quote: "Neither is it true that there are no Ministers but by the ordination of Bishops, for this were to condemn all those Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Belgia, Geneva, with others which have not received this form of Ecclesiastical Government . . . so that we doubt not but that all the Reformed Churches professing the Gospel have true and lawful ministers, though they observe not all the same manner in the election and ordaining them. And this is the general consent of the Churches themselves." (Synop. Papismi, vol. vi., p. 368.) Let the reader note well that this is not merely the opinion of the author, Dr. Willet, but of the Church, for the entire work containing this statement was issued "by the authority of His Majesty's royal letters-patent," and was further 'seen and allowed by the Lords the Reverend Bishops, and hath also ever been in great esteem in both Universities; and also much desired by all the learned, both of our Clergy and Laity, throughout our dominions." Again, the Church of England officially endorsed the statement of Dr. Richard Cosin in his answer to the Puritan work entitled, An Abstract on Certain Acts of Parliament, that differences merely in the form of government did not impugn the integrity of "the Churches of Denmark, Sweveland, Poland, Germany, Rhetia, Vallis, Tellina, the nine Cantons of Switzerland reformed, with their confederates of Geneva, of France, of the Low Countries, and of Scotland." Like the former, this work was also endorsed by the Church herself-"published by authority." (Vide "An Answer to an Abstract," etc.,

1584, p. 58. Quoted in Goode's Work on Orders.) Again, in a work which was "perused and by lawful authority of the Church of England ailowed to be public," the said Church officially recognized "all the neighbor churches christianly reformed, "—referring to the non-episcopal bodies on the Continent. This work-Exposition of the Articles, by Thomas Rogers, thus officially endorsed, Archbishop Bancroft "ordered all the Parishes in his Province to supply themselves with"-a fact which further proves that even the High Churchmen of that day (for Bancroft was one of the most conspicuous) did not attempt to defend the extreme principles that are advocated to-day.

Note

Since the above was written, our attention has been called to a criticism which is occasionally made by "Catholics" in regard to the statement that the Church of Scotland, referred to in the Bidding Prayer of 1604, was Presbyterian. A recent writer in the Living Church (Jan. 31, 1914, p. 473) commenting upon a statement made by the Dean of Worcester (Dr. Ede) to the same effect, asserts with great confidence that this allegation “has been shown over and over again to be nothing but a fiction, and a vulgar error." He declares that "in the year 1600 'the Presbyterian form of government was abolished by the King' (and that) Presbyterianism was not established until 1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon. James I. of England had created in 1600 (he means, of course, when King of Scotland only) nine dioceses in Scotland, and appointed Bishops to them; these Bishops were given seats as such by the Parliament of Scotland. ... The Church set up by the King, and not the Presbyterian body is the Church referred to in the Bidding Prayer." Now if this is true, if Episcopal Government was established in Scotland in 1600, and the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referred to this Episcopal Church, and if the Church of Scotland continued to be Episcopal, and "Presbyterianism was not established until

1696, nearly a century later than the date of the Canon," we should like to ask this plain question: Why, then, was it necessary to consecrate Bishops for Scotland in 1610? What had become of the Episcopacy which the King had established just ten years before (in 1600), and for whose preservation the English Church had authorized the prayer in question only six years before-especially if this Episcopacy was not overthrown, nor Presbyterianism established, until 1696? The truth of the matter is, there is no warrant for this assertion, for it is a fact well known to historians, and admitted by one of the ablest exponents of High Church principles (John Henry Blunt), that the attempt of the King here cited was unsuccessful. Though he made appointments for the office of the Bishopric, his appointees were never consecrated, nor did the Church of Scotland ever admit that they possessed any spiritual authority. Parliament, indeed, assisted the King in the attempt, and despite the opposition of the Kirk, gave them seats, but for all that, the Kirk refused to recognize their Episcopal authority, they exercised no Episcopal functions, and could not, in the very nature of things, attempt to do so as they were never consecrated. If they had been consecrated in 1600, and exercising authority in 1604, as the writer implies, there would never have been any further consecration in 1610. It was because these so-called Bishops were not Bishops in reality, had never had consecration, had never exercised spiritual authority, nor had the Kirk consented to Episcopal government until 1610, that for that very reason it became necessary in that year (when her consent was finally obtained) that such consecration should be bestowed. It is ridiculous, therefore, to talk about the Bidding Prayer of 1604 referring to an Episcopal Church in Scotland, for the only Episcopal Church existing there at that time was one that officially denounced Episcopacy, and the only Bishops there, were men who had never been consecrated by any Bishop whatever. Moreover, we know that James himself admitted that his mere appointment did not constitute these men Bishops, and it is notorious that they were ever referred to derisively as "Tulchan Bishops," a vulgar expression for "dummies." In 1604, then, the year in which the Bidding Prayer was set forth, the Church of Scotland was not only Presbyterian, but militantly so, in defiance of the King. Yet it was formally admitted by the Church of England even at that time (when prejudice was so strong) to be a true part of the Holy Catholic Church.

