LIBEAEY Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BX 5178 .L436 1844 Le courayer, Pierre Frangois, 1681-1776. h dissertation on the _ validi tv of thp nrdi nations.... Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/dissertationonvaOOIeco_0 A DISSERTATION THE VALIDITY THE ORDINATIONS OF THE ENGLISH, AND OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE BISHOPS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH; WITH THE PROOFS ESTABLISHING THE FACTS ADVANCED IN THIS WORK : BY THE REV. FATHER PIERRE FRANCOIS LE COURAYER, CANON REGULAR AND CHIEF LIBRARIAN OF THE AUGUSTINIAN ABBEY OF ST. GENEVIEVE AT PARIS. THE OLD TRANSLATION OF MR. WILLIAMS COLLATED THROUGHOUT WITH THE ORIGINAL, AND IN CONSEQUENCE ALMOST ENTIRELY RE-WRITTEN : THE REFERENCES AND QUOTATIONS VERIFIED AND CORRECTED. VLo fio^it!) is atftietf, BESIDES MR. WILLIAMS'S PREFACE AND OTHER EDITORIAL MATTER, WHICH IS ALL RETAINED, I. — AN INTRODUCTION CONTAINING SOME ACCOUNT, AS WELL OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER EDITIONS, AS OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF, AND THE MEMO- RABLE CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THIS WORK GAVE RISE. II. — A CONSIDERABLE BODY OF FURTHER NOTES. III. AN EPITOME OF THE WHOLE VOLUME. a a b o v JmproBust. ftOP E.R I Of OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER: \ »p E SQl»0 (IlG 3 RIVINGTONS, LONDON. I DC C( XI IV. OXFORD : PBINTED BY I. SHBIHPTON. THE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION: CONTAINING SOME ACCOUNT, AS WELL OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER EDITIONS, AS OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF, AND THE MEMORABLE CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE PRESENT WORK GAVE RISE. The fact that after an interval, apparently, of an hundred and sixteen years, a new Edition of the most celebrated Work yet published in defence of the validity of the Anglican Orders*, has at length been loudly called for, is of itself both a safe indication of the great and favourable change which has taken place in the direction of English thought, and also a happy earnest of what, with the Divine blessing, may be hoped from the future. Under these circumstances, particularly, it was felt that all reason- able pains ought to be taken in editing so important a Work. At first, indeed, it was naturally supposed that, with a letter so compli- mentary as that from the author to Mr. Williams (see p. 11 — 16), no better warrant could have been desired for reprinting that gentleman's translation as it stood ; to have done which would of course have made the republication a comparatively easy task. This process, however, had scarcely commenced, when the present Editor, having occasion to consult the original, was surprised to find that it by no means corresponded so accurately as that letter seemed fairly to imply. Still it was hoped that, 8 On the Nag's-head Fable in parti- " Tavern in Cheapside thoroughly ex- cular, a Work intitled "The Story of the " amined, &c.",by Thomas Browne, B.D. " Ordination of our First Bishops in Queen 1731, is the fullest examination of all the "Elizabeth's Reign at the Nag's-head facts of the case. a2 iv Wretchedness of Mr. Williams's translation.— Why it could [editor's without the labour and delay of a systematic collation, it might be sufficient to correct such material inaccuracies as might happen to be observed. As the work, however, proceeded, the extreme faultiness of that trans- lation became at length so apparent, as to make it impossible to doubt the absolute necessity of comparing it with the original throughout, and cor- recting it thereby ;— although it was not until this last business was fairly in hand, that the full truth appeared, how wretched beyond parallel (as one may reasonably hope) that translation was ; that in fact there were, com- paratively speaking, but few sentences which did not require all but re- writing. In short, to convey to the reader any tolerable idea of the translation, or rather, attempt at translation, in question, one can only compare it to the exercise of a beginner performed with no small haste and carelessness : — almost constantly aside of, it very frequently made important alterations in, occasionally even reversed, the meaning of the original ; and all this over and above so general an inaccuracy and awkwardness of expression, as to leave (when taken in connection with the above more serious faults) not merely few sentences, but comparatively few lines even, in which correction, more or less, was not required. In addition to all which, very consider- able mutilations were also discovered. Some occasional specimens of Mr. Williams's way of translating will be found in the Editor's Notes to the latter part of the Work : to have tran- scribed throughout even the worst specimens, would have been of itself no slight undertaking. After the preceding account of that gentleman's translation, the reader may naturally wonder, that it was not at once discarded altogether, and a new one substituted in its place. In the way, however, of this, there was a material impediment, namely, that Mr. Williams had had communication with the author, and by his direction made certain alterations in the Workb. Had these alterations been formally enumerated, and the original of the substituted passages preserved, the whole might of course have been translated anew, making only the substitutions directed. In the absence, however, of any such specification, Mr. Williams having unfortunately considered his translation " sufficient for the English reader" (p. 10, 1. 7), and been content with inserting in the Appendix the chief of the rejected passages, there was no alternative but to collate his translation throughout with the original French, and distinguish as well as might be, between mere blunders and such alterations as the author might possibly have directed himself. To do this was in general not diffi- cult, the alterations being almost always such as it was quite impossible b See p. 10 A (i. e. p. 10, paragraph 1 ), with the Editor's Further Notes. introd.] not be a/together dispensed with. — Dr. Colder' s mistakes. v the author could have desired; but where there appeared a doubt, Mr. Wil- liams's rendering has at least been given in the Notes. It is stated, indeed, in the Life prefixed to the Soeinian" translation (Lon- don, ITS?)*1 of our author's Latest Opinions (see below), — a Life, however, which as respects the French part of his career is extremely incorrect e, — * The word "Soeinian" is employed here and elsewhere, in speaking of this translation and its author, as a popular term denoting the heresy which calls itself " Unitarian". d By Dr. Calder: see p. lxi, note u. e In the little that is said of that period of our author's life, the present Editor ob- serves the following errors : 1. On p. xiii (the first of the Life itself), he is said to have heen born Nov. 7, instead of 17. This mistake however is found in, and appears to have been taken from, U'Hebrail and Laporte's La France Litteraire, in 2 vols., 1769; the authority of which Work is expressly adduced on the same page for another mistake, concerning which see note s, p. xv. 2. On p. xv, he is stated to have been " considered as an avowed " heretic on the publication" of his Dis- sertation in 1723, whereas he was not so considered till about four years after. 3. On p. xvi, Cardinal Tencin is mentioned with the Journalists of Trevoux, Gervaise, Har- douin, and Le Quien as of the number of the " learned men " who, " on the first appearance" of the Dissertation, presently entered the lists " to combat the new sys- tem".* What this Cardinal did and when, the reader will find in note /', p. xlv, and note i/,p.xlix. 4. On p.xvi, xvii, the Defence of the Dissertation is said to have been published in 1725, instead of 1726. 5. On p. xvii, the Cardinal de Noaillcs, instead of the Cardinal de Bissy, is said to have " headed" the Prelates who formally con- demned our author's Works. 6. On the same page it is implied that the Disser- tation was formally condemned before the Defence, and consistently with this, the latter alone is mentioned as suppressed by the Decree of Council, Sept. 7. 1727. 7. On p. xviii, our author's Oxford D.D. degree is said to have been conferred May, instead tit August, 28. 1727. t 8. On p. xxiii, the Abp of Paris is said to have " continued " implacable", whereas it appears from our author's own account that the Abp was but forced by others into doing anything in the matter.]; Something more on this sub- ject will be found in note i, p. xlv. 9. On t J § The substance, itshonldbe hority, the Anecdotes of Bowyc 541. The other three are contil the same page the Marischal de No- ailles, who endeavoured to arrange matters in a friendly way, is called " the Cardinal's brother", instead of his nephew; the brother too having been dead since Oct. 2. 1708.§ 10. On the same page our author is repre- sented as having set out for Calais " about " a month after the date of his letter to the " University of Oxford", i. e. after Dec. 1. 1727; whereas, — besides that what follows afterwards in the same paragraph, that after three days' delay at Calais, he reached Eng- land (it should rather have been London) " towards the end of January ", shews suf- ciently that, travelling in haste, he could not have set out sooner than about six weeks after the date mentioned, — we learn from his own statement (Relation &c. vol. 1, p. 311, 312), that he left Paris Jan. 12. 1728, and therefore that six weeks was in fact the precise period which intervened. Such are the errors which the present Editor has observed in the nine short pages which this biographer has devoted at the beginning to the French part of our au- thor's life! Farther on, but connected with the same period, — in that portion of the list of his Works which belongs to this time, the Dissertation is said (p. lxxv) to have been " first printed with the " Approbation of the Licenser, that ac- " companies that Edition" ; although this Approbation was purposely withheld at the time, and first published in the Relation &c. A.D. 1729 : see note b, p. xvii. 2. In speaking of the unpleasant message which Bp Atterbury received from the French authorities on the occasion of our author's escape, this biographer has mistaken Car- dinal Fleury (see p. xlvii) for the Car- dinal de Noailles. 3. He misdates as made in England, an observation of our author's to Abp Wake, which was made more than two years sooner : see note A, p. xlv, xlvi. 4. He calls in question the fact of our author's actual excommunication, of which however the sentence itself is pre- served in the Relation &C. : see p. 1, note c. Incorrect, however, as is this part of his work, the particulars which he has biographer's chief , p. 84, W5; the vi Mistakes of others . — Question whether [editor's that the present Work was reprinted in Holland in 1727; a statement which may be regarded as deriving some support,- — as well from the fact (see p. xliv. with p. xlv. note i) of the suppression in France, by a Decree of Council dated the seventh of September the same year, of the present Work and its Defence (see p. xxxi, xxxii), — as also from the error of Nichols's Anecdotes of Bowyer (4to, 1782), p. 84, and (thence clearly derived, see p. vii. note *) of the London Biographical Dictionary of 1784 in 12, and 1798 in 15, volumes 8vo, — in which, — as in the Britannica and Perthensis Encyclopedias, the former of which certainly, and apparently the latter alsof, have simply transcribed the article of the Biog. Diet, of 1798, — the Work itself is said to have been published in Holland in 1727 ; an error of such magnitude8, certainly, as that no one at all acquainted with and remembering the eventful history of our author's publications, and of the memorable controversies they occasioned, could otherwise have been guilty of it than by a mere slip, as it is called, of the pen ; but which yet it may seem more easy to account for on the supposition of there having really been a reprint of that date, than on any other. These two statements'1, then, may be allowed, notwithstanding their vagueness and difference (if not indeed the more on this very account), collected of the subsequent half-century (all but three years) which our author spent in England, are both full and inter- esting, and may also, apparently, be better depended upon ; and accordingly they have been made use of to a very considerable extent in the present Introduction; see pp. xlvi — lvii; into which indeed, omitting his Anti-Catholic and Socinian digressions, every thing that appeared of importance, or likely to interest the reader, has been transferred. f It begins at all events (as the Editor is informed) with the same words, makes the same statement with respect to the date of the present Work, and quotes the same pas- sage from Jer. Markland (see p. li). * Great, however, as this error undoubt- edly is, it is nevertheless rivalled not merely by the long string of blunders already given (see note e) from the Socinian bio- grapher, but also by the following, which are found in the Life (signed "L — Y") given of our author in the Biographic Universale ; — in which, 1. Mason is made Bishop instead of Arciideacon of Nor- folk, and Abp Bramhall converted into Brucsal. 2. Our author's letter of accept- ance of the degree of D.D. conferred on him by the University of Oxford, is said to be dated Dec. 1, 1732*, instead of 1727. 3. He is said to have had " a Canonry of Oxford" given him ; and that too though it is said farther on that the English them- selves do him the justice to record his adherence to the Church of Rome, as well as to his monastic profession, "and content " themselves with saying ' thathe approved " ' their Liturgy in many respects, and had " ' attended at their services' ". 4. His Deniiers Sentiments are stated to have been written in English by himself, instead of translated into English by a Socinian. This Life is nevertheless not without its value. After the above, it may seem almost superfluous to add the following specimen of condensed popular biography : " Although of the Catholic Church, he " wrote zealously and ably in defence of " the Ordinances of the Church of England ; " which "Work was formally condemned by " an Assembly of French Cardinals and " Archbishops, and Courayer consequently " left France for England." Maunders Biographical Treasury, Ed. 4, London, 1842. With this passage compare the particu- lars to be given hereafter, p. xliv &c. h The author of the Socinian Life, it should be observed, professes, besides • A guera-conection, possibly, of the transposition " 1772 ", found in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. p. P4. Compare p. v, note f. introd.] there was any Second Edition of the original. vii notwithstanding too the little authority (see note e) which belongs to the first, and the gross error involved in the second, to establish, when taken in connection with the above suppression, some considerable probability (to say the least) in favour of the existence of a Second Edition'. But had this existence been ever so certain, unless it could have been shewn also that it was revised by the author himself, it would have been a fact of no Works which the present Editor has seen*, to have derived much information (p. lxxix) from a "living" (p. v) friend of the au- thor's, who, besides his own personal know- ledge, referred also " to a publication in " two volumes, small 8vo, 1777, by the " Rev. W. Jones, B.A., then Rector of " Pluckley in Kent, and afterwards of " Paston in Northamptonshire, author of " Physiological Disquisitions, &c. 1781, and " other learned works", (now better known as "Jones of Nayland",) entitled " Ob- " servations in a Journey to Paris" ; which in the new (Dr. Kippis's) Biographia Bri- tannicaf , as well as in Watts's Bibliotheca Britannica, is given more fully, and with a different date, " — to Paris by way of Flanders in the year 1776." These Ob- servations, — to which also, and with the later date, the Anecdotes of Bowyer (see note *) refer (p. 85) as their principal au- thority, and to particular pages of which (always from the second volume) the new Biog. Brit, repeatedly appeals, — are unfor- tunately not reprinted in the Edition in 12 volumes Svoof Mr. Jones's Works; nor has the present Editor been able to obtain a sight of them ; but it is rather remark- able that the Allgemeine Encyklopadie of Leipsic 1818 also refers in its list of authorities to the same Work under a German title, and as published at Leip- sic with the earlier date, — " Angestellle " Beobachtungen auf ehier Reise nach Paris " durch Flatulent, Leipz. 