confirmation for the British residents. We merely quote the incident to show that there were such things as British Bishops. As to their signing the letter to the Pope, I give the story for what it is worth, and that is, in my opinion, very little. For myself, I can see no import in it of any sort or kind.

In the Council of Sardica, again, the British Bishops sent an address to the Pope (Labbe, 11. 690), saying, "It will seem to be best and most proper, if the bishops from each particular province make reference to their head, that is, to the seat of Peter the Apostle." The meaning of this

is evident.

By the seat of Peter the Apostle, the British Bishops meant a certain St. Peter's Church in this island, and their letter was an invitation,

or rather injunction, to the Pope that it would be "best and most proper" that he, like the other "bishops from each particular province," should "make reference to" his "head," that is to say, to the British Archbishop, whose seat, or episcopal throne, happened to be, in those days, in a church dedicated to Peter the Apostle.

It is impossible to refrain from a smile, when one thinks of the chagrin that Romanists must feel when they read this letter to the Pope from the British Bishops, whom they have before now had the effrontery to claim as their own, for these bishops, in this letter to the Pope himself, write of Peter, and not St. Peter, a piece of Protestantism which the strongest Evangelical of the nineteenth century could not have excelled. But be it

have merely

understood, that we quoted these letters and incidents with a view to demonstrating to dissenters that bishops, and not "pastors," were at the head of the British Church in the early Christian centuries.

The Pelagian heresy, brought over by Agricola, the son of Severianus, a Pelagian Bishop, had sadly corrupted the faith of the Britons. But whereas they absolutely refused to embrace that perverse doctrine, so blasphemous against the grace of Christ, and were not able of themselves to confute its subtilty by force of argument, they thought of an excellent plan, which was to crave aid of the

Gallican prelates in that spiritual war. Hereupon, having gathered a great synod, they consulted together what persons should be sent thither, and by unanimous consent, choice was made of the apostolical priests, Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus of Troyes, to go into Britain and confirm it in the faith.8

8 "There is no fool like a learned fool!" This saying is very apropos to the conclusions drawn by certain historians from this portion of the text. Would any sane person credit the fact that the reception of Gallican Bishops by the British Christians has been understood, by some wiseacres, to have implied a recognition of Roman Catholic clergy by members of

the Church of Britain? Surely the merest tyro in historical studies must clearly perceive that Germanus and Lupus were two converts to the British Church, or why should they have come to Britain?

We have already seen that three British Bishops had been on a missionary expedition to France, and what is more probable than that Germanus and Lupus were two of their converts ? Some French speaking clergymen would be very useful among the French converts in Britain, and Germanus and Lupus were most likely summoned to conduct services for them according to the British rite. A convert is always useful, too, on the platform of a missionary meeting, and it is but natural to suppose that, at British missionary meetings for the