was restored in the Church of Scotland. There is no evidence that the existing presbyters in Scotland were re-ordained, though all the new ones received episcopal ordination. The Royal prerogative was employed to force the consecrations through, and Dr. Wordsworth points out that "this side of the 'precedents of 1610' was not for a moment approved by the Bishops of the Lambeth Conference of 1908." We are not surprised to learn that much discussion arose in London before the consecrations took place. Bishop Andrewes desired that the three Presbyters from Scotland should be ordained to the office of priesthood before proceeding to that of the episcopate. Archbishop Bancroft held that "there was no necessity of receiving the order of priesthood but that episcopal consecration might be given without it." In support of this theory there are many cases from Church history in which the episcopate has been conferred per saltum upon the principle that a bishop was ipso facto ordained a priest since the greater includes the less. Whatever arguments were used the four bishops did consecrate without any previous English orders being conferred. I know the influence exercised by Bishop John Wordsworth in securing the passage of the Lambeth Conference resolution in 1908, and therefore I give below his summary in favour of the "precedents of 1610." So far from the Lambeth Confernem illam perficiendum et celebrandum sub sigillo quo in hac parte utitur concessit, datam in manerio suo de Lambehithe decimo nono die mensis Octobris anno domini millesimo sexcentesimo decimo et trans(lacionis) sue anno sexto. Quae quidem Licencia presentata fuit predictis Reverendis patribus domino Georgio episcope Londonensi, domino Lancelloto episcopo Eliensi, domino Richardo episcopo Roffensi et domino Henrico episcopo Wigorniensi ante inchoatam consectacionem et per eosdem (inc. fol. 415) ea qua decuit reverentia acceptata. Tenor vero literarum patentium predictarum et licencie Reverendissimi patris predicti sequuntur in hec verba videlicet JACOBUS dei gracia e.q.s.

Reasons for the course now proposed. (1) The resolution of 1908 is practically a dispensation; (2) the Gelasian principlegrave necessity; (3) the Apostolic canon-call of divine grace; (4) it would avoid raising the question of existing status.

I may now, very shortly, summarise the arguments of the preceding essay in favour of the course here suggested.

ence having frowned upon proposals for re-union, its resolution (No. 75) was the most important step taken hitherto on the side of the Church of England. Without deciding any details or judging many questions which have yet to be raised, it indicated a way towards union which may yet lead to the fulfilment of what has become a hope and desire throughout Christendom. The Church in every section is well trained in methods

(1) The Anglican Communion is competent to dispense with any rules of discipline which do not touch the essentials of ordination as to matter, form, intention and minister. It has so dispensed, according to one explanation, as far as it took corporate action in the consecration of October 21, 1610. It has more distinctly affirmed its willingness to dispense with its rules of gradual ascent to the episcopate in the seventy-fifth resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1908.

(2) The Gelasian principle of the suspension of ecclesiastical rules in times of necessity is also in its favour. The great need of re-union in the face of the attack made upon the fundamental truths of Christianity, and the weakness in the aggressive work at home and in the mission-field which arises from separation, are a sufficient cause for the application of new methods. Church history has examples of something of the same sort in regard to the healing of schisms.

(3) The principle of the Apostolic canon, exemplified in the freedom of ordination not only of laymen when pointed out by a vox Dei, but of persons endowed with spiritual gifts, without any previous probation, is even more pertinent. For the highest Churchmen must recognise in many leading Presbyterian and Nonconformist ministers a remarkable exhibition of the grace of God and a ministry blessed by Him.

(4) The course proposed would avoid casting any imputation on the ordination already received, and no doubt exceedingly valued, by the ministers as consecrated bishops. Their status would be accepted as practical evidence of their fitness, while its theoretical validity would not be discussed. All that it would be further necessary to ascertain would be that they were personally sound in faith and unblamable in character, and had been duly elected to the sees for which they were chosen.

Under the circumstances contemplated, the choice of the persons to be consecrated bishops would certainly be made after most earnest prayer for the Holy Spirit and after the most searching inquiry and with the full concurrence of the people. It would be an act of the Spirit-bearing Church, conscious of its deep responsibilities, and I believe it might look for the full approval of the great Shepherd of the flock, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Easter, 1909.

of disunion, and re-union can never come until all are agreed to submit themselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He alone can show the better way of unity, peace and concord. We shall make progress only so far as we study the principles common to us all and forget the controversies which separated our forefathers and still keep us apart.1

Bancroft's Character.