1 776." (" Arranged " Observations in a Journey to Paris " through Flanders, Leipsic, 1776.") The author of the same Life adds (p. lxxix, lxxx) that the account of our author con- tained in this publication " was communi- cated" " by James Smyth Esq. of Upper Grosvenor Street." The same statement is made in the Anecdotes of Bowyer (see note *). — Considering, however, the ex- treme incorrectness (see note e) of the Socinian biographer's account of the French part of our author's life, it may well be questioned whether, after all, his statement at least, about the re-print in 172 7 is not a mere guess- correction of the error of the Anecdotes of Bowyer, to which he professes (see note *) to he principally indebted. 1 If there was in reality no Second Edi- tion of the original, the Second Edition of Mr. Williams's translation may possibly have contributed to give rise to the mistake. • "All the information contained in the Souteau Diet. His'., 8ro. 6 lomes, 1779, under the Art. " Courayer, has been introduced into this narrative. The 1 Biographical Dictionary', in 12 vols. 8vo, " 1784, furnished some materials; and so did 'Atterbury's Epistolary Correspondence, &c. with his- "'torical notes', vol iv, 8vo, 1787. But much the best part of the account has been procured from " the * Anecdotes of Bowyer', 17S2, a book replete with biographical know ledge, ami curious particular! "of literary history." P. vi. (See also note f.) — N.B. 1. The Anecdotes of Bowyer (one 4to volume) were afterwards incorporated by their author (John Nichols, F.S.A.) into his Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, in nine volumes, 8vo, 1812 — 1816. Bowyer was a learned printer of the last century, whose apprentice, and subsequently partner, Nichols was. Nichols was also the Editor of Atterbury's Epistolary Correspondence, mentioned above, and author of the Illustrations (see p. lvii) of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century, in 6 volumes, 8vo, 1817 — 1831, (of which however the two last, published in 1S28 and 1831, were posthumous,) and numerous other Works. — 2. The London Biog. Diet, of 1784, of which, in addition to the Anecdotes of Bowyer, the Socinian biographer Speaks as having "furnished some materials", neither refers to any other authority nor contains any other matter than what is found in the Anecdotes. — 3. Of the Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique the present Editor has seen only the Edition of 1786. t Of which the volume containing the Art. Courayer is dated 1789. The Editor (a Dissenting Minister) having died in 1795, this Edition was broken off in the letter F. — Of the life of our author contained in this Work the Socinian biographer spraks beforehand as written " by a biographer whoso " name is next to Dr. Kippis's'', and as obligingly communicated, still in an unfinished state by its author to himself, though " it came too late to have enabled him to refer to it with propriety, and to save "him the trouble of drawing up the rough sketch which Ls here exhibited, with all lt^ imperfections on "its head." P. vii. He however prefixes, with that author's consent, two passages (occupying pp. ix — xii), taken from a translated quotation from the first volume of our author's Relation &c. (see p. viii of this Introd.), expressing his sentiments concerning the duty of seriousness in religion (p. 431), and the peculiar excellence of the gospel (p. 431 — 433). In return the finished article in the new Biog. Brit, makes considerable use of the Socinian biographer's account. viii If there was, it was not revised by the Author. — No MS. [editor's real consequence to our present purpose ; — whereas if this second fact of the revision could have been satisfactorily proved, and a copy of such revised Edition procured, the use of Mr. Williams's translation (except perhaps as an historical record of such alterations as he expressly asserts to have been made according to the author's direction) might certainly have been dispensed with altogether. As yet, however, not only has the present Editor been unable, after the most diligent inquiry and search, either to meet with or hear of any such copy, but also the balance of presumptions, so far as he has himself been able to examine into the question, inclines him altogether to the belief, that if any such reprint was made, at least no such revision by the author ever took place. On this head, in the absence of direct evidence on the subject, it may be sufficient to observe, that against the probability of a revised Edition, the single fact, that besides the original of 1723, no French Edition at all is to be found in any Library in Oxford, — to say nothing here of other Libraries, — must be allowed, considering the great attention which both the author and his Works had attracted, to be of itself no slight presumption. But besides this, — and without resting, too, on the fact that no such Second Edition is mentioned by Mr. Williams in the title-page or Adver- tisement of the Second Edition of his own English translation, published (as the reader will see) in 1728 J, — what seems decisive is, that the author writing in 1729, in his Historical and Apologetic Relation of his Opinions and Conduct, published at Amsterdam, though anxious to disclaim, and to shew how fully he had disclaimed from the first, the adoption of a view of Thorndike's, which from his observations in the present Work some had inferred that he did adopt, — when detailing the steps he had taken to correct and prevent this mistake, mentions amongst others the alterations he had directed to be made in the English translation, but takes no notice whatever of any fresh Edition at all of the French original. (Vol. 1, p. 15, 16.) This one fact, though but negative evidence, might well have been deemed a sufficient ground for dismissing the question ; but in order that nothing might be wanting on the Editor's part, he has also, as already stated, made extensive search and inquiry after the alleged Edition, or any satisfactory information concerning it. The result has been given above. > Mr. Williams's First Edition was pub- ever, that the same Edition may have had lished at London in 1725.— Lowndes's a different title-page, according as it was Bibliographer's Manual mentions also,— intended for English or for Irish sale ; the and a letter from an Irish Clergyman to less because the pages to which this Clergy- the present Editor, dated Oct, 15. 1842, man refers (28, 29, and 36) agree with those refers expressly to, — a Dublin Edition of of the London Edition, the same year : it is not improbable, how- introi).] corrections of his to be met with. — Mr. Williams's Editions. ix But although it appeared sufficiently certain that no Second Edition cor- rected by the author himself had ever been published, it was by no means improbable that he might have made manuscript corrections with a view to such an Edition, whensoever it might be called for. And as he had given his books to the Library of St. Martin's Parish in London (Arch- bishop Tennison's Library), it seemed not unlikely that either a copy of the First Edition so corrected, or, if there really was any Second corrected Edition, that Edition itself, might be found there. A friend, however, who did the Editor the kindness to visit that Library for the purpose of ascertaining the truth in this respect, reports that no other Edition besides the original one of 1723 is to be found there, and that, — although in the copy there preserved of the Defence of the pre- sent Work (see p. xxxi, xxxii) there are some manuscript additions and notes, together with one correction, of value,k (which he also kindly tran- scribed and sent him, and which should be appended to any future Edition of that Work,1) — he does not observe any such additions or corrections in the copy of the present Work. There may, however, have been some amongst our author's MS. papers ; but of these, according to the Libra- rian's account, there are none preserved there. To return, however, to Mr. Williams's translation, the collation and ex- amination which the present Editor has been obliged to go through has fully satisfied him that there is no sufficient reason for believing that Mr. Williams had authority for any other alterations than those for which he himself expressly pleads such authority. Could this have been known from the first, much labour and doubt would have been spared, — the more because the Editor was unable to procure a copy of Mr. Williams's Second Edition to prepare for the press, so that up to p. 116 (if he re- members rightly) it appeared necessary to collate that gentleman's two Editions together. After the collation of that portion it became abun- dantly obvious, that it was quite sufficient to collate Mr. Williams's First Edition with the French alone, and merely examine the notes of his Second. At first indeed the Editor had been desirous to retain as much as possible of Mr. Williams's language, and therefore of course of that of the Second Edition : in the case however of such a translation as that under conside- ration, this could be of no real consequence ; much less of such consequence 1 On a second visit, which he had the did also his examining again, and with kindness to make, he saw that the Supple- greater care, the Dissertation itself. (See ment to the present Work and its Defence the result of a visit by the Editor himself, (see p. xli) had also a MS. addition at the in the Additional Notes to this Introduc- end ; which, however, want of time on that tion.) occasion, and subsequently his finding the 1 In the mean time the Editor has Librarian "not in", with other circum- thought it best to preserve them at the end stances, prevented his copying, — as they of the present Introduction. x Real nature of their faults.— Little difference [editor's as to make it in any sense worth while to continue, for this purpose alone, to compare these two Editions together ; particularly when the difference between them was observed to be very little. In fact the reader must understand, that, — notwithstanding Mr. Wil- liams's profession in the Advertisement to his Second Edition, of having therein restored the mutilations, and otherwise corrected the faults, of the First, — the difference between the two, if it may be regarded as in some degree considerable in itself, is yet very trifling when compared with the faults and mutilations which remain uncorrected, in the Second as in the First Edition. It must not, however, be supposed that the faults of either of Mr. Wil- liams's Editions are of such a nature as to admit of being excused by the plea of any possible negligence in printing from, or any supposable dis- honesty in altering, his manuscript; one or both of which excuses may seem to be implied in his own Advertisement to the Second Edition (see p. 2), and is at all events distinctly advanced in his favour by our author, in the Preface and Appendix to his Defence of the present Work ; in the latter of which places, in the introductory paragraph prefixed to a reprint of his complimentary letter itself, he says : " I did not foresee then, any more " than Mr. Williams, that some places would be altered in the impression, " as it has turned out," (vol. IV. p. ccxxix.) ; in the former, still more pointedly, as follows : " I did not foresee that in the impression his manu- " script would be mutilated contrary to his intention, and he must have " been as much surprised as myself at the unfaithfulness towards him with " which it had been used. This information is necessary for those who, not " being able to reconcile the eulogium of this translation with some un- " faithfulnesses which appear in it, might perhaps endeavour again to tire " the public with reflections equally false and odious". (Vol. I. p. xxiv.) If indeed it could be supposed that the printer, having lost Mr. Wil- liams's manuscript, employed a school-boy to re-translate the Work, or with any sinister object substituted such a translation for that gentleman's own, and if the Second Edition were found correct, then indeed might that gen- tleman be held blameless. But besides the utter improbability of such a supposition as this, Mr. Williams himself gives no hint of any such thing, but speaks only of the mutilation (whether by himself or by others he does not say) of certain passages ; whereas the real fault complained of is, that few sentences, even, stand as they should. And in fact to what purpose were it, ever so well to excuse the faults of the First Edition, when the Second, which Mr. Williams himself distinctly professes to have corrected and cleared from those faults, differs so little from the First, that a description of the one is to all practical intents and purposes a description of the other ? introd.] between them. — Mutilations. — Courayer's letter to Mr. W. xi " Quid te exempta juvat spinis de pluribus una t" Of many thorns, what helps thee one drawn out? Hor. Ep. II. ii. 212. The truth is, it is hopeless to say more in excuse for such a translation, than that its author had altogether mistaken the amount of his acquain- tance with the French language, and having the habit (as one must needs suppose) of aiming at speed rather than accuracy, thought it necessary, on account of the great importance of the Work he was translating, to advance at a still greater rate ; the consequence being, that even what know- ledge he had of French was but partially brought to bear on his work. As for the mutilations, some, of course, may have been the printer's fault ; but it must be borne in mind that Mr. Williams himself does not assert any such thing, but merely states the fact of their existence, observing that it was useless " to examine how these things happened" ; and if we consider the haste and carelessness observable throughout his whole translation, it will seem far more probable that the greater part at least are his own. At all events the largest omission of all, that of the whole third Article of the Appendix (see p. 311), — consisting of the Edwardine Form of Ordering Priests and Bishops, with three introductory paragraphs, — was made by himself, and that designedly, as he himself tells us ; the truth being, that, for want of reading or attending to the first of these same introductory paragraphs, he mistook the Ordination Service of King Edward VI. for that of the present Anglican Prager-book, and so thought it useless to re-print it ! Even this mutilation was not corrected in the Second Edition, the only improvement being a verbal alteration in the notice substituted for the