archbishop? Was not this a distinction? An assistant bishop exercises no consecrating power, and if those with him are not bishops his individual act is null and void. Barlow, then, was consecrator. But had Barlow himself ever been consecrated bishop? That is the question. We are not surprised that Anglicans are anxious to deprive Barlow of the honor of being the consecrator of Matthew Parker-the first link in the chain of Anglican episcopacy. There is no positive evidence that William Barlow was ever consecrated bishop, while there is abundant and varied proof that he was never more than bishopelect. Anglican writers never tire of asserting that he was ordained in the twenty-eighth year of Henry VIII. But where is the proof? He was elected to the see of St. Asaph, January 16, 1536. On the tenth of April following he is elected to St. Davids, where he settles on the July following, and, at that date, is still unconsecrated. The proof of this is a royal writ, dated May 29, and the documents of his successor at St. Asaph, who repeatedly styles him "bishop elect." But where is Barlow between these dates, that is, from January to July? Journeying to and fro from England to Scotland on an embassy to the king, James V. To Scotland he went bishop-elect of St. Asaph; and from Scotland he returned finally in July styled in reports and histories full-fledged bishop of St. Davids. The fact that he was ever consecrated has never been proved.

The belief of those who are said to have assisted in the consecration of Matthew Parker and the teachings of all the English reformers were antagonistic to the views on the ministry held by the Roman Church, and now adopted by the defenders of this theory of the historic episcopate. William Barlow was notoriously lax in his opinions. In July, 1536, after he had taken possession of St. Davids as bishop, articles were presented against him before the king for affirming, "if the king's grace, being supreme head of the Church in England, did choose, denominate, and elect any layman to be a bishop, that he so chosen should be as good a bishop as he is, or the best in England." Did he base this opinion on the fact that he had been made bishop solely by Henry's appointment? We might go over the list did space permit, not only of Parker's consecrators, but of all the bishops of that period without finding one representing the principles of this ultra Anglican party.

They were all in hearty sympathy with the ideas of the Continental reformers, and were restrained only by the semi-Romish sentiments of Elizabeth herself from impressing Genevan doctrine and usage on the Church of England. The Anglicans owe much to the sturdy, headstrong daughter of Henry VIII.

From an impartial study of the facts here presented, necessarily in abbreviated form, it is clear that the consecration of Matthew Parker is, on Anglican principles, very doubtful. The historic episcopate in the Church of England, and, therefore, in the Protestant Episcopal Church, is impossible of proof; and, were it true or even relieved of the incubus of doubt resting so heavily upon it, it is not worthy the importance that has been attached to it.

ART. IV. "THE YOUNG MAN AND THE CHURCH."

A

MR. EDWARD W. Bok wrote an article for the January number of the Cosmopolitan, on "The Young Man and the Church," which has been widely read and has provoked much discussion. Mr. Bok is the editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, which publication under his editorship and management has reached, it is claimed, the largest circulation of any paper in the world. man of his intelligence, integrity, keen knowledge of the world, friendliness to virtue and religion might have been expected to take a broader view of the subject and have reached other conclusions. To us he seems to have so fastened his eyes on one little section of the subject that the great sphere of truth escaped his vision. He wastes no words in laying down two propositions, which he makes the basis of his article: (1) that young men do not go to church; (2) that the reason young men do not go to church is that they get little or nothing from the pulpit when they go. We take exception to both of these statements. We do not believe they can be sustained by the facts. A certain king proposed this question to the scholars of his realm: "Why is it that, if a vessel be filled with water and a fish be dropped into it, the water will not run over?" The men of science returned elaborate and profound answers. king replied, "When the fish is put into the vessel the water will run over." Mr. Bok employs a good many pages in solving the problem why young men do not go to church, when, in fact, they do go to church, and go to church in larger numbers than ever before in the history of this country. We do not say that all young men attend church; we do not claim that as many young men go to church as should. We do not say that the pulpit is perfect, that it attracts as many young men as it is privileged to do. We do say that there is not a growing dislike or neglect of the church upon the part of young men, and that there never was a time when they were more regular in their attendance on the church services or were more loyal to the cause of God.