In closing this lecture upon Bancroft I attempt a summary of his character. He was from his days in Cambridge an ecclesiastical statesman rather than a theologian. His life-long training in diplomacy and his extensive acquaintance with intrigue, which he set himself to counteract, made him keen and discerning and sometimes too suspicious. An impetuosity of nature combined with much ill-health caused him at times to be rude, and not till his latest days were there signs of gentleness in his manners. His life was one long and strenuous contending for the rights of the Church against Roman intrigue and Puritan disloyalty. Our Church owes to him its very existence in an age when its principles were challenged and its system of worship threatened with destruction. In dealing with King James he met with all the difficulties which Laud found in an exaggerated form in the King's son, Charles I. We cannot judge these Archbishops by any standard of to-day, and yet, while acknowledging all that the Church owes to Bancroft, we cannot refrain from wishing that he had been less Erastian and more devoted to the spiritual interests of the Church.2 These were

I was myself responsible for causing the resolutions agreed upon in 1907 by the Church of England in Australia and the Presbyterian Church in Australia to be sent to all the bishops in 1908, and whilst these were not formally before the Lambeth Conference they were in the minds of the Bishops during the discussion.

2 Since the days of Henry VIII the Crown had been regarded as the depository of both civil and ecclesiastical power, and the King was held to combine these two in his person by virtue of the Consecration Service.

generally lost sight of in the daily administration of the Church's chartered privileges and in obedience to the imperious demands of the Crown. Bancroft's health was sacrificed to his duties. For many years before his death he suffered from ague and stone, and at last died on November 2, 1610, after agonising pain which the medical skill of his day was powerless to alleviate. He was buried at Lambeth, and under his successor, Abbot, the Church soon learnt to honour the memory of its brave and fearless champion.

WILLIAM LAUD1

1573-16452

UNTIL recent years Cranmer suffered from indiscriminate praise, Bancroft from neglect, and Laud from unreasoning dislike and suspicion. The last has now

I find much difficulty in obtaining any satisfactory account of the origin of the name Laud. S. Lô in France gave rise to Senlow. Baring-Gould says, "Slow is S. Lô, in Latin Laudus, that gives us the surname of the Archbishop, Laud." Lower (Patronymica Britannica) says, "Sancto Lô, as the surname is latinised in charters as De Sancto Laudo, it is probably the origin of Laud." There is a surname Lewd, i. e. untaught, ignorant, a layman, thus "lered and lewed," i. e. clergy and laity (Piers Plowman). The name occurs thus, William le Lewed (1300), afterwards Roger Lude, county Somerset. The word Lewd occurs in two groups of forms, (1) one retaining the "e" of the old English Laewede," and (2) the other the " These latter forms are chiefly northern and Scottish, but not exclusively, and are written Lawed, Laued, Laud and Lawid. In the fourteenth century we have "Ye clerkes rounde (of shaven crowns) and ye lawed men fourcornered." In the thirteenth century, "To laud and Inglis man I spell That understandes that I tell." In the fifteenth century, "both to lawd man and to clerk." The word then connoted layman as opposed to cleric, thence unlearned and so low and vulgar, and finally ill-bred and base.

66

a."

I am inclined to the opinion that Laud's name came from this old word for layman, and has no connection with S. Lô in France. In the poem written in the Vestry Book of All Hallows Barking, in 1663, which records the removal of his body to S. John's College, Oxford, the name is spelt "Lawd." The coffin plate has "Laud."

2 Born at Reading, 1573. Educated at Reading Free School. Matriculated, October 17, 1589, at S. John's College, Oxford. Fellow, 1593. B.A., 1594. M.Á., 1598. B.D., 1604. D.D., 1608. Ordained Deacon January 4, 1600. Priest April 5, 1601. (Ordained both Deacon and Priest by the Bishop of Rochester (Young), because Oxford was vacant from 1592 to 1603). Chaplain to Charles