omitted Article ! The fact however appears to be, that as in the First Edition Mr. Wil- liams translated too rapidly either to apply what knowledge he had of French, or to avoid otherwise mistaking and mutilating his author, so in the Second, notwithstanding the serious mistakes he confesses himself to have discovered in the First, he never thought it necessary to be at the trouble of collating the whole again with the original, but merely corrected such faults as he had happened to observe himself, or had had pointed out to him by others. Having said so much of the faults of both Mr. Williams's Editions, it is but just to add that with the subject of the present Work he was by no means unacquainted, as may be gathered partly from his Editions themselves, and still more from his having previously (in 1721) been the author of an 8vo volume on the Anglican Succession : see p. 5 and the Further Notes. With respect, however, to the particular merits of that Work, the present Editor is unable to speak. xii Improvements in the present Edition. [editor's As for Courayer's own complimentary Letter, it is probable he was not a very perfect English scholar at the time he wrote it, and that the speci- men he had read (he had only seen " some sheets in manuscript""1) having appeared to express sufficiently his general meaning, he never took the precaution to collate any part of it with the original. Something too may- be fairly allowed, according to Mr. Williams's own expression in modestly disclaiming (see the last sentence of p. 9) the compliments passed by our author on his supposed, or rather presumed, style (compare the end of the Letter with the beginning), for " the custom and way of speaking and writing in this complaisant country." To return, however, to the present Edition, — the references have been verified wherever possible, and the quoted passages collated and corrected, either in the text or in the notes ; by which means it has been rendered considerably more accurate than even the original French Edition. Another material improvement is the rendering into English, either in the text within brackets, or in the notes, all the Latin and other quotations not before translated. Mr. Williams indeed (see the last paragraph of his Preface, p. 10) professed to translate in the text such passages as appeared to him to require it, and throw the originals to the bottom of the page ; but even supposing him to have taken pains at first in considering which passages needed to be translated, and which might be left as they were, — in the latter part, at all events, of the Work, he has left them almost all untouched. Even had this not been the case, the course most satisfactory to the general reader was undoubtedly to translate the whole. More important additions are, 1 . The running titles at the tops and sides of the pages, which it has cost some trouble to construct, but which it is hoped will be a considerable assistance to the reader. Neither in the original nor in either of Mr. Wil- liams's Editions is there any other running title than the general title of the Work, nor can even the Chapter be ascertained without turning back- wards and forwards, or referring to the Table of Contents, (see p. xiii). The side references however on pages 18 and 25, and the side-notes in italics on pages 39 and 41, all which it would have been better for the sake of distinction to have placed at the foot of the page, are Courayer's own : for every thing else at the side, the present Editor alone is responsible ; the use of brackets there being merely to distinguish simple references from running titles. In another Edition running titles should be added at the side of the author's Preface and of the Memoire of Renaudot : — with re- spect to the preceding sixteen pages see p. xiii, xiv. 2. Very considerable insertions within brackets in the foot-notes, to- m Preface to the Defence of the present Work, vol. 1, p. xxiii. INTROD.] Improvements in the present Edition. xiii gether with some (besides the above translations of quotations) in the text itself. It must be understood, however, that such insertions within brackets as are marked with an obelisk (f) at the beginning are Mr. Williams's, as are also all those, whether within brackets or not, which have his initials (D. W.) at the end, or are noted by the Editor as not being in the French Edition. For every thing else which is inclosed within brackets, — except the insertion in the M£moire of Renaudot, p. 25, which is Courayer's own, and any thing which may be distinctly pointed out in the notes as his, — the present Editor alone is responsible. 3. A considerable body of Further Notes by the Editor, consisting chiefly of explanatory and illustrative observations, facts, and quotations, applying to the whole "Work ; in which also a good many inaccuracies in the matter of the Work itself have been noticed. They must be regarded, however, not as the result of systematic research, but rather as a collection of passing remarks ; — in which, accordingly, the reader is requested to correct and excuse the imperfections and errors he will doubtless too often have occasion to observe. 4. An Epitome of the whole volume, which may assist considerably in giving the reader a general view of the line of argument adopted by the author, as well as in remembering and referring to both the Work itself and its accompaniments. In this Epitome is included the old Table of Contents, or List of the Headings of the Chapters of the Text and Articles of the Appendix. It had been the Editor's intention to add some additional Indices ; but, besides that time forbids, an Epitome such as that now given, embracing as it does, not merely an analysis of the whole argument, but also syste- matic mention of the more remarkable authors cited, and persons and things noticed by the way, will be found an almost equally convenient and far more useful substitute. As for Mr. Williams's" Index, or Apology for an Index, it has been given entire, but with some considerable explanatory insertions and notes (within brackets), in its old place at the end of the Appendix. An Index of any kind can hardly fail of being useful; but Mr. Williams's has a further merit, less commonly found in Indices, that of being entertaining also, particularly in the way in which the things to be noted are reduced into alphabetical order. Another very considerable addition is the present Introduction itself ; which, although in some parts, especially in those which relate to Mr. Williams's translation, and the course which the present Editor has been obliged to pursue with respect to it, it has been swelled by circumstances to a greater length than he could have wished, will not, he hopes, be found " In the Bodleian copy this Index is doubt that it is Mr. Williams's, wanting, hut there can be no reasonable xiv Remarks. — Why it was withdrawn from the Anglo-Catholic [editor's useless, or altogether devoid of interest, even to the general reader. As to what concerns that translation, besides that the considerations already mentioned make it of some importance to the text of the original Work, it is in itself a sufficiently curious fact in the annals of book-making to deserve some notice on its own account. Considering however what it has turned out to be, it would seem better in another Edition, 1. to dismiss to the Appendix, and there print in smaller type, the whole of the sheet of sixteen pages now containing its con- structor's Title-page, Dedication, Advertisement, and Preface, together with our author's complimentary Letter to him, and the English translation of that Letter ; 2. to restore to the text the Latin quotations removed by Mr. Williams to the bottom of the page, retaining however within brackets, as in the case of the quotations now first translated, the corrected trans- lations ; and 3. in those places where Mr. Williams claims authority from Courayer himself for making alterations, — after adopting, as in the present Edition, all such of his differences from the original as are not obviously, or in all reasonable probability, the mere result of his general carelessness and incompetency for his work, and preserving, as now, the remainder in the Notes (see the next paragraph), — to add the French of the author's own original Edition, not in the Appendix, as Mr. Williams has done, but at the foot of the page. The Editor's Further Notes, too, in any future Edition would obviously be better placed with the rest, immediately under the text. For the pre- sent Edition, — besides a doubt which some formerly0 entertained, how far notes were admissible in the publications of the Anglo-Catholic Library (for which, the public need hardly be told, this Edition was originally undertaken), — they could not conveniently be got ready in time. And here, as, in consequence of the brevity of the public notice on the subject, there appears to have been some misapprehension with re- spect to the grounds of the withdrawal of this Work from the list of the above Library, it will not be improper to state distinctly that the arrangement to that effect between the Managers of the Library and the Editor of the present volume was entirely of an amicable nature, arising partly from the wish not to injure the usefulness of the Edition by separat- ing the notes from the text, while yet it was thenP thought doubtful (as has just been intimated) to what extent notes were admissible in the publica- tions of the Library, — partly from a further doubt whether the Work of a Roman Catholic was strictly within the design of the Society, — and partly ° Since the publication of Bramhall's Fellow and Tutor of Trin. Coll., Oxford), Consecration of Protestant Bishops, with all remaining doubt on this head must of the copious and invaluable notes of the course have completely vanished. Editor (the Rev. A. W. Haddan, M.A., »• See note o. introd.J Library. — Acknowledgements . — Early life #c. of the Author. xv from its appearing otherwise more convenient to both parties. Had this not been the case, the Editor would of course have followed the instruc- tions of the Managers, and contented himself with the liberty of publishing in a separate form (if it appeared advisable) what seemed inconsistent with the plan of the Library. It may be observed, however, that a notion appears to have been entertained, that the notes in question were both more extensive, and also of a more theological character, than in point of fact they will be found to be. The former of these ideas was probably a mistaken inference from the fact of the Editor's having contemplated a separate publication. It remains only (as respects the present Edition) to acknowledge the very material assistance which in various ways the ready kindness as well of official persons as of personal friends has afforded him. In particular he desires to thank publicly the Rev. B. Bandinel, D.D., Keeper of the Bodleian, and the Under-Librarians : — with respect to the obligations under which others have laid him, he does not feel equally at liberty. Having explained sufficiently what relates to the present and preceding English Editions, the Editor proceeds naturally to give some account of the Work itself and its author, together with the memorable controversies to which it gave rise. Pierre Francois Le Courayer " was born", says the Allgemeine Encyklo- paedie of Leipsic, 1818, "at Rouen i in Normandy, where his father was " President of the Court of Justice, Nov. 17r, 1681 ; received his first " scientific instruction at Vernon ; came in his 14th year to the College of " Beauvais at Paris ; and in the same place entered two years later the " Congregation of St. Genevieve. There he honourably distinguished "himself by his talents and scientific efforts, so that in 1706 he was " appointed Presbyter of his Congregation, and also Professor of Theo- "logy. After he had performed the duties of this Office up to Aug. " 1711, the oversight of the rich Library of the Abbey was given into his " hands." s While holding this situation and before his more public career he was ' The Anecdotes of Bowyer say Vernon, both here (p. 84) and in mentioning his Will (p. 85). See more p. Iv. ' In the La France Litteraire of D' He- brail and Laporte (in two volumes, 17G9), vol. 1, p. 229, the date is given as Nov. 7, a mistake which has been followed by the Socinian biographer (p. xiii, the first of the Life itself: compare note c), not- withstanding the inscription mentioned by himself on p. lxxx (see p. lv of this In- trod.) ; to which may he added the decisive authoiity of that under the picture in the Bodleian (see p. lvii, and compare p. lv. note «)■ ' The new Biog. Brit, (see p. vii, note f) refers to vol. 2, p. 19 of the " Observations " in a Journey &c." (see p. vii, note h) for a description of this Library; — which "is a " grand room in the form of a cross, about " 300 feet in length and breadth, with a " dome finely painted in the center". xvi Early life and first literary labours &c. of the Author, [editor's the author, according to Qu&ard's " La France Litteraire " of " A Letter " to M. l'Abbe *** (Girardin [compare p. xliv]u) concerning a new pro- " ject of a Library Catalogue, dated 1712. In folio, consisting of 8 two- " column pages." Also, according to the Biographie Universelle and the same authority, of a M6moire concerning the life of Father Le Bossux, at the head of the Sixth Edition, published by himself, of that Father's Treatise on the Epic Poem ; The Hague, 1714, in 12mo.>' Also, according to the same authorities, of Letters on his theological contests and Memoires in the V Europe Sqavante, to which Querard adds the date " 1718 — 20"; — about which same time may perhaps have been written the Treatises on the superiority of Bishops as compared with Priests, and on the Supremacy of the Pope, which the same authorities attribute to him, but which, they say, appear not to have been printed. — He was also, as the same authorities again inform us, the Editor of a Collection of Spiritual Letters on various subjects of morality and piety, by Father Quesnel : Paris, Barrois, 1721, 3 volumes 12mo. Though far from being a Jansenist, — being on the contrary decidedly opposed to their views, — he was yet among the Appellants against the celebrated Constitution (or Bull) Unigenitus, of the date of Sep. 8. 171 3,z by which they were finally condemned, a circumstance to which he mainly attributes the determined opposition he subsequently experienced from the maintainers of that Constitution1, — an opposition which was 1 In ten volumes, 1827 — 1839. The volume containing the Life of Le Courayer was published in 1833. u Patrick Piers De Girardin, Doctor of the Sorbonne : compare p. 336 of the pre- sent Work. " His name was originally " Piers only, but lie added De Girardin to " denote his extraction from a family of " that name in Ireland. From the infor- " mation of Father Courayer." — Note in the old Biog. Brit., Art. Wake, p. 4090 : com- pare p. xvii note c. 1 Like himself, a Canon Regular of St. Genevieve. y The Treatise, or such a Treatise, it- self, is erroneously ascribed to him in the La France Litteraire of the Abbes D' Hebrail and Laporte*, vol. 1, p. 229; a mistake which the Socinian biographer (compare p. lxxv with p. xiii, xiv) adopts on the autho- rity (which however he expressly adduces) of that publication ; the new Biog. Brit, (see p. vii, notes k and \) on the authority of the Socinian biographer ; and the new Biog. Diet, (see p. vi, and p. vii note *) on the au- thority of the Biog. Brit — In the Nouveau Diet. Hist, of 1786 (the Editor has not seen that of 1779) the matter is stated correctly. 