a perfect reliance upon the goodness of God, and the merits of our Redeemer, will be found a sure refuge and a certain source of consolation.”— Pp. 389-394.

We must now bring our observations to a conclusion, without having laid before our readers a tenth part of the passages which we could have wished to extract; but there are other and abler contributors to the Christian Remembrancer upon whose space we must not trench, and we therefore lay down our pen, cordially thanking Mr. Grey for the instruction and amusement he has afforded us, and strongly urging all who have the opportunity to peruse his most valuable work.

The Liber Landarensis. Edited by Rev. W. J. REES, M.A. F.S.A. Published for the Welsh MSS. Society.

HISTORY teems with examples of the firm and tenacious hold retained upon the minds of men, from generation to generation, by positions which have been advanced in favour of the party to which they are attached, or by the opinions in which they have been brought up. It is indeed the consequence of the providential constitution of our moral and mental nature, according to which it is, in its healthy state, slow of admitting that which is inconsistent with its general frame of thought and feeling, reluctant to part with that which is entwined with its associations, and apt to regard with distrust every appearance of novelty; thus it is enabled to maintain some stability amid the fleeting scenes of slippery change by which it is surrounded. But, at the same time, this conservative principle may be exercised too much in exclusion to others, and the more so, inasmuch as it favours both our indolence and our wilfulness. It may often be a positive duty to contend with it, just as in the body we have often to combat with our natural attachment to spots where we have long dwelt; and as these spots may have no beauty or anything else but long familiarity to recommend them, so those positions may be destitute of truth. But from long familiarity they have assumed such an appearance of reality, that they stand for first principles, or indubitable facts; and a cry of indignation is immediately raised at every attempt to shake, or even question, their authority. Thus they go on from age to age acquiring strength, and rooting themselves deeper in conviction.

Circumstances, however, occasionally happen which compel the mind to some investigation. For example, a controversy arises, which in its course gives a rude shake, even to a question which seemed most settled ground. Immediately an alarm is given, there is a run to repair the damage, and if the workmen but fill up the chinks and smoothe again the swells of the surface, the general feeling of security returns. Thus, the champion of a party, which

relies upon some historical position whose basis has been so shaken, is applauded as a mighty conqueror, if he but go so far as to look out the detached passages on which the presumed fact is built, in the original authors, without reading any further, and having satisfied them that they are there, replaces them to their eyes in the same view in which their leaders first represented them. There is not a sect in this country which is not thus resting in perfect security upon some unsubstantial ground, which will not bear examination. Good reason has it indeed to believe with all its heart and mind; otherwise it loses the distinguishing articles of its creed, and dissolves into the general mass. Presbyterianism, with all its manifold brood, is seated upon a heap of such traditionary misrepresentation, which as yet it has wanted both the learning and candour to investigate. The same isolated passages are produced; the original context remains unread.

Equally sectarian will be the views of any member in our Church who shall decline for her the most searching investigation into the facts on which she rests or resists any claim. And yet it cannot be but that there are too many whose minds have become so prepossessed with the notion that our palmary argument against the usurpation of Rome, is our derivation from the ancient British Church, that they are impatient of any doubt which may shake such a position. They see no end of ruinous concessions, leading to ultimate submission, if we abandon it. But surely the first object of the true Churchman is truth, lead whithersoever it will; and the true Anglicanist has been taught, from his youth up, to look antiquity in the face, like a generous and dutiful pupil, and not to skulk away like a truant. Her learned men have been used to expatiate without misgiving, to the utmost extent of ecclesiastical and historical record, and not inured to dare to shut up a volume because they dare look no further. If, therefore, any ground which has been generally presumed on as secure, be found slippery, is it not the part not only of truth, but even of self-preservation, to remove the scene of our struggle to a more stable support of our feet. Is it wise in any warfare obstinately to maintain a post which is not tenable, and on the loss of which our own cannon may be turned against us? Truly we must not rail at popery, laughing at her slavish submission to all that has been once admitted, if we deal in the same spirit. However emancipated from her yoke, we shall have but changed the master, and not the man.

