell will scarce deny to have been a true Church revival; and to avoid controversy about the facts themselves, our extracts shall be made solely from one who certainly would not be likely to exaggerate them. To begin with a few samples of the supreme Pontiffs: The Roman See,' says Döllinger, after the short pontificates of Anastasius III. '(911-13) and of Lando, appears, to have been in a state of dis' graceful dependence on certain Roman women, who, influential as they were capricious, placed therein their favourites or sons; 'a state in which the Papal See might have been compared to 'a captive in chains, to whom being deprived, we are not to 'impute the disgrace which he endures." All know who these abandoned women were, or in what relationship Theodora stood to John X., and Marozia to Sergius III. and John XI. Would indeed that the melancholy facts could be fairly disputed, and that the Roman See had not been for years subjected to a sway not merely secular; not merely the sway of women, but of such women as have not often been allowed power in the more degraded kingdoms of this world! Let our condition be what it may, is it worse than this? and why is the argument which saves the Roman Church to stop short at the English?

In the next page we read, At Rome, after the death of Agapite in 956, Octavian, a youth of only eighteen years of 'age, the son of the Roman tyrant Alberich, seized for himself 'possession of the Papal throne. He named himself, the 'first example of such a change,-John XII.'. . . . He died,' (p. 139,) as we are told by the continuator of Luitprand, from

Second Letter, p. 33, et seq.

2 Eccl. Hist. Period iii. c. iii. § 2, p. 136.

the effects of a wound received in a nightly debauch.' P. 143 we read:

'Benedict was succeeded in 1024 by his brother John XIX. whom, according to the expression of Romuald of Salerno, the same day beheld a layman and Pope; so great was then the power of the counts of Tusculum. The counts of Tusculum, who had already seen upon the Papal throne their relatives Sergius III. John XI. and XII. Benedict VII., and lastly, the two brothers Benedict VIII. and John XIX., wished to make the Roman See an inheritance in their family, and count Alberich, the brother of the deceased John XIX. effected, by means of rich bribes of gold, the election of his son Theophylactus, who was named Benedict IX., and who dared to desecrate, for eleven years, the chair of Peter. This disgrace of the Roman, and consequently the entire Catholic Church, would have gone unpunished only in an age of the deepest corruption, in which, according to the assertion of the Abbot Guido of Pomposa, almost all the Bishops were guilty of simony.'

Here therefore was secular influence indeed, without the semblance of restraint! As regards the very next Pope, Gregory VI., it is said in the following page: Gregory related the manner of his own election, and confessed that he had been guilty of simony, but with the best intentions.' It is true that his resignation followed so candid a confession; nevertheless antecedently to his resignation, he was without doubt,' says 'Döllinger, the legitimate Pope,' (p. 144.) A sad pass indeed for the Apostolic See! Meanwhile particular Churches were even in a still more deplorable condition.

As regards France we read (p. 206): In the iron age, which 'extended from the end of the seventh to the middle of the 'eighth century, literary and theological education had been 'almost destroyed; but the reign of Charlemagne effected here also a most happy change. We will not stop here to inquire how much the French Church was indebted for her transient amelioration to the secular arm; it is acknowledged that her relapse did not long survive its withdrawal.

That glory of ecclesiastical learning, and that long series of theological writers, who went from the school of Charlemagne, and who formed themselves during the interval of tranquillity and peace which he gave to Europe, threw their splendour on the reign of Lewis and of his sons down to the year 870.... None survived the year 875, and as they left behind them no scholars, or scholars of only little learning; and as so many seats of education were destroyed, schools dispered, libraries burnt; and as the bishops and priests had to contend with foreign and domestic misery, the ecclesiastical literature of the following years presents an aspect dreary and barren. Through the whole of the tenth century, the troubled state of the land, which had now become the defenceless booty of the Normans and of the nobles, who during the impotence of the kingly authority ruled with tyrannic sway, cast its influence also upon the Church. Simony, plunder of ecclesiastical property, and contempt of all ecclesiastical order, were occurrences of every day. The ignorance of the clergy obliged Frotier, bishop of Poitiers, and Fulrad, bishop of Paris, about the year 910,

to engage Abbo, a monk of S. Germain, to compose a series of Homilies on the principal truths of Christianity, which might serve their priests as themes for sermons. The synod of Trosley in 909 lamented, that numbers of men had grown old who had never learnt the Creed or the Lord's Prayer. During the civil dissensions of France, when the regal power of the last Carlovingians yielded to the might of the greater vassals, and whilst the royal prerogatives were divided amongst many, the political position and the influence of the Church were weakened and disturbed. We no longer hear the episcopacy, assembled in numerous synods, raising its voice against the abuses of the times-for synods were now rarely convened; we see only individual prelates, powerful by their family connexions, or by their political stations, in particular the Archbishop of Rheims, who, judging and determining by the course of political events, usurped their Sees. But the See of Rheims became itself, about the year A. D. 925, the prey of a powerful noble, Herbert count of Vermandois, who forced into it his son Hugo, a youth of fifteen years of age. The pope, the unworthy John X., consented to this act, but commissioned Abbo, bishop of Soissons, to undertake the spiritual administration of the diocese!'-Pp. 209, 210. A little later it is said, Attempts were now made (p. 215) to 'secure benefices as inheritances in families; Bishops gave manors of their dioceses to their children; and with these 'scandals simony, which now began to spread universally, was ' in close connexion.' . . .

Again; in Germany, the Church was no less indebted to the temporal power for her reforms: 'Under the beneficent reign ' of Henry I.,' proceeds Döllinger, p. 220, (from 919 to 936,) the German Church by degrees arose from its degradation.' Again, p. 222: Under the two following Othos, the son and the grandson of Otho the Great,' it is said, 'the great majority of the 'German Bishops who were now generally chosen, consisted of 'men who were worthy of their high vocation;' on the other hand it is admitted that simony, 'the source of almost all other ecclesiastical abuses, attained, after the too early death of Henry ' III., a frightful height...(p. 227). An attempt of Anno to reform 'the monastery of Saalfeld by the introduction of foreign monks, created such an excitement in the neighbouring cloisters, that 'the monks abandoned them in crowds. The state of the secular 'clergy was no better. The unworthy bishops who had now 'intruded themselves into the different sees, carried their ideas 'further in the practice of that simony, by which they had ob'tained their churches. In the year 1070, the Pope, Alexander II., 'employed against them this bitter reproach,-that they gave 'ordination for money, and that they ordained those who could 'pay without any reference to their morality or capacity. (P.229.) .... Hence it will be seen,' is the mournful reflection of our historian, p. 230, 'that at the close of this period, the Church of ' Germany presented a knot, difficult to be unravelled, of licen'tiousness, of abuses, of corruption, and of the desecration of

'all that was sacred.'