1 In the Encyclopaedia Britannica this Bull, being confounded with the Bull f'i- neam Domini Sabaoth, is mis-dated July 17. 1705 ; the real date however of this earlier Bull being neither July 1 7, nor, as the En- cyclopedic Methodique has it, July 15), but ' 17 Cal. Aug.', i. e. July 16.— In the Bull I'niginitns were condemned 101 (not, as the latter Encyclopaedia gives it in one place, i. e. in the Article " Constitution", an hundred and ten) propositions of Ques- nel's New Testament or Reflexions Mo- rales Src. " Called Constitntionaries, as the oppo- site party Anti-Constitutionaries. To these latter the Abp of Paris himself, the cele- brated Cardinal de Noailles, belonged for more than fourteen years, although even- tually, Oct. 11. 1728 f, he subscribed the Bull. — In an Assembly of 49 Bishops, over • In two volumes, 17G9. To this Work Laporte added two supplementary volumes of inferior value in 1778, and tho Abbe Guiot, two more " below criticism" in 1784. Querartfs new "La France Litthaire" (see note r): Disc. Prelim.: vol. 1, p. xiv. t In the life of Quesnel (signed " L — Y": compare p. vi, note g) in the Biog. Unin. this date is given or printed wrongly as 1718. INTROD.] Origin of the present Work. xvii all the more severe from his having even the Jansenists themselves against him. At the time, however, of the publication of the present Work (see p. xviii), he was still a Regular Canon or Monk, and chief Librarian, of the Augustinian Abbey of St. Genevieve at Paris. His motives and object in writing on the subject, together with the history of the composition of the Work itself, are sufficiently stated in his own Preface ; in which, however, the circumstances which delayed its publication for two years are pur- posely passed over in silence. A full account of these will be found in the first Chapter of his Historical and Apologetic Relation of his Opinions and Conduct, published at Amsterdam in 1729 in two volumes 12mo ; from which it appears that the delay was owing to the determined efforts of those who wished the book suppressed, and who, notwithstanding its having received, on the 1st of Oct. 1721, not merely the Approbation, but also the high praise, of the Censor (M. D'Arnaudin),b whom he had politely been allowed to choose, succeeded in preventing the usual Privilege from being granted. These efforts, however, served only to perfect and improve the Work, especially by means of a correspondence into which its author entered with Archbishop Wake, by whom he was most kindly furnished with much original matter of importance.0 which he presided himself, held Jan. 25. 1714, forty had accepted the Bull : the re- maining nine, including himself, thought proper to wait for explanations ; one how- ever of their number, M. de Clermont, Bp of Laon, adding himself afterwards to the majority. — Biogra/jhie Universelle. h This Approbation, having been with- held at the time, — " in order not to com- " mit without necessity the Approver," — was afterwards published in the second or documentary volume of the Relation, of which, with an introductory paragraph, it forms the first Article, p. 1 — 3. e Our author was encouraged to apply to the Abp by the correspondence which had taken place a little earlier (1717 — 1720) between that Prelate and Dr Dupin of the Sorbonne, concerning a projected union of the Anglican and Gallican Churches ; a good deal of which, after an account of the whole affair, is given by Maclaine at the end of his Translation of Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., Appendix III, p. 146—168 Ed. 1768*: see also the old Biog. Brit, Art. Wake. Of the eighteen letters or extracts of letters given by Mac- laine, three are in Latin, viz. two to Dr Dupin himself and one to Dr Girardinf, the rest in English, viz. one from Mr Beau- voir, Chaplain to the Earl of Stair, British Ambassador at Paris, to the Abp, and the remainder from the Abp to Mr Beauvoir.J The Latin letter, dated July 23. 1721, by which our author first applied to the Abp, is preserved in the above article. The Abp replied in two (or two parts of one) Latin, and a number of English letters ; and con- tinued for many years (or rather, perhaps, during life) a regular correspondence witli our author. At all events, the author of the above article, writing in 1763 (see p. 4095), says : " A series of no less than five and " forty letters in MS. now lies before me, "from Sep. 1721 to Jan. 172f, written by " the Abp. They were communicated by " Father Courayer ;" &c. &c. Of some of the English letters copious and interest- ing extracts are given, together with a few annotations ; in one of which (p. 4092) we • Volumes 1 and 3 are misdated 1758. The account occupies pp. 117 — 145. t Also a Doctor of the Sorbonne : see note u, p. xvi. I As a PS. to one of these last letters (to Mr B.), dated Dec. 2. 1718, the Ahp writes (p. 160): " Did Cardinal de N'oailles know what authority the Ahp of Canterbury has got by the Reformation, " and how much a greater man he is now than when he was the Pope's LegatlU Natus, it might en- " courage him to follow so good a pattern; and be assured (in that case) he would lose nothing by " sending back his Cardinal's cap to Rome. I doubt your Doctors know little of these matters." b xviii Publication of the present Work. [editor's At length, some of his friends, having taken a copy of his manuscript, put it to press without his knowing it at the time, or indeed long before the public. In consequence, however, the Work was published, as we learn from the Relation (vol. 1, Chap. 1, p. 9), in the latter partd of 1723. It was printed at Nanci in France, or rather in the Duchy of Lorrain then of late attached to France, on the strength of the Approbation of the Cen- sor, and of " the tacit permission of the Magistrate", but as it had never received the Privilege, the bookseller thought it safest to name only a Brussels publisher, and so conceal the fact of its having been printed within the French Dominions6. The title-page of the original (which was in two parts or volumes 12mo) was : " Dissertation sur la Validity des Ordinations des Anglois, et sur la " Succession des Evesques de l'Eglise Anglicane, avec les Preuves Justifi- " catives des faits avancez dans cet Ouvrage. Premiere (or Seconde) are informed that the Latin letters, of which our author has reprinted so much at the end of the present Work (p. 346—364), " fill no less than twelve sheets of paper, " close written on all sides" ; the date (i. e. of the first* ) being " xv. Cal. Oct.", i. e. Sep. 17, " A.D. m.dcc.xxi." — Concerning the later English letters, see note h, p. xliv. Of this, as well as the preceding cor- respondence, the Anecdotes of Bowyer (4to 1782) say: "The original papers which " the Abp sent over to Courayer, together " with several letters which passed con- " cerning the terms of a projected recon- " ciliation between the Churches of France " and England, are now inf the possession " of the Rev. Osmund Beauvoir, Master " of the King's School at Canterbury, " whose father was Chaplain to the British " Embassy, and through his hands the " correspondence 'with Abp Wake was " carried on." P. 84. That Dr Osmund Beauvoir should be in possession of the letters concerning the projected union ad- dressed by the Abp to his father, is both very natural, and is also stated as a fact, as well bythe authorofthe above article, (seep. 4090), as by Maclaine.to whom he furnished copies (p. 120)1; — but how he came by those which had but passed through his father's hands to Courayer, and which, as we have seen above, had in 1763 been communicated by Courayer himself to the writer of the above article, we are not in- formed. d In the French, "a la fin"; but that this must be so understood, is clear from the dates of some of the notices and com- plimentary letters just about to be men- tioned in the text, especially the letter of Oct. 15. 1723, the writer of which says ex- pressly, " I waited for the publication of " your Work to make myself master of the " question you examine." Another of these letters is dated, as the reader will see, Oct. 10. 1723; and in that of Nov. 5. 1723 its writer says that he read the Work with delight directly it had appeared. To which letters, — to the disparaging announcement in the Journal de Trevoux of November 1723 (see p. xx), and to the highly favourable notice in the Nouvelles Litte'- raires for the next month, testifying at the same time to a similar reception from both French and English readers (see p. xix), — may be added the letter of Tournemine the Jesuit to our author, dated Oct. 7. 1723, — which with an introductory paragraph forms the 7th Article (p. 68, 69) of the second or documentary volume of the Rela- tion, and in which the writer, besides ex- pressing his own favourable opinion of the Anglican Ordinations, states that persons of ability had spoken highly of the present Work, and inquires where he can buy it. e In the Defence (the Editor has for- gotten where) he speaks of it as printed outside the Kingdom, " hors du Royaume". So also in his letter to Cardinal Fleury, preserved in the Relation, vol. 2, p. 172; and in a note to p. 327 of the same volume. • Of the second the Abp himself says in a letter of Dec. 9. 1721 : " With this yon will receive my ' Latin letter in answer to your last enquiries". Ibid. p. 4093. In the same letter he speaks of 1 the two sheets sent him' of the present Work. t In the Lit. Anecd. (see p. vii. note *), vol. 2, p. 40, we have (A.D. 1S12) " were in". J Maclaine had also copies of letters from Wake's MSS. at Christ Church, Oxford. — Ibid. introd.] Title-page. — Reception. — Testimonies. xix " Partie. A Bruxelles, chez Simon t' Serstevens, Libraire, pres les RR. " PP. Dominicains. m.dccxxiii." A Dissertation* on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English, and on the Succession of the Bishops of the Angli- can Church, with the Proofs establishing the facts advanced in this Work. First {or Second) Parts. Brusselsb : Simon t' Serstevens, Bookseller, near the Reverend Fathers the Dominicans. MDCCXXIJI. Its first reception appears to have been very favourable, and the interest it excited very considerable. Our author tells us (Rel. vol. 1, Chap. 1, p. 12 — 14) he received a great number of complimentary letters on the occasion, of which he contents himself with giving specimens of four, of the dates of Oct. 10 and 15 and Nov. 5, 1723, and March 10, 1724. He adds (p. 14) that in letters not addressed to himself the Work was similarly spoken of, instancing particularly one to the Prior of St. Genevieve, of which copious extracts will be found farther on, and one of M. l'Abbe' Caldaguez, concerning which see p. xxxv. As to public testimonies, those of the Nouvelles Litteraires and of the Journal des Scavans are mentioned in Mr. Williams's Preface, p. 6 C (i. e. p. 6, paragraph 3) ; more fully noticed in our author's own *' Relation &c", vol. 1, Chap. 1, p. 11, 12, and vol. 2, Art. 3 (see p. xx) ; — in the former of which places (p. 11) we have an extract from the first mentioned periodical, whose Editor, Father Des-Molets, in the No. for Dec. 1723, p. 34, 35', testifies as follows to the high sense which himself and, as he asserts, persons in general entertained of it : " ' This Dissertation', says the Author of these Nouvelles, ' is well " ' written and very methodical ; the judgment of the author shines in the " ' choice of the proofs and the force of his reasonings ; his criticism is sound '* * and judicious ; and he shews throughout a great knowledge of theology. " ' This book has been equally well received by the English and the French. "'. . . This Dissertation is from a master hand. He follows his adversary " ' foot to foot, and overwhelms him by the force of his reasons, which he " ' pushes to demonstration.'" P. 11. The Extrait* or Extraits in the Journal des Scavans appeared in the Nos. for Jan. and Feb. 1724. After the first portion the Editor (M. l'Abbe Des- Fontaines) wrote to our author to ask his consent to his naming him in the second, which he was about to publish. To this our author readily con- sented, availing himself, however, of the same opportunity, as well to dis- avow the system of Thomdike, which it was alleged he had adopted, (com- pare p. viii,) as to notice some observations of the Journalist which appeared ' See Mr Williams's Preface, p. 10, 1. 9. a new Work, — fuller than what we call a tf Or Volume. See p. 201. " Notice", and keeping more nearly to the h See the preceding page. ostensible object than what we call a 1 As cited by our author. " Review", — into which portions of the k By " Extrait" is meant an account of Work itself are extracted or abstracted. b 2 xx Journal des Scavans. — Answers. — 1. Attuck [editor's to him not sufficiently exact ; — which he did in two letters dated Jan. 12 and Feb. 5. 1724, and inserted in the April (in the Holland Edition, the May) No. next following. Of these letters reprinted, together with an in- troductory paragraph, consists the 3d Article (p. 24 — 35) of the second or documentary volume of the Relation; the first letter beginning on p. 25, the second on p. 30. As however might naturally be expected, all the world were not of one mind on the subject. The favourable Extrait in the Journal des Scavans drew down upon its author a severe reprimand from Cardinal Fleury, " then late Bishop of Frejus" (Rel. vol. 1, p. 12)' ; while the Work itself was pub- licly and hotly combated from various quarters. The following answers or attacks are noticed by our author himself in the Preface and first Chapter of his Defence of the present Work, and in the second of the Relation already mentioned. What appears in the following pages with regard to them, it must be particularly borne in mind, is drawn almost entirely from these and other places of our author's own writings, and must therefore be regarded as expressing his account as well of the facts concerning them as of their merits. 1. The attack of the Journalists of Trevoux, Jesuits, who, — having pre- viously, in their No. for Nov. 1723, p. 2257m, announced the book as the work " of one of those pacificators in the matter of religion who find reason "in every thing, and whom nothing stops", led the way to more definite hostilities in a so called "Extrait" (see note k), which appeared in their No. for March 1724, and in answer to which our author wrote them a severe Letter, dated May 15. 1724, which he has reprinted in the 2d or documen- tary volume of his Relation : see p. xxi, xxii. This "Extrait" is also noticed by him in the Preface (p. vii) and first Chapter (vol. l,p. 3 — 5) of the Defence, and in the text of the Relation, vol. 1, Chap. 2, p. 3G — 39. He complains bitterly of the injustice and malignity with which they had misrepresented his Work ; which however, according to his account, was only of a piece with their previous conduct towards him ; they having 1 It may be as well to observe tbat this Cardinal was a distinct person from M. V Abbe Fleury, the Ecclesiastical historian. The Cardinal (Andrew) was born June 22. 1653, nominated Bp of Frejus Nov. 1. 1698, was consecrated to that See the next year, resigned it on account of ill health in 1715 ; in which same year he was named by the Will of Louis XIV (who died Sep. 1) preceptor to his great- grandson and successor Louis XV, whose permanent love and confidence he acquired. In 1726 he was made Cardinal, and the same year (at the age of 73), after the dis- missal of the Due de Bourbon, became Premier, which office he continued to hold for 17 years, until his death, Jan. 29. 1743, in his 90th year. — The Ecclesiastical his- torian (Claude) was born Dec. 6. 