As the whole history of this contest between James and the Church

of Scotland throws light on some other matters relative to the main point of this discussion, it will not be amiss to go into it a little further, and in doing so, we shall quote extensively from this same well known High Churchman, to whom we have referred and whose opinions are of great weight with "Catholics." Says John Henry Blunt: "The peculiar course which the Reformation took in Scotland was in nothing more strange than in its results as to the episcopate. Some of the old Bishops turned with the times, and either retained the revenues of their Sees, as did Robert Stuart, Bishop of Caithness, and Earl of Lennox, or made over these revenues to some of their relatives, as did Alexander Gordon, Bishop of Galloway: in both cases ceasing to exercise the episcopal office although retaining the episcopal title. As these old Bishops died off, nominal successors were sometimes appointed by the Crown, or the Regents acting in the name of the Crown; and thus there were titular Bishops of ancient Sees who were never consecrated nor even in Priests' Orders. (They were shrewdly named 'Tulchane Bishops' a 'Tulchane' or 'Tulchin' being a stuffed calf's skin set up in sight of a cow to persuade her to give her milk.) This continuance of a nominal Episcopate, side by side with the Presbyterian establishment (mark the words) was much favoured by the Court party, but it is difficult to say whether from reasons of self-interest as regarded the ancient revenues of the Sees, or in the hope that the shadow of an episcopate might some day be turned into a reality." "When the Young King James VI. became nominally independent, though only twelve years of age, in 1578, the General Assembly of preachers took much bolder action in respect to these titular Bishops than they had ventured to take while a strong-minded nobleman was Regent. Meeting at Dundee in July, 1579, they first passed an 'ordinance' declaring that the office of Bishop had no warrant in the Word of God. . . . After this, in 1580, they issued the “National Covenant," previously referred to, by which 'the government of the Kirk by Bishops' . . . is 'declared to be unlawful within this Kirk.' . . . This opposition of the Presbyterian faction to the free action of the Crown . . . gave James a lasting hatred of Presbyterianism . . . and when he succeeded to the Crown of England he took measures for grafting a true Episcopate upon the Kirk, evidently with the view of gradually assimilating the ecclesiastical system of Scotland to that of England. In this purpose the King was probably supported by a strong anti-revolutionary party in Scotland: for in the year 1606 the Scottish Parliament

...

passed an Act 'for the restitution of Bishops.' [Note-this was two years after Canon 55, the Bidding Prayer, was passed, was an Act of Parliament only, and did not alter the attitude of the Kirk.] The purpose of this act was that of enabling the Crown to restore to the titular Bishops such portions of the Estates of their respective Sees as still remained in its hands. In the same year (1606) James endeavored to pave the way for the restoration of Episcopal Authority by proposing to the General Assembly that the titular Bishops should act as Moderators or Presidents in the Presbyteries within their Dioceses, thus giving them much more power in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs. This proposition was, after some resistance, adopted by the Assembly, and put in practice throughout the Kirk. (Even at this date, let it be noticed, the end was not attained. The King's appointees were merely permitted to occupy the Presbyterian office of 'Moderators.' They were not recognized as Bishops either by the Kirk or the King, and could not be so recognized for the very plain reason that they had never been Consecrated Bishops.) After this the King frequently urged the 'Bishops' to take on themselves the administration of all Church affairs, and as they were unwilling to do so without the consent of the Ministers, an Assembly was at last called to consider the question in June, 1610. . . . At this Assembly nine resolutions were assented to which practically established the jurisdiction of the Crown and the Bishops. ... The jurisdiction of the Episcopate being thus restored, James I. prepared to restore it to its proper spiritual position by having some of the titular Bishops consecrated. Accordingly, John Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, Andrew Lamb, Bishop of Brechin, and William Couper, Bishop of Galloway, were summoned to London, where the King told them that he had restored the revenues of the Bishoprics, and had appointed worthy men; but (note the following words) that as he could not make them Bishops, nor could they make themselves so, he had called them to England that they might be consecrated, and that being thus made true Bishops instead of mere titular ones, they might return to Scotland and consecrate the rest." It will be seen now from this account, given by one of the greatest authorities among High Churchmen, that the statements of Mr. Hall are absolutely without foundation. No Bishops were consecrated for Scotland or established over the Church of Scotland until 1610, ten years after the date he alleges, and six years after the Bidding Prayer was authorized. Even the "jurisdiction of the Episcopate" was not admitted, according to Blunt, until