The

While there are many young men who attend church, there are numbers who do not. This has always been the case. There are powerful influences calculated to drift men away

from the church. There is a growing disregard for the sanctity of the Lord's day-the disposition to make it a holiday, instead of a holy day. Foreigners bring wrong notions of Sunday observance to our shores, and the native Americans adopt them very easily. The young are fond of recreation and amusement, and Satan sets all kinds of snares for them on the Lord's day. The bicycle has gotten to be almost a necessity now. Many ministers find it indispensable to their work and health. The wheel is cutting to pieces the Christian Sabbath and carrying many a young man of good conscience and careful training away from the cross. A spin around the park or out to a neighboring village ten or twenty miles away is often a substitute for attendance on church service on Sunday. Mr. Bok, in his three years of almost fruitless search for ministers with tact and sense enough to attract and entertain young men, must have met scores of young men on the streets and parkways on Sunday, with their knee breeches and sweaters, whirling along from church and worship as rapidly as possible. It did not occur to him that it might be the eloquence of the wheel, rather than the dullness of the minister, that kept young men away from divine service.

The disposition to make Sunday a purely social day militates against church attendance. Numbers of plain people hail the return of the day because it will bring visits, excursions, picnics, social amusement, and even revelry. It has gotten to be quite the thing now for the rich to give the day over largely to riding, visiting, big dinners, and social entertainment of one kind or another. It is quite the custom among the four hundred and their imitators to go to their country seats on Saturday evening and spend the time till Monday in purely social recreation, with the slightest tincture, if any, of God or worship in it. In a conversation on this subject with Mr. Chauncey M. Depew the other day he said to us:

The very rich are being weaned away from attendance upon the church and loyalty to it by the growing custom of making Sunday a day of social enjoyment. Riding, driving, big dinners, gay circles of invited guests are supplanting the church in the affections of the extremely rich. Some of the families of the very rich are constant in their attendance on all the services of the church, parents and children being intensely loyal to all its interests; but a larger number are letting the religious go for the social. It is the old story of the camel and the eye of the needle.

Having heard that Dr. John Hall, pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church of New York, had preached on a recent Sunday on some of the social dangers of high life, we called on him to ascertain his views on the general subject. He said:

There is a growing disposition among the wealthy to spend Sunday in riding, driving, giving parties, and other entertainments which are unfriendly to the church. It not only keeps the members of the family away from religious duty, but large numbers of male and female servants, who are made to desecrate the Lord's day to pander to their masters' folly and sin. Back of my house are a number of livery stables. The other day I went over to see if I could not persuade some of the stablemen and drivers to attend my church. They said, "No, the demands on us are so great we can have no time for church.

If Mr. Bok had thought a little more carefully he might have ascertained that, if young men do not attend church in as great numbers as they should, the saddle, the cushioned carriage, the shady porch, the hammock, the course dinners, the sound of the guitar or viol or piano, the drawing room full of young ladies of exquisite charms may have had as much to do with the nonattendance as the stupidity of the pulpit.

The Sunday newspaper is a powerful rival of the church. It violates the sanctity of the Lord's day and teaches church members, as well as others, to do the same. It is one of the greatest enemies of a Christian civilization. It has in it grains of truth, but tons of trash. The picture Mr. Bok gives of the young man, worn out with vain search for some pastor that would feed him, determining in his desperation to be religious in spite of the imbecility of the ministry, repairing to his father's library, and taking down the Bible and some good book to feed his soul with spiritual pabulum, is a superb specimen of unconscious irony. If Mr. Bok will wipe the dust from his eyes he will see that it is not the Bible that the young man is reading, but the Sunday newspaper. If he will look over the young man's shoulder he will likely see him reading about the baseball team or the races, with a description of the winners; or immersed in a love story; or puzzling his brain trying to guess the end of some novel which has drawn a prize of a thousand dollars; or feasting on some tale saturated with impure suggestion; or firing his mind with the doubleleaded recital of some murder; or devouring the column of