1640 ; in 1684 made sub-preceptor to the Due de Bourgogne, father of Louis XV, and the Dues d' Anjou and Berri, his uncles ; in 168 1- Abbot of Loe-Dieu ; afterwards Prior of Argenteuil ; and in 1716 Confessor to Louis XV, during whose minority he died, July 14. 1723 (in Playfair wrongly 1722). — It is remarkable that both Fleurys were employed in forming the mind of" Louis XV : they were also both members of the French Academy. m Margin of the Relation Sec, vol. 1, p. 10. introd.] of the Journal de Trevoux. xxi charged him before, — not indeed by name, but as " Father . . . Librarian of " ", which they explained to such as wished for explanation, — with being the Editor of the Bibliotheque Framboise, and when he had written them a letter, dated Feb. 22. 1724 (seep, xxii), to complain of the injustice, and state his ability to declare on oath that he had never in any way had any thing to do with the Work in question, — instead of retracting the obnoxious passage in their own Journal, in which it had appeared, — satisfied themselves with sending him, and perhaps no one else, and inserting (see vol. 1, p. 71, 72) in 5 or 6 copies only of their Journal itself, a printed slip of paper, mentioning his letter and declaring in con- sequence that what they had said did not relate to him. Of their veracity, however, our author relates a specimen too singular not to be recorded. It has been explained that the original of the present Work was printed at Nanci, although the fears of the Bookseller led him to mention only a Brussels publisher. Deceived in consequence by the title-page, these worthy Journalists were caught as it were in a trap, and in their No. for Nov. 1723 pretended to have received intelligence from Brussels that a Bookseller of the name of t' Serstevens had printed a Dissertation on the English Ordinations which came " from one of those pacificators" &c. as above. (Relation &c, Chap. 1. p. 9, 10.) But their excuse the next May (p. 946") was still more remarkable. " To believe them", says Courayer, " they had been guilty of it, only through their not " having intercourse enough with heretics to know all their disguises. " But had the want of intercourse with heretics given them intelligence " from Brussels of the publication of a book which was not [as yet] "known there?" (Ibid. p. 10.) The fault of these Journalists was not the knowing too little, but the pretending to know too much. Such, then, having been their previous conduct, this fresh and more determined attack induced our author to address them the severe Letter which has already been mentioned, and which, as he tells us himself, he wrote "in such a manner as to let them know, that he appre- " hended less their pens than their intrigues, and that they ill under- " stood their interests in choosing to meddle with a subject of which they " did not know the first elements." (Rel. vol. 1, p. 38.) Of this same Letter he says : " I hindered its being printed as much as I could, but so " many manuscript copies got dispersed among the public, that in the end " it was published in one of the subsequent volumes of the Bibliotheque " Francoise. The suppression of this volume, however, having rendered " this Letter very scarce, and it having been asked back of me on all " sides, I thought I could not do better than give it a place among the " documents which serve as proofs of the facts alleged in the Relation." ■ Margin of the Relation &c, vol. I. p. 10. 2. Letter of Gervaise. — 3. Work of Hardouin. [editor's (Rel. vol. 2, p. 47.) He has placed it accordingly in the 6th Article, in which, after an introductory paragraph (of which the last quotation but one is the conclusion), are contained both his Letters to these Journalists, together with an account of the amende, the amende itself, and two sen- tences of remark upon it. The 6th Article extends from p. 46 to p. 67 : the 2d Letter begins on p. 52. 2. The first regular attempt at an answer was the two Letters " of a " Theologian to an Ecclesiastic of his friends", the first relating to the text, the second to the Appendix of our author's Work : 12mo, Paris, 1724. These anonymous Letters were written by the Abbe Gervaise, and are noticed by our author in the Preface (p. vii) and first Chapter (vol. 1, p. 5—7) of the Defence, and in the second Chapter (vol. 1, p. 20, 21) of the Relation ; from the latter of which places, supported by an entertaining letter to the Abbot of St. Genevieve, — which with an intro- ductory paragraph and notes forms the 4th Article (p. 35 — 40) of the 2d (or documentary) volume, — we learn a curious anecdote of the way in which our author had had the misfortune of incurring the displeasure of the Abbe Gervaise, and may also form some notion as well of his merits as an author, as of his credit in other respects ; agreeably with which last, after becoming, " from a Carmelite, Abbot of La Trappe", he had become, "from Abbot nothing." (Vol. 1, p. 20.) The execution of this Critique answered, according to our author, to the principle from which it had been undertaken. As for itsf ate, " it was suppressed by public authority ; and, which may better enable " one to judge of its merit, the suppression, which ordinarily gives " books a price, did not make it either sell or be sought for." (Ibid. p. 21.)° 3. " La Dissertation &c." The Dissertation of Father Le Courayer on the Succession of the English Bishops and on the Validity of their Ordina- tions refuted by Father Hardouin of the Company of Jesus. In two small 12mo volumes, of which the first treats the question of fact {fait), the second that of principle (droit). Paris, 1724. The author of this Work was a man of amazing learning, but of far too singular views with regard to history, to be capable of doing justice to any question with which history was concerned. In the year 1693 (at the age of 47), in a Work on ancient coins, he had broached the opinion that almost all the writings attributed to the ancients (of Latin books he excepted only Cicero, Pliny, Virgil's Georgics, and the Satires and Epistles of Horace) were forgeries ! (" Chronologias ex Nummis antiquis restitutae Prolusio de " Nummis Herodiadum", p. 59 — 63.) ° The same writer at a later period pub- tion with notes of Father Paul's History lished a Critique on our author's transla- of the Council of Trent : see p. xlix. introd.] Extraordinary notions entertained by that author. xxiii This opinion, or at least the expression of it, it is but fair to add, he was required by his superiors, in the year 1707, after its confutation the same year by La Croze, to retract. From a posthumous Work, however, "Joan- " nis Harduini, Jesuitce, Ad Censuram Scriptorum Veterum Prolegomena" , printed at London in 1766, it appears that, though he lived to the age of 83, viz. to Sept. 2, 1729, the only alteration of importance which his views had undergone was the substitution of Plautus for Cicero in his quaternion of excepted Latin books ! Of Greek Works he excepted only Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and the nine books of Herodotus. All other ancient writings, whether sacred or profane, except only " the books which the Church ac- " counts canonical and sacred" (p. 1) and the above-mentioned six profane authors, he maintained to have been forged by a wicked set of men for the purpose of overthrowing religion. As to the date of this rather extensive forgery, he thinks, to quote the conclusion of the above Prolegomena, that he has made it clear in his Treatise on the ancient coins of the French Kings (de Antiquis Numismatibus Regum Francorum) " that that plan, un- " dertaken by the wicked set, and contrived in the reign of Philip the " August [A.D. 1 180 — 1223], began then to make its appearance, but much "more under Philip the Fair [1285—1314] and Valois [1328—1350] : " then advanced almost without bounds for more than a century and a "half." (p. 237.)p With such machinery as the preceding, the reader will readily anticipate that the ' refuting* Courayer was not difficult : it was but to suppose a pretty extensive forgery of documents, and the question of fact was settled, — especially as, with a credulity on one side only equalled by his incredu- lity on the other, the hear-say and self- contradicting story of the Nag's- head Ordination, which was altogether unknown to the earlier Roman Catholic controversialists, is with him a demonstrated truth ! As to the ques- tion of principle, the ancient Liturgies having shared the same fate with the rest of antiquity, this part of his work was already half done to hand. It should be observed, however, that after finishing the first volume, it had been his intention to suppress the second as needless, until, upon the pub- lication of Le Quien's Work (see p. xxiv), his dissatisfaction with the con- cessions made by that writer induced him once more to change his mind p Some lesser flights of this extraordi- nary author, according to the Biographie Universelle, were : 1. His expressing the opinion, in his Commentary on the New Testament, that Our Saviour and His Apos- tles preached in Latin ! 2. His setting down such men as Jansen, Quesnel, and Pascal among the Atheists (!) he pretended in his Atliei Detecti to have discovered. 3. His rejecting as spurious the records of all the Councils previous to that of Trent ! Having re-edited himself Labbe' and Cossart's Edi- tion of the Councils (Paris 1715), and having been asked (as we are told), " why then diu he edit them ?" he replied (as is said), that " God and himself alone knew the truth on " that head." This Edition, being accused of mutilation and interpolation according to his own judgment, was suppressed by the Government. XXIV 4. Work of Le Quien. — 5. Memoires [editor's (see his Preface to vol. 2), and also to add at the end of this second volume eighty-five pages of Reflections on that Work. For our author's general ideas of this answer of Hardouin's, see the Pre- face (p. vii, viii) and first Chapter (vol. 1, p. 7—15) of the Defence, and the second Chapter of the Relation (vol. 1, p. 21—23). Suffice it to say here, that his own opinion was that he was ' refuted' only in the title-page ; and it being also his wish to wait until he had all the answers together, it will not appear surprising that he did not feel called upon to defend himself, until after the publication of the more and longer looked for answer of the learned Dominican Orientalist Le Quien (or Lequien), the friend and ad- mirer of the Orientalist Renaudot, in answer to whose Memoire Courayer's Work had originally been undertaken. 4. The title of Le Quien's Work was : " Nullite des Ordinations Angli- " canes, ou Refutation &c." Nullity of the Anglican Ordinations, or a Refuta- tion of the Book entitled, A Dissertation on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English. By the Reverend Father Michel Le Quien, D.D., of the Order of Friars Preachers. In two volumes 12mo, Paris, 1725 ; the first as in Har- douin's Work relating to the question of fact (fait), the second to that of principle (droit). Of the first, however, after a Dedication of nine and a Pre- face of seventy-one pages, the first five Chapters (to p. 177) are devoted to a preliminary history of the English Reformation as it bore on the Ordi- nations. The great aim of its author (or authors : see p. xxvi) was not so much to prove any thing, as to raise doubts in every thing. To effect this every nerve was strained ; and " the confusion", says Courayer (Relation, p. 25, 26), " into which he had done his best to throw this subject, his natural talent " for enveloping it in obscurity, a number of false facts given out with the " same credulity with which he had received them, and become thenceforth *' more credible by his authority, a common prepossession which men always " have willingly in favour of the prejudices of their own party, and which " allies itself better than criticism and discernment with a certain air of de- " votion, — all this made an impression, and suspended for a time that which " my first Dissertation had made. The public, ever impatient, and which " fancies that it costs no more to search and verify' than to imagine and in- " vent, and which six months after saw as yet no reply, thought me already " overwhelmed with the weight of the difficulties, — and delayed to pro- " nounce, only through a remnant of equity, which will not allow that we " should be condemned without being heard." See more of Le Quien's book ibid. p. 25 — 27 : also in the Preface (p. viii) and first Chapter of the Defence (vol. 1 . p. 15 — 20) ; though in fact the whole of this last Work is little more than an answer to that of Le Quien : see p. xxxi. 5. The next answer was the Memoires (in two volumes 8vo, Paris, 1726) of Fennel, Dean of Laonne, — " in expectation", adds Courayer, " but in INTROD.] of Fennel. — 6. Letter of a Benedictine. XXV " reality Director of Nuns at Pontoise" (Def. vol. 1, p. 20). Of this Work our author gives his idea in the Preface (p. viii : see also p. xxiv) and first Chapter (p. 20 — 23) of the Defence, and in the second Chapter of the Re- lation, vol. 1, p. 27, 28. Its author he describes (Def. p. 21) as " one of " those writers who have the secret of talking much without saying any- " thing, and who, taking words for reasons, think they have demonstrated " the facts, before they have so much as entered upon proof." He com- plains more bitterly of the magnitude of the Work, and the enormous amount of reading inflicted on him, than even of the injustice, and the coarse and vulgar, as well as irrelevant, matter with which it was filled. The first volume, like those of Hardouin and Le Quien, was on the question of fact, though not till after a long Preface on the Sacrifice, — the second, like theirs, on that of principle, in which however he confines himself to proving that, with the Reformation in general, the substitution of Edward's Ordinal for the Pontifical in particular, was the work of the Lay authority. " This", says our author, " is perhaps the only difficulty of the Work which can " be regarded as serious." As to the style, " he writes", says Courayer (ibid. p. 21), " Irish in French ; but this ought to be excused in a foreigner, " who makes the whole merit of his Work to consist in its uncommon " research, and the solidity of its proofs, rather than in the purity of the " style and beauty of the language." Its author however, it seems, com- plained both bitterly and fruitlessly that the Journalists of Paris had not given as favourable an account of it as he hoped. (Relation, vol. 1. p. 27, 28.) 