It was under the impression, we trust, of some such feelings as these, that, in the number for February last, we undertook, not only to question, but flatly to deny any derivation of our Anglican church from the Ancient British; which we attempted to show had been long extinct, without leaving any succession. We gave but a very brief and general sketch, and lay therefore open to objections. We now propose to go into detail; and will show that not only the ancient British, but even the Augustinian succession has long been utterly extinct. So far from entertaining any fear of the consequences, as to the independent attitude of our Church, we are confident that she will

stand more unassailable by Rome than ever. The deep importance and interest of the subject is our excuse for recurring to it.

We must begin by recalling to the reader's mind the fact, that it was a ruling principle, steadily inculcated by Rome on the Anglo-Saxon church, to have no communion with the British, on account of certain of its usages, which she pronounced uncanonical. This appears from the instructions of Gregory to Augustine, (Bede, i. 27, 64,) according to which he was to make no use of assistance in his consecrations, (unless he could perchance obtain it from Gaul.) As a canonical consecration required at least one assisting Bishop, according to the very first of the apostolical canons, this departure from rule supposes an overwhelming necessity, and places the estrangement of the churches from the first in a very strong light.

This principle was acted upon most uncompromisingly in the case of the church of South Britain. The exception made by Wini, Bishop of the West Saxons, when he called in the assistance of two of its Bishops to the consecration of Chad, only serves to prove the rule more remarkably. Theodore pronounced that consecration null; so that he reconsecrated him.

It was not, however, maintained for a long time against the church of North Britain, Bishops of whose successions filled, for several successions together, the sees of Northumberland and Mercia, where the influence of Rome was for a while too distant for interference; and they even, in the person of Cedd, obtained that of the East Saxons, or London. The effect of the council of Whitby, however, held A.D. 664, was to draw the line of separation; so that Jaruman was the last of this succession, dying Bishop of Mercia, before the arrival of Theodore.

The arrival of this able prelate forms the critical juncture in the history of the succession of our Church, which we are now prepared to discuss. It took place in the spring of A.D. 669, in the second year after his consecration by Pope Vitelieu. He found the sees in the following situation, which will show how motley up to that time had been the succession.

Canterbury, waiting for the successor to Deusdedit, of Augustinian succession, who died A.. 664.

London, filled by Wini, of Gallic succession, who, having been expelled from the see of Wessex, A.D. 666, purchased this from Wulfhere, king of Mercia.

Rochester, vacant by death of Damian, of Augustinian succession, A.D. 664.

East Angles, vacant by death of Boniface, of Augustinian suc

cession.

West Angles, vacant by the expulsion of Wini.

Mercia, vacant by death of Jaruman, of North British succession, A.D. 667.

Northumberland, held by Chad, who was consecrated by Wini, assisted by two South British Bishops.

Thus only two sees, out of the seven which England then contained,

had Bishops; and of those two Bishops,* Chad only could transmit a British succession; the question is, did he transmit it? Now there is no mention of his assisting at any consecration whatever. British succession therefore cannot possibly be proved, and therefore any presumption upon it is unfounded. But we will go further, and show that it is very improbable that he should ever have assisted.

We will refer to that part of Bede's history which begins thus:

"Itaque Theodorus, perlustrans universa, ordinabat locis opportunis Episcopos, et ea quæ minus perfecta reperit, his quoque juvantibus, corrigebat. In quibus et Ceadda Episcopum cum argueret non fuisse ritè consecratum," &c: iv. 2. s. 258.

From this we may presume that Theodore, in his progress from Canterbury, took first of all the five dioceses which lay comparatively close at hand; consecrating Bishops in them, perhaps with the assistance of Wilfrid, who had arrived before him in England, consecrated by the Bishop of Paris for the see of York, and was on the spot in Kent, ordaining priests and deacons until Theodore came and that he reserved the distant sees of Mercia and Northumberland to the last. All his consecrations, therefore, except that to Mercia, were finished before he came to Chad. And there, as in Wini's case, he found the see indeed full, but irregularities to be corrected. He reconsecrated Chad, either now, or towards autumn, when he sent him to the see of Mercia: at present, however, Chad resigned the see of Northumberland to Wilfrid, and retired to the monastery of Lastingham. Hence, even had Theodore left any of those Bishops unconsecrated, and reconsecrated Chad when he came to him, there would have been no opportunity for Chad's assistance, before he was called forth to go to Mercia. And it is exceedingly improbable that any consecration should have been delayed until he was bishop of Mercia. Indeed Bede's account tells us just what we should have expected; namely, that he first filled the sees, and then looked into the irregularities of those that were already full. And supposing the vacancies which Theodore found at his arrival to be filled up by the time that Chad became Bishop of Mercia, there was no possible opportunity for Chad assisting at any consecration; for the very first

