But we have not half examined the component elements of Holy Church. Some of its members believe in heaven, purgatory, and hell; some in heaven, a mild sort of middle state (or, to be more accurate, a middling state) and hell; some in heaven and hell alone; some in heaven but not hell; and others in neither heaven nor hell. All these believers or unbelievers are members of the Church of England. Surely they combine to make a sufficiently strong Mark for our Church!

Let us look again into this comprehensive fold, and what do we find? Semi-Romanists, Semi- Unitarians, Semi Agnostics, Semi- Buddhists,

Semi Confucianists, Semi-Atheists, Semi - Materialists, Semi-Methodists. Where is comprehensiveness, if not here?

As a further illustration of the comprehensiveness of our ancient Church, I may adduce the evidence of Pope Gregory, whom the Romanists have thought fit to dignify with the title of Great. From his own erroneous point of view this personage was able to discover, even in Pagan Rome, a striking image of ourselves, and of the truly catholic spirit of toleration which has animated our forefathers in all ages; for Pagan Rome, he tells us, "whilst ruling over the nations, became the sharer of all their errors, and seemed to herself to be greatly religious because she rejected no falsehood."

In order to read Bede's text aright, it is requisite that we should bear in mind the warning on our opening page, which may briefly be summarised as the necessity of reading

the work of a Romanist historian through Protestant spectacles. Hence in the particular passage under our notice, we should read "heresy" "orthodoxy," for when Romanists. speak of heresy, they mean doctrines contrary to those of the Church of Rome; and since the Church of England condemns the doctrines of the Church of Rome as heretical, it follows that she approves doctrines opposed to them as orthodox. We ought, therefore, to read the passage, "every heresy immediately rushed into the island," as if it stood "every orthodoxy immediately rushed into the island."

Here we trace the introduction of those "views," which have flourished with so much luxuriance in the fertile soil of our beloved country. Henceforward, instead of being bound

and fettered under the cruel thraldom of one faith, the Christians of this island were to believe or disbelieve, to reverence or deride, to add to, or take away from, whatever they pleased. They were, indeed, to be as our first parents in the garden of Eden, surrounded by the luscious fruitsnot of the earth, but of religious views; and the command to them was given, "Of every tree in the garden "—that is to say, of every socalled heresy-" thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"—that is, of Romanism-"thou shalt not eat of

it."

Referring again to the text, let us notice the words, "" ever fond of something new, and never holding firm to anything." Does not this passage

alone prove the identity of the early British Church with our own? Comment would be superfluous!

Then observe the special views which gained ground in the British communion-Arianism and Pelagianism. The first denied the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; the second the necessity of divine grace. Views having much in common with these, if not absolutely identical, are held at this very moment by many members of the Church of England. So here we have another and most important link in our chain.

I must not neglect this opportunity of expressing the satisfaction I feel at the countenance given by our Bishops to every existing Church which is what Bede would erroneously have called "corrupted with the venom of