6. The Letter of a Benedictine (Pierre Le Blanc, of the Ancient Obser- vance of Clugny) to our author himself, confines itself to a theological diffi- culty, that of the changes in the Anglican Ordination Service having been made without the authority of Rome ; and concludes thence that the Ordina- tion of the Anglicans remains suspicious, and that it would be necessary to have it at least conditionally reiterated. Our author, who gives some account of it in the first Chapter of the Defence (p. 23 — 26), and in the second of the Relation (p. 28, 29), notices the civility and politeness with which it was written, as an honourable exception to the style and spirit of his oppo- nents in general. As to the spirit of the rest, of that of the Journalists of Trevoux, — whose so-called " Extrait", however, cannot properly, as our author observes (Rel. vol. 2. p. 36, 37) be counted among the answers, being no more an answer than an Extrait, — of that of the Abbe Gervaise, and of that of Fennel, enough has already been said. As for Hardouin, the indignation one might otherwise be disposed to feel, as well for his sad perversion of facts, as also for his great injustice towards his adversary, may well soften into pity at the contemplation of a man of his amazing learning and powers, fallen into a state of mind bordering on that of a monomaniac, and that so xxvi Spirit of Le Quien. [EDITOk's well understood by the public in general, as to have rendered his most extravagant flights all but harmless. It remains only to consider the spirit of Le Quien, — of whom it is the more difficult to speak, because, having a reputation to sustain, he is the more cautious what he says, especially of one in whose company he had been, and with whom he had had some correspondence. Courayer also appears cautious in his observations on Le Quien, though he says in the Preface to the Defence (p. viii) that he (Le Quien) " spared him the same '* injuries [as Hardouin], only to give himself up with the same facility to *' bitterness and suspicions ; and more jealous of his own reputation in the " appearance of moderation he shewed, than attentive to the considerations " which propriety and charity required, allowed harsh things to be said of " him by Approvers he had asked for, which he did not venture to say of " him himself." How far Le Quien was answerable for the expressions of the Censors or Approvers he selected to examine his Work, it may be diffi- cult to say; but it is remarkable that to Pierre Badoire, whose name, together with that of another Doctor of Theology of the Faculty of Paris, is ap- pended to a very laudatory " Approbation" printed at the end, we are told in the Biographie Universelle that a great part of the Work itself has been attributed. He accuses him, too, in spite of his system of doubt as to what was opposed to his views, of adopting readily, without troubling himself to ex- amine, what was to his purpose. See Def. p. 18, 19, and Rel. p. 25 — 27 ; in the latter of which places (p. 26, 27), — speaking, as elsewhere in that Work, more freely of individuals, now that he had done with France, — he mentions as an instance, that before Renaudot's Memoire was answered, no one thought of disputing its authorship, but that as soon as it was seen that it had been refuted with some success, a doubt was attempted to be raised as to whether Renaudot was really the author ; that he learnt that Le Quien himself favoured this rumour, and proposed to contest the fact, in order to make it be believed that he (Courayer) attributed the Memoire to that Scholar- merely for the sake of giving himself the honour of such an adversary ; that however an offer having been made to communicate to him the auto- graph of Renaudot himself, and the Procureur-General of the Parliament of Paris having testified to him the authenticity of the Memoire, and the steps taken by Renaudot with himself to get it inserted in the Abbe Gould's Work, — Le Quien having learnt these facts from some friends of Courayer's, to whom the latter made no secret of them, lost thenceforth the desire to cavil against him in this respect. Previously to this, in the second of his two letters (see p. xix, xx) to Des- Fontaines, Editor of the Journal des Scavans, dated Jan. 12, and Feb. 5. 1 724, and inserted in that Journal in the Numbers for those months (in the Hol- land Edition in May), on the subject of his favourable Ex trait of the Disser- INTROD.] Spirit of Le Quien. xxvii tation in that Journal, — alluding to the announced Work of Le Quien, our author had said that "he should not be found out of fear or misdirected " zeal presenting memorials secretly, or contriving intrigues with the au- " thorities to prevent the printing of his [Le Quien's] answers" ; and it having been represented to Le Quien that Courayer had accused him in private conversation of having taken steps to prevent the Privilege being granted for the Dissertation, and so given ground for a general opinion that himself was aimed at in the above passage, as well as in the Preface to the Dissertation itself (p. 24, 1. 3 — 6), he wrote to our author to complain, and at the same time to deny the imputation in question. Courayer in reply stated that when he wrote his Preface he certainly had no idea of Le Quien, but that since that time he had been informed by a dis- tinguished friend of Le Quien's that he really had taken such steps as were alluded to ; professing however his readiness to believe on Le Quien's word, that such information had arisen out of mistake, and giving him leave to make what use he pleased of his letter. Le Quien, as Courayer tells us, published his own letter, but not Courayer's answer. Courayer in his Defence published both letters with an introduction : vol. 4, Appendix, p. ccxix — ccxxix. It may possibly be of consequence towards judging correctly of Le Quien's conduct in this matter, to know how and when he published his letter. In our author's Appendix to the present Work, he gives at length the Edwardine Forms of Ordination of Priests and Bishops, but omits that of Deacons, as not being of consequence to the argument. Le Quien " ever suspicious", as our author says, with respect to himself, observes, " I will not penetrate into the reasons of this omission" ; and proceeds to say that he thought it right to supply it, both as a matter of curiosity, and also to shew that it contained no prayer relative to the Deacon's Office until after the imposition of hands ; a deficiency which he certainly shews most effectually, and that by the simplest process in the world, that of leaving out what he denies to be there ! See his Appendix, at the end of vol. 2, p. lxi — lxviii ; where (p. lxiii) this omission is effected by the following abridgement : " Litania seu Suffragium. Pater de ccelis Deus, &c. ut in Libro Communium " Precum. Mox canetur aut recitabitur Communio illius diei," (The Litany or Sitffraging. O God the Father, of heaven, &c. as in the Book of Common Prayer. Then shall be sung or said the Communion of that day,) &c. whereas in reality the Litany at a Deacon's Ordination was so far from being said " as in the Book of Common Prayer", that it differed from it in the precise particular of the insertion in the middle, of a petition, and the addition at the end, of a regular prayer, for the persons to be ordained. This looks strange enough ; but one may remark that even Courayer himself in answer- ing Le Quien has overlooked the petition in the middle ; and it is highly probable that Le Quien's fault is to be transferred to the author of the Latin xxviii Le Quien. — Extracts from a letter [editor's translation he adopted, or got made, for his use. The uncharitable suspicion, however, which he himself appears to insinuate against Courayer, matches ill with the charitable supposition which must be made to excuse himself ; and after all, however little a circumstance like this may justify an unfavourable suspicion of his motives, it at least strengthens the observation of Courayer as to the little pains he took to ascertain before publishing, the truth of what appeared to favour his argument, — or anyhow speaks but little for the dependence to be placed on his facts. With the above paragraphs, however, the reader may compare some very important false quotations and translations of Le Quien's pointed out in the first Chapter of Browne's Examination of the Nag's-head Story, already referred to. And here it will neither be out of place, nor, probably, uninteresting to the reader, to translate and insert a few of the more striking passages of a letter to M. l'Abbe Sutaine, Prior of St. Genevieve, from an Ecclesiastic to whom the Prior had given or lent Le Quien's Answer, praising the Work himself, and requesting the other to let him know what he thought of it. The letter, (of which however the conclusion was wanting in the copy from which Courayer printed, — probably because it related to other matters) will be found in the 2d or documentary volume of the Relation, of which, with an introductory and a concluding paragraph, it makes the 2d Article, p. 3—23. " My very dear and much honoured Prior,— In putting into my hands " Father Le Quien's Answer to Father Le Courayer's Dissertation, you had *' given me an impression of it not a little advantageous ; but I confess that " an attentive perusal of each of these two Works has altogether destroyed " it. You requested me ^at the same time to let you know my opinion, and " communicate to you the reflections I made upon it. In order to satisfy " you, I will tell you 1 first, that instead of the moderate and equitable feelings " i which I expected from Father Le Quien towards the Author of the Disser- " tation, I see 3tfl him on the contrary a man who puts out in many places " the venom of an unjust and malignant criticism, who from the Preface " forward exerts himself to excite envy and dislike against the person he " attacks, who forgets nothing that depends on himself to rouse by various " reproaches, and an infinity of bad turns spread over his w-hole Work, the " Anglican Theologians, those of the Catholic Church, Rome herself, and, if " he could, the whole Church. Besides tins he levels against his adversary " many contemptuous strokes: he treats him as a copier of Bramhall, and if " he does not say broadly that he is heretical, he at least reproaches him in " clear terms, and that more than once, with not being Catholic." (P. 4, 5.) i " Some words in the copy are effaced "supply. They are those which are in " here, which it has been necessary to " italics." NTROD.] to the Prior of St. Genevieve. xxix « * * * Moreover, all taking leave to express their opinions in these ' years of confusion, a great distinction ought to be made between those ' who were prepossessed with the Presbyterian opinions and the Episcopa- ' lians. Father Le Quien does not appear to have had this distinction suf- ' ficiently before his eyes. It is nevertheless of great consequence to an ' equitable judgment of the opinions of the Anglican Church." (P. 6.) " * * * It is true the Censor [Le Quien] gets out of the difficulty by ' rejecting the authority of Collier and Fox. It is a liberty which he takes ' in almost every page of his Work to reject all the authors ; but I can * hardly believe that the public will choose to allow it him." (P. 7.) " * * * But what is intolerable, and merits the whole indignation of ' the public, is to see the unfairness of which the Censor is guilty towards ' Father Courayer with respect to a fact relating to Pius IV, and which the ' author had related, and given for what it was worth, on the faith of ' Camden. Father Le Quien there gives himself up altogether to injustice ' and bad faith. He explains the opinion of his adversary in the most ' odious way, and draws against him inferences equally unjust and offen- ' sive. I confess that in reading this passage the blood boiled in all my ' veins." (P. 8.) " * * * What Father Le Quien says in favour of the authenticity of ' what they had chosen to impute to Dr. Morton, and which had been so ' solidly refuted before-hand, is altogether pitiable ; and it is astonishing ' that a man of ability should have given credit to these reports of some * zealous Jesuits, who thought they could amuse the public with their fables. ' Father Le Quien does very prudently to add at the end of these testi- ' monies, that the disavowal of Morton must be immaterial. He would ' have done still better if he had not mentioned it at all." (P. 8, 9.) '* * * * It is true that in all this Chapter he confines himself to mak- ' ing doubtful the Ordination of Parker, and merely probable the ridiculous ' story of the Tavern. But all the conjectures which he lavishes to give ' his fable some resemblance to truth, will never produce an at all reason- ' able doubt in the minds of persons capable of any discernment." (P. 9.) << * * * gut what one cannot sufficiently wonder at is, that one who ' has been a Professor of Theology, and exercised in criticism, should not ' have felt the force of the argument which he furnished himself, by pro- ' during these testimonies, against the fable of the Tavern. Certainly Sta- ' pleton and the rest abandon themselves to a violence against the ' Bishops which shews plainly that they did not wish to spare them any ' part either of the deficiency or of the disgrace of their ridiculous Conse- ' cration, as they designate it. They were, according to Father Le Quien, ' very well informed as to all that was done, they wrote a short time after * the things took place : what probability is there that they would have ' omitted a story so well adapted to discredit these very Ordinations, which XXX Extracts from a letter to the Prior [editor's " they had so good a wish to render ridiculous altogether ? Say what one " will, this silence deposes in a demonstrative and very eloquent manner " against the fable of the Tavern." (P. 11.) " * * * Father Courayer has anticipated, and very plausibly ex- " plained, the difficulties which his adversary makes with regard to the dif- " ference of the names and of the number of the Consecrators of Parker. " It seems that the latter has not been willing to take heed. He would have " done better to content himself with the little there is on the subject in the " Dissertation, and not to notice this trifle. What embroilings, what rash- " ness, what liberty in forming conjectures and suspicions ! What temerity " in accusations of forgery in all that the Censor says to weaken the autho- " rity of the Lives of Parker [see p. xxxvii with note y], while in the second " Addition at the end of his book he begins to make his recantation. " In the examination which Father Le Quien makes of the evidences by " which the Lambeth Records are established, there appears no longer any " reserve. There, in truth, whatever care he may take to forewarn his " readers, he contests and supposes without end. What can one say in " answer to an author who rejects without any consideration documents " which appear most authentic, and which support one another ? * * * " (P. 12, 13.) " * * * But how came Father Le Quien not to see that all he relates " of the precautions which Queen Elizabeth took to assure herself that all " was in right form in the Registers of Lambeth, forms against him an ar- " gument on which there would be many important observations to make ? ** So far from it, he uses it as a proof on his side, and by it even pretends " to triumph. A fine thing certainly is a lively and fruitful imagination !" (P. 13.) « * * * Father Le Quien explains very ill what the author of the Dis- " sertation says of the power which National Churches have of regulating *' the formulae of their Sacraments. He makes him confound those which " are schismatical with those which have continued Catholic, although he " has entirely distinguished them, and reasoned very differently about the " one and the other. It is in the darkness of this confusion that Father " Le Quien is guilty of injustice altogether discreditable towards Father " Courayer, and draws against him the most odious consequences. * * * " (P. 18.) " * * * Father Le Quien would have one judge of the whole work of " this Reformation by what he supposes to have been not merely in their " mouth, but also in their heart. He would have one pay no regard to " what has been written in favour of the Priesthood, or the Sacrifice, by the " English Divines or other authors, who expressed themselves either at the *' same time, or a little after. This is not fair." (P. 19.) - * * * One may say that he omits nothing to sound and even put in trod.] of St. Genevieve. — The Defence of the present Work. xxxi " to the rack, so to speak, the divinity and the faith itself of the