Though not a matter of importance, in this question, it is one of interest, to know whether Wini's assistance was required. But Bede seems remarkably shy of mentioning Wini. On several occasions where we might have expected his name to appear, as for instance in mentioning the appointment of his successor Earconwald, he avoids, as if industriously, the mention of it. Very probably his simony, to say nothing of his irregularity in communicating with British Bishops in the consecration of Chad, highly incensed Theodore against him; and his business would undoubtedly have been included with Chad's, when, "ea, quæ minus perfecta reperit, corrigebat,' (Bede, iv. 3. 258,) had he not been shielded by the strong arm of Wulfhere, who had too good reason to protect him. But he was alive at the time of the council of Hertford, and yet he does not appear there, even by legate, as Wilfrid was allowed to do. This looks as if he were not admitted. From these considerations we may presume that Theodore did not use his assistance at his consecrations; and went upon the privilege which (as we have mentioned) Gregory conferred upon Augustine, if at least he was not assisted by Wilfrid.

vacancy that occurred on the bench was by his own death, which was in two years and a half from his appointment.

We may add that, even supposing one or even two of the southern sees to have remained vacant after Chad's accession to Mercia, Chad, distant as his situation was, and incessantly as he was occupied, would be the last person to be called in by Theodore to assist at consecrations. There were Bishops enough at hand.

Thus the notion of a British succession transmitted through Chad is not only unsupported by any evidence of fact, but opposed to all reasonable probability. The only channel remaining is the remnant of the British church which survived in Wales. But we showed, in the article before alluded to, how vain it was to look to this quarter. We will now state our reasons somewhat more in detail.

That church had its own metropolitan in the Bishop of St. David's; but as the kings of England were intent on wresting the supreme civil power from the princes of the country, so had the Archbishops of Canterbury no less set their hearts upon supplanting its metropolitan in the supreme ecclesiastical power. So early as A.D. 982, Dunstan added Llandaff to the suffragan sees of Canterbury, and consecrated Gwgan at Canterbury, with the assistance of four Anglican Bishops. In progress of time, St. Asaph and Bangor were added, and their Bishops similarly consecrated, as we might a priori conclude; since, from the very nature of the case, the Archbishop would not call in the assistance of any suffragan of his rival of St. David's. Thus, by the end of the eleventh century at latest, the Anglican succession, in all its purity, had displaced the British in three of the sees, and St. David's stood alone, bereft of her daughters. Early, however, in the twelfth century her day also was come. After having a pure uninterrupted British succession from David, she was at last compelled to receive an Anglican prelate in Bernard, A.D. 1115. Thus expired the succession of the British church, after a duration of at least eight hundred years. We may take a specimen of the utter revolution in the succession of the church of Wales, by exhibiting two consecrations :

A.D. 1176. Peter, consecrated Bishop of St. David's, at Canterbury, by Gilbert, Bishop of London, assisted by the Bishops Walter of Rochester, and Roger of Worcester.

A.D. 1256. William de Radnor, consecrated Bishop of Llandaff, at St. Paul's, London, by Archbishop Boniface, assisted by Walter, Bishop of Worcester, and Walter, Bishop of Norwich.

So utterly vain is it to seek any channel of British succession in this direction. It has been utterly, irrecoverably lost, for these last seven hundred years and more.

Perhaps some one may say, that there still survives a presbyterian succession; and, undoubtedly, had there been no Anglican priests introduced, after that the sees in Northumberland, Mercia, and Wales, had fallen under Anglican Bishops, the presbyters in those sees might, at this day, have traced a line in the mere presbyterian direction