stitution cannot have originated in A. D. 314. We may at least be permitted to say, therefore, that it must have been the Constitution of the Church of Britain fifty years prior to this date-say A. D. 250. Now what the Constitution of the Church of Britain was in A. D. 250 that we find to be the Constitution of the sister Church of Gaul in A. D. 170, when Irenæus was Bishop of Lyons. And this we find to be the Constitution of the Primitive Church when Ignatius, the illustrious Martyr-Bishop of Antioch in A. D. 69, himself a disciple of S. John the Apostle, wrote those ever memorable words, “χωρὶς τούτων Ἐκκλησία οὐ καλέιται.” ι

(colonia Lindi, Lincoln. Vid. Bingham, ix. c. vi. § 20. Colonia Legionensium Caerleon. Vid. Hadden and Stubbs' Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 7, which certainly seems the more correct of the two, and has greater authority in its favour. It was a no mean city at this time). These three Bishops are attended by a Priest and a Deacon. The Welsh names of these Bishops are given as: Ivor of York, Rhystyd of London, and Brawdol of Caerleon in Monmouth. The lines of the Ecclesiastical Map at this time in Britain coincided, as was the custom throughout the Empire, with those of the Civil Chart, York being the Metropolitical Seat of Maxima Cæsariensis, London of Britannia Prima, and Caerleon-onUsk of Britannia Secunda.

Furthermore, it would be a very remarkable thing in history to find that the British Christians had changed the Constitution of the Church as planted there in Apostolic times to a Constitution of their own creation, and then prior to A. D. 314 to have reverted, without losing their identity, to the original Constitution, and that three of its Bishops should be invited to take their places as duly consecrated Bishops among other Bishops from all parts of Christendom in the Councils of the Church.

It would be a still more remarkable thing to find that a change of this nature had taken place without the knowledge of some, at least, of the Fathers and historians who have alluded in the earliest times to the Church in Britain. If Britain had varied in its practice from other Christian Churches, surely some mention of the fact might be expected from Tertullian, Origen, and S. Athanasius, but not a syllable do we hear of such an irregularity on the part of British Christians; on the contrary, we do hear how true they were to the purity of the Faith and to the Apostolic Constitution of the Christian Church. Again, when we consider how close was the communion between the Churches of Gaul and Britain, and how frequent was their intercourse, and what facilities they had for intercommunication, we cannot believe that such lawful without the Bishop's authority either to baptize or to celebrate the Holy Communion." As to the authenticity of these letters it has been settled forever by the learned Bp. Lightfoot. Vid. Apostolic Fathers, 2d ed., 3 vols.

a stupendous change as this could take place in one without the knowledge of the other. And moreover, the Church in Britain under the Empire was not only closely connected with the Church in Gaul, but also with the Churches of Italy and with other Churches throughout the Empire.' The facilities of communication between one part of the Empire and another, we have already seen were very great. So that we cannot conceive a change of this nature taking place in Britain without it being known in Rome and Gaul. We may, therefore, at least presume that no such change did take place.

We have here, to say the least, strong presumptive evidence that what the Constitution of the Church in Britain was in A. D. 250, such it was from the beginning. And until we have direct or even presumptive evidence to the contrary, we venture to say that this evidence of itself would be strong enough to establish that fact.

But there is further evidence. No example in any part of Christendom can be showed, during the firsı fifteen hundred years of the history of the Christian Church, that the Church had ever any other form of government or Constitution than what we find to be in the British Isles in A. D. 250; and the challenge of the learned Hooker flung out to the whole world has

never been answered : "We require you to find out one Church upon the face of the whole earth that hath not been ordered by Episcopal Regiment, since the time that the blessed Apostles were here conversant."1 If Britain, therefore, at any time prior to A. D. 250 had varied in its practice from any other Churches we should hear of it.

Now it is well to keep these facts in view, because we have no definite data to go upon prior to A. D. 250 on account of the loss of the greatest part of the writings of the ancient Britons. And this is not to be wondered at when we take into consideration the ferocity of the Picts, the Scots, the Saxons, and the Danes against any thing Christian or appertaining thereto, and the terrible destruction of Churches and sacred books caused by them; and when we know that there was a cruel persecution in Britain in A. D. 284, when many books were destroyed; and that at the time of S. Augustine, a great number of the books at Bangor-is-y-Coed, “which were more precious than fine gold," were burnt, and only such as could be taken out of the fire were saved; and that many of these that escaped uninjured, or were written afterwards, were taken to London by prisoners, when Wales was made subject to the Crown of England, and there destroyed; and when we consider the terrible destruction and pillage during the wars prior to the union of Wales to the Crown, the wonder is that there are any old manuscript books yet in existence. But they are few, and perhaps not one contains a full account of the discipline and order of the early Church in the British Isles.

It would be well to mention here, however, that although the early writings of the Church in the British Isles are thus necessarily scarce and obscure, owing to their wanton destruction by Saxon and Dane, and that we are unable to show definitely and absolutely from this source what the Constitution of the Celto-British Church was prior to 250, yet it is averred by old chroniclers "that there was a Bishop of London as early as the year A. D. 180, and the Western Church then rapidly growing, rejoiced over the news that pagan Britain was gradually becoming Christianised." 3

But be this as it may, there can be no doubt, as we have already seen, that the Christian Church in the British Isles, prior to A. D. 250, was in full communion

1 A. D. 1260-1290. Vid. Green, Short Hist. Eng. People, iv. pp. 183-190.

2 "The Commercial fame of London dates from the early days of Roman dominion."-Freeman, iv. 279. Some of its ancient dignity still belongs to the See of London. The Bishop is Primus Baro Regni, the First Baron of the Realm. The Abp. of Canterbury has no provincial right of visitation in his diocese.

Story of the Church of England, G. H. F. Nye, London,