man he is " refuting. But frustra jacitur rete ante ocvlos pennatormn [' in vain is the " ' net spread in the eyes of any winged thing' (Prov. i. 17)]. With what- " ever malignity Father Le Quien may explain the sentiments of Father Le " Courayer, whatever turns he may employ to shew that he has thought too " ill of the Sacrifice of the Catholic, and too well of that of the Anglican "Church, that he even speaks no otherwise than the Protestants; we see " plainly in the little the latter has written on the subject, that his opinions " are more circumspect than those of his adversary, that they are free from " all blemish, and that he will have but to explain himself a little more at " length to cover him with an eternal confusion, by shewing in a clear light " his bad faith, and the dishonourable injury he does to all the rules of pro- " bity and courtesy, both natural and Christian. " The Author of the Dissertation has never pretended to blame the prac- " tice of the Church of Rome, nor to pronounce on her custom of re-ordain- " ing the English Ministers who return to her bosom. He only thought " that the question had not been sufficiently discussed, and that it might be '* permitted to well-intentioned theologians to apply themselves to clear up " the facts and remove the doubts which exist on this matter, without " attempting to prejudice the right which the Church alone has to pro- " nounce on this important point of her discipline. For whatever Father Le " Quien may allege, he will not prove that there is any sufficiently solemn " decree by which the Church has clearly enough explained herself in favour " of this re-ordination. And certainly he is greatly in the wrong to decry his " adversary's intentions, or endeavour to substitute for his such as he "never had." (P. 20, 21.) " * * * Above all I cannot excuse his having perverted in various " places the expressions and sentiments of his adversary, in order to take " against him advantages unworthy of a man of honour, that so he may " combat him more at his ease." (P. 22.) This Critique sounds severe ; but the reader will perceive that its author, notwithstanding the more favourable opinion of Le Quien's Work which the Prior of St. Genevieve appears to have expected from him, enters almost entirely into the views of Courayer ; and will make accordingly such allow- ance as he may think proper. Of all the Answers, however, which were made to the Dissertation, that of Le Quien appeared to our author not merely " the most considerable" (Def. vol. 1. p. 27, 28), but also " the only rational" reply ; and accord- ingly it is against it, properly speaking, that his Defence is directed (Def. p. 28) ; although he treats, at the same time, in their proper place, all such points worthy of notice in the other Works, as had either escaped the atten- tion of Le Quien, or been better handled by others. This second Work being ready, our author requested the Privilege and xxxii Publication of the Defence of the present Work. [editor's had a Censor allowed him as usual. It was sent to the Abbe de Villiers, a Censor whom he knew only by reputation, and by whom it was approved, on the author's promise to alter some passages which appeared too piquant and satyrical. The Approbation (dated June 14. 1726), together with the Censor's note to the bookseller, dated June 15. 1726 (in which the altera- tions are alluded to), an introductory paragraph, and an annotation to the note, form the 8th Article (p. 70 — 72) of the 2d or documentary volume of the Relation. As before, however, "no account was made of " the Approbation, and the Jesuits", says our author (Rel. vol. I.e. 3. p. 45, 46), " possessing the confidence of the Keeper of the Seals, and being " the only persons consulted as to the printing of books which concern " Theology, had the Privilege refused, and obliged me to take some secret " steps for the printing of my Defence." " In spite", continues he (p. 46), " of the Inquisition established at Paris " against everything which is published contrary to the views of those who " govern, it did not fail to find a printer, and was in a condition to appear " at the end of 1726." It was printed, — according to the Allgemeine Encyklopsedie of Leipsic 1818, at Rouen, — according to Querard's La France Litteraire (see p. xvi), at Paris, — although, as before, only the same Brussels publisher's name appeared on the title-page. This second Work consists of two double volumes, each containing two 12mo parts of a size considerably larger than that of either the two parts or volumes of the Dissertation, and which as in the case of the Dissertation itself, seem generally to have been referred to (as by the present Editor) as so many volumes. So amongst the rest Querard and the author of the Extraits in the Journal des Scavans of February and April 1727 (seep, xxxiii). — The former half (or double- volume), as in the Works of Hardouin, Le Quien, and Fennel, is devoted to the question of fact (fait), the latter, as in theirs, to that of principle (droit) ; nearly half however of the last quarter of the Work, being occupied, as in the case of the Dissertation, with an Appendix of Documents. The title is : *' Defense de la Dissertation &c." A Defence of the Dis- sertation on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English against the differ- ent Answers which have been made to it, with the Proofs establishing the facts advanced in this Work. — By the Author of the Dissertation Brus- sels, . . . M.DCC.XXVI. This Work, like the one it was written to defend, was of course differently received by different persons, but in general, as our author tells us (Rel. vol. 1. p. 47), the voice of the public was on his side. He gives us in par- ticular (ibid. p. 47 — 49) extracts from four letters of praise written during the middle of 1727r, and adds (p. 49) that he received at that time an infinity ' One of these, dated May 28, speaks of and Aug. 20, were addressed to him. him; the rest, dated May 10, June 13, introd.] Testimonies to the Defence. — Its contents. xxxiii of similar ones. The Editor too of the Journal des Scavans, notwithstand- ing the caution which his former reprimand was calculated to inspire, gave such an account as shewed his opinion of it in two Extraits, the one relating to the question of fact and published in the February Number, the other relating to that of principle and intended to be published in that of April, but suppressed by M. D'Armenonville Keeper of the Seals, though not in time to prevent the escape of a few copies containing the Extrait in question, which was afterwards re-printed. Our author has given both Ex- traits in the 2d or documentary volume of the Relation, of which, with an introductory paragraph, they form the 9th Article (p. 72—108, the first beginning p. 73, the second p. 89). These Extraits appear very useful towards obtaining a good general view of the Work ; the plan of which, however, is sketched by the author himself in the first Chapter, vol. 1. p. 27 — 37. For this purpose too, the Tables of Contents found in the several volumes, which (like that added at the end of the original Dissertation, but in the present Edition incorporated into the Editor's General Epitome) are lists of the titles of the several Chapters and of the Documents, may of course be consulted with advantage. — The following pretty full account the reader may be glad to find here. I. In Vol. I, after a Preface of xxviii pages, is contained, 1 . " Book I, in which the author confines himself to certain prejudices, " and certain general observations, which prepare the way and conduct natu- " rally to the determination of the fact." Of this Book the first Chapter is headed, " An idea of all the answers which have been made to the Disser- " tation on the Validity of the Anglican Ordinations. Plan of the Defence " of this Dissertation." The second, " Learned Catholics have thought the " Ordinations of the English valid before me. It was certainly the opinion " of the late M. Bossuet. Rome has never had this question examined juri- " dically, nor decided the contrary. The usage of re-ordaining, founded on " doubts not yet cleared up for want of documents communicated to her, is " a wise precaution, but cannot have the force of law. It is altogether to " the advantage of the Catholic Church to recognise the validity of these " Ordinations." The third, " Difference of the ways which have been " chosen for attacking the validity of the Ordinations of the English. Re- " flections on these variations." The 4th is against the supposition of the forgery of the Records in general ; the 5th deals with " the contradictions " found between some authors and the Registers of Cranmer and Parker". The Gth and last is headed, *' The length of time which elapsed before the " production of the Register of Parker, does not prove its forgery, nor even " throw upon it the slightest suspicion." 2. " Book II, in which is examined the story of the Tavern and all which " has been adduced to gain it any credibility." The heading of Chap. 1. is, " Refutation of the principal foundation of the Tavern Ordination. Thev xxxiv Contents of the Defence [editor's " were in no want at that time of consecrated Bishops to perform the Con- " secration of Barlow. If Barlow had not been recognised as certainly con- " secrated, they would never have thought of him for this function." Of Chap. 2, " The story of the Ordination of Parker in a Tavern is fabulous in " all its circumstances, and indefensible in all its parts." Of Chap. 3, " The efforts which are made to diminish the ridiculousness of the fable " serve only to augment it. The authorities which are adduced to defend " it are more fit to discredit it than to make one receive it." Of Chap. 4, " Examination of the testimonies of the Catholic Divines. The fabulous *' Ordination of the Tavern cannot be rested on them." Of the 5th and last Chapter, " The Certificate of Lord Audley in favour of the fable of the " Tavern bears every imaginable character of forgery. Even though it " should be genuine, no comparison can be made between it and the De- " claration of Bishop Morton, which is directly contrary to it." II. In Vol. II. is contained *' Book III, in which is established by new " documents the certainty of the Lambeth Ordination, as well as of that of " Barlow and Scory, and in which are refuted all the unfounded difficulties " which are objected against them." Of this Book, Chap. 4 begins by shew- ing that " The contest of Bonner against Horn, far from throwing suspicion " on the Ordination of Lambeth, completes the establishing of it." Six Chapters are spent on the Ordination of Parker, four on that of Barlow, and one on that of Scory. III. In Vol. III. is contained " Book IV, in which the forms of Ordina- " tion, the Sacrifice, and the Priesthood, are treated of." In this Book he maintains the sufficiency of the Ordinal of Edward, and while he contends that " the validity of the Ordinations of the English is altogether indepen- ** dent of what they may think of the Sacrifice", he denies that they have as a Church rejected that doctrine. He maintains also (in Chap. 5), that the doctrine of the Sacrifice is drawn by the Fathers and Divines not from the real presence (though true), but from the representation and memory of our Saviour's death ; but that, even supposing that presence necessary to the idea of the Sacrifice, " that which the English admit would suffice for a " spiritual Sacrifice, such as is that of the Church." In Chap. 7 he main- tains that the Priesthood which the English reject is but a chimerical Priesthood which they attribute to the Church of Rome. The 10th and last Chapter is headed, " There is no [in the Table of Contents almost no] " room to doubt that Deacons s have often been ordained Bishops without " receiving previously the Priestly Ordination." IV. In Vol. IV is contained, (A) " Book V, in which the Ordinal of Edward is treated of, and it is " examined by whom it was drawn up." In the 3d Chapter he maintains s Quaere, Arch- Deacons, or Cardinal- on Orders, maintains the contrary of our Deacons? — Hallier, in his celebrated Work author's position. INTROD.] of the present Work. XXXV the probability of the truth of the offer of Pius IV. In the 4th he examines " some other incidental facts adduced in the Answers made to the Disser- " tation". The 5th is headed, " There ought not to remain any doubt as " to the validity of the Ordinations of England. It is not every kind of " doubt that is sufficient to require the reiteration of a Sacrament. Maxims " to be followed on this head." The 6th and last, " Recapitulation and con- " elusion of this Treatise." (B) An Appendix of Documents. Of this the first Article contains, after an introduction, («) A Certificate, dated May 20. 1726, of the Very Rev. Father Fr. de Riberolles, late Abbot of St. Genevieve, and Superior General of the Canons Regular of the Con- gregation of France, with respect to Bossuet's opinion of the Anglican Orders, especially on the occasion of an abjuration which took place in 1690. (i) A letter (not entire), dated Nov. 25. 1724, from M. Caldaguez Precentor of the Church of Montferrand, concerning the opinion of that Prelate in 1699, shewing that the doubt he had formerly had with respect to Cromwell was then entirely cleared up, and at the same time speaking very highly of the present Work (see p. xix). (c) An extract from a letter of M. Arnaud, Doctor of the Sorbonne, to the Bishop of Castorie, in favour of the validity of the English Ordinations, (d) A Latin letter of 9 close pages, dated Mar. 2. 1685, from M. Snellaerts, Doctor and Professor of Louvain, to the same Prelate, and to the same effect. Art. 2 is headed, "Different Statutes [see p. 302] of Parliament", and contains more or less of the Acts, — 1. of the 25th of Henry VIII on the subject of Elections, — 2. of the 1st of Eliz. on that of the Oath of Supre- macy,— 3. of the 8th of Eliz. on that of the Ordinations at the beginning of her reign, — 4. of the 13th of Eliz. on that of Ministers ordained by any other Form than that of Edward VI, — and 5. of the 39th of Eliz. on that of the titles of the Anglican Clergy to their benefices. Art. 3, "A Table of the Records contained in the first part of the " Register of Parker." The object is to shew the impossibility of forgery. Art. 4, " Records to prove the Consecration of Latimer, Ridley, and '* Ferrar." These three having been degraded, before they were put to death, from the Priesthood alone', the production of these documents is in- tended to shew that they who thus refused to recognise their Episcopate could have had no better reason for so doing, than that they were ordained in schism*. The first was made Bishop of Worcester in 1535 : the Record of his Consecration is not found in Cranmer's Register, but the Act of Inves- titure (dated Oct. 4) is in Rymer (vol. 14, p. 553), and twice mentions his ' ' In the case, however, of Latimer and to the Commission of Cardinal Pole : — see Ridley, at least, the degrading them from more p. 230 A (i. e. p. 230, paragraph 1). the Priesthood alone was directly contrary c 2 xxxvi Contents of the Defence [editor' having been consecrated, besides which there is in the Register of the Dean and Chapter of Worcester (lib. 3, fol. 16) a letter of the Prior of Worces- ter Cathedral, addressing him as Bishop, and inserting a letter of Latimer's as Bishop to the Prior, dated Sept. 15. 1537, and also a Record in Cran- mer's Register (fol. 215) of his having joined in the Consecration of Hol- beach on the 24th of March the same vear. Ridley was consecrated Bishop of Rochester according to the Roman Pontifical in the beginning of Edward VPs reign, Sept. 1. 1547, the Record of his Consecration still re- maining in Cranmer's Register (fol. 321). Ferrar was consecrated Bishop of St. David's (to succeed Barlow) by the first Ordinal of Edward, Sept. 9. 1548, the Record of his Consecration also remaining in Cranmer's Register (fol. 3276). Art. 5 is the Record of the Consecration of Poynet, to succeed Ridley in Rochester, June 29. 1550; proving both the Consecration itself, and also that the new Ordinal was then in use. Art. 6 of that of Hooper Bishop of Gloucester March 8. 15)0, intended, with the accompanying Certificates of the Notary, to prove that this Con- secration was subsequent to that of Poynet, and that the Record itself had not been transposed in the Register. Art. 7 " Records of the Consecration of the Consecrators of Parker", containing, — besides the Records from Cranmer's Register of the fact itself of the Consecration of Scory, Coverdale (in whose case, however, the Re- cord is abridged), and the Suffragans of Thetford and Bedford (of whom the former was appointed by Elizabeth to be one of Parker's Consecrators, the latter actuallv was so), — other confirmatory documents, amongst which is included a Royal Commission, from Rymer (vol. 15. p. 687), dated Sep. 29. 1570, addressed to the Archbishop of York, to confirm the Suffragan of Thetford to the Bishopric of the Isle of Man, and twice attesting his Con- secration. Scory and Coverdale were consecrated Bishops of Rochester and Hereford according to Edward VPs first Ordinal Aug. 30. 1551 : the Suffragans of Thetford and Bedford according to the Roman Pontifical, the former (John Salesbury) Mar. 19. 153|, the latter (John Hodgkin) Dec. 9. 1537. Art. 8 contains " Extracts from the Register of the Chapter of the Me- " tropolitan Church of Canterbury, and from those of the Court of Preroga- " tives during the vacancy of the Metropolitan See occasioned by the death " of Cardinal Pole", proving that Parker was not confirmed before the 9th nor after the 11th of Dec. 1559, and that he was not consecrated before the 15th. Art. 9, "Extract from Parker's Register", proving that on the 19th Parker was already consecrated, but that the See of London was still vacant, that the See of Ely was still vacant on the 21st of the same December, and that of Sarum on the 1 7th of the following January. INTROD.] of the present Work. xxx vii Art. 10, "Proofs of the Consecration of Sands", Jewel*, and Horn"; proving at the same time that they were not consecrated till after the date assigned in the Nag's-head story. Art. 11, " New proofs of the forgery of the Attestation of Lord Audley." Art. 12, " List of a number of copies of the book De Antiquitate Bri- " tannica Ecclesicc of the London Edition of 1572." The number is 21, of which 13 contained the Matthceus, or Latin Life of Parker, after those of the 69 previous Archbishops. The list was furnished by Drake to Abp Wake Nov. 15. 1724, when he (Drake) had nearly finished his new Edition of that Work. Art. 13 contains some "MS. notes found in some copies of the 1572 " Edition of the Book of the Antiquities, and which prove its existence." Art. 14-, " Fragment of the place of the two Lives of Parker? in which " mention is made of his Consecration." Art. 15, " Records proper to fix the time of the Consecration of " Grindal" ; i. e. to confirm Parker's Register. Art. 16, " Letter of His Grace the Abp. of Canterbury on the handwriting " of Parker's Register." Art. 17, "Collection of Records concerning Barlow", the 1st of which is that of his Confirmation for the See of St. David's Ap. 21. 1536, " him- self being present", — the 2d, that of his admission into the House of Lords June 30, and attendance there July 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, with a Certificate of his name being entered W. in the Journal of that House, not T. as in the Register of Writs copied by Rymer, — the 3d, Certificates of certain errors in Rymer — the 4th, the Record of his Installation at Chichester, — the 5th, Extracts of certain Ordinations by Barlow in the Diocese of Chichester, — the 6th, Extracts from a MS. Treatise entitled Speculum Pro- testantismi, composed by a Roman Catholic great nephew of Barlow's, and ° Otherwise Sondes or Sandys. The omission of the second vowel in writing was owing of course to its having previ- ously heen dropped in pronunciation. 1 Our author writes his name systemati- cally Iwel. y I. e. the above Matthceus, and "another " Life of him (in many passages substan- tially the same) contained in ' a 'little " ' Latin book, belonging to' Corpus " Christi College, Cambridge, ' called His- " ' toriola, being a MS. declaring briefly " ' the History of the Foundation and the " 'successive Masters of that College' (of "whom Parker was one) ; 'writ by the " ' Archbishop's own directions about the " ' year 156U, and still preserved with great " 'esteem in the College' (Stvype, Parker " bk. iv. c. 42 : — there are two copies of " the MS. in C.C.C. Library, the older of " them in the handwriting of [John] Jocelyn " [the Archbishop's Secretary] ; see below " p. 85, note f, and Master's Hist, of "C.C.C. p. 113. ed. Lamb.)." Editor's Notes (see p. xiv, note o) to the Anglo- Catholic Library Edition of BramhalPs Consecration of Protestant Bishops, p. 12. note f. This last mentioned Life was trans- lated into English by a determined Puritan, and published, together with a virulent in- vective against the De Antiquitute Eccl. Brit, (of which the translator had seen a copy without the Mattlueus), in the year 1574, without mention of place or name. Ibid. ; where and in the other valuable notes to, as well as in the text of, the Postscript occupying p. 1 1—14, other interesting par- ticulars concerning both this and the Matthceus, as well as the rest of the De Antiquitate, will be found. xxxviii Contents of the Defence. — Answers to [kditoji's preserved in the family, in which he is mentioned as having been con- secrated Bishop of St. David's in 1536. Art. 18 contains " Some ancient Formulae of Sacerdotal Ordination." Art. 19, the Anglican " Formulary for the Ordination of Deacons". (See p. 29, 30). Art. 20, the " Order of the Gallican Liturgy." Art. 21, the " Order of the Second Liturgy of Edward." Art. 22, " A Memoire in vindication of the Author of the Dissertation " on the Validity of the Ordinations of the English against an anonymous "libel intitled Important Observations #e.J" Art. 23, the already mentioned " Letters of the Reverend Fathers Le " Quien and Le Courayer" to one another. (See p. xxvi, xxvii.) Art. 24, the letter of our author to Mr Williams which is found prefixed to the English Editions of the present Work. (See p. 11 — 13.) Part of the introductory paragraph has already been quoted : see p. x. Art. 25, further errata for the present Work. Besides these documents themselves, there is interspersed also a con- siderable amount of introductory and explanatory matter not noticed above, and for which this general mention must suffice. To this elaborate Work (of which an English translation, in two thick 8vo volumes, was published in London the next year) Father Hardouin replied in two small volumes which our author in the Preface to the Rela- tion, p. viii — xi, characterizes as follows : " In fact the Work which Father Hardouin has opposed to my Defence " exceeds even the extravagances of his former production. It is from the 1 These Observations were the produc- tion of the Coadjutor of Orleans, and re- lated, not to the question of the Anglican Orders, but to our author's incidental treatment of the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. (See above, in the contents of vol. III.) They had been presented by their author (or nominal author, for ac- cording to Courayer they were attributed to Du Mesnil, Almoner to the Bishop of Orleans), first in manuscript, and after- wards, in 1726, in print, to the Assembly of the Clergy, both times without immediate effect. Before they were published, which was on the day preceding that of the Second Assembly, our author had requested in vain, by a letter dated Aug. 28. 172G, the opportunity of explaining what the Coad- jutor might think incorrect in his views, and failing of this, published afterwards the Memoire in question. See the Rela- tion, vol. 1, chap. 2, p. 29—36. The letter, as well as one (dated Oct. 2. 1726) of a Doctor of the Sorbonne (without the name), commending the Memoire, but giving our author some hints of prudence, make, together with two paragraphs of ex- planation, the 6th Article (p. -10—46, the second letter occupying p. 45 and half of 46) of the 2d or documentary volume. Of the very serious results which this contro- versy, which however does not directly con- cern the question of the Anglican Orders, occasioned to our author, more wiil be said hereafter. Before the publication of this Memoire, it may be here mentioned, there had been circulated in Paris a manuscript letter of a very burlesque character, addressed to our author, but of which he did not learn the writer's name, — ridiculing most of the answers to the Dissertation, but especially the theological fancies of Hardouin, and taunting Le Quien with a partnership fit only to dishonour him. Our author would have reprinted it in the 2d or docu- mentary volume of the Relation, had its turn been more serious, and had not some of its expressions been too low. Relation, vol. 1, chap. 2, p. 36. introd.] this Second Work. — Hardouin. — Th. de St. Reni. xxxix " beginning to the end the most complete romance which perhaps has yet " appeared in a serious disputation. Neither Manuscripts nor printed Works " stop him. All that is opposed to him is, according to him, either forged " or ante-dated,- — as well the Editions of the books as the public Registers. " It is no longer the simple Record of the Consecration of Parker, it is no " longer his Register alone ; it is all those of Lambeth, of Canterbury, of " London, of Bath, of Winchester, of Worcester, of the Court of Pre- " rogatives ; it is the Journal of the Parliament itself, and all the public " documents, from the authority of which he cannot otherwise disengage " himself, than by endeavouring to persuade us that they are forged ; and it " is the same with the printed Works. Some letters altered in the names, " a thing of which there are a thousand examples in the Registers of *' England, where the names are spelt less regularly and less uniformly " than everywhere else, suffice to make him multiply or confound at his " pleasure those persons whose names are written with some slight dif- " ference. Conjectures the most absurd are placed on a level with facts " established by the public Records ; and this man, who sees nothing but " fiction in all that is attested by the Registers and historians, cannot com- " prehend how one can doubt for a moment of the truth of the Tavern " Ordination, and sees as clearly as the day that it has been but for the " sake of obscuring this history that the ingenious design has been con- " ceived of forging new Registers in the Churches and Lay Courts of " England. I say nothing of the theology of this Father. It is of the " same stamp with his historical criticism, and that is saying all ; or rather " it is not saying enough, and the most favourable opinion that can be " formed of either is, that there is there something more criminal than ex- " travagance. Does it become me to engage anew with such a writer? I " have sufficiently made him known : his reputation will be my excuse " for the rest.a" '* To this Work", continues our author, " there succeeded one of another " kind, and equally frivolous in its way. It was that of the Rev. Father '* Theodoric de St. Rene, a Carmelite, who without pretending to meddle *' with the facts, and supposing almost everywhere their truth, carries us " through all kinds of doubts and speculations altogether foreign to the " purpose," &c. &c. Ibid. p. xi, xii. "To this", says he, " I have but one " answer to make, which is, that if such reasonings could be admitted, there " is no error, nor schism, nor heresy, of which one might not make use to " prove the invalidity of the Ordination of those involved therein ;" &c. &c. Ibid. p. xii. * Besides this attack, the same Father June 6. 1 727, a reprint of which, with an made a charge of forgery against our au- introductory paragraph, forms the 12th thor in the Journal de Trevoux of May Article, p. 129 — 147, of the second (or 1727. To repel this accusation, the latter documentary) volume of the Relation, published a Letter to Lord Percival, dated xl Vivant.— (English Ans. to the Diss.)— Letters.— Second [editor's "Accordingly", adds our author (ibid. p. xiv), "in spite of all these " pretended doubts, and the alleged forgery of the Registers and public " Records, the Sieur Vivant, who has written since these two authors, ad- " mits fairly the validity of the Ordinations which it has been endeavoured " to render suspicious, and the little solidity there is in the doubts which it " has been wished to employ against them. He even adds that it is only " the refusal of the English to reunite themselves to the Church that gives " any longer any force to the prejudices entertained against them, and that " these would soon cease, if they were willing to destroy this wall of division " which separates us." M. Vivant's observations on his incidental pro- positions our author dismisses in a very few words. "The English Work of an anonymous Jesuit", though published after the Defence, is directed only against the Dissertation, and, according to our author, " is but an ill assorted compilation of all the fables which had been " put forward against the Ordination of Parker, and a cento extracted from " different places of Father Hardouin and Father Le Quien translated into " English;" and so little satisfied even its author that he restored it to " the obscurity in which it had been conceived." Ibid. p. xvi, xvii. Besides the foregoing Works, our author notices also in the same Preface some anonymous and still more obscure replies, viz. : 1. A Letter of a coarse and burlesque character, intended, as he sup- poses, to gain its author notoriety in some coffee-houses, and such as it would have been making himself ridiculous to have made any account of. P. xix. 2. A letter or article in the London Journal, the writer of which, " after " having done justice", says our author, " to the force of my proofs, and " to the success with which I had defended the validity of the Anglican " Ordinations, judged me in great errors, if I did not believe that every " Society had the same right to appoint its own Ministers as its own " Magistrates", &c. P. xix, xx. 3. Two manuscript letters, to our author, in the first of which, dated Oct. 1727, i. e. a year after the publication of the Defence, its writer would have had him prove that schism does not render an Ordination invalid, and because in a Work published a year before he found no reply to " a difficulty" (says our author) " so common and so often cleared up", suspecting him of duplicity and dissimulation, applies to him in the second, dated July 10. 1728, the text (Rom. 3, 4) Est autem Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax : (But God is true, and every man a liar.) P. xxi, xxii. Such being, according to our author's account, the character of the answers opposed, up to the year 1729, to the Defence, it is not wonderful that he should have thought it sufficient briefly to notice each in the Pre- face of his "Relation &c", published that year; from which the pith of his remarks has been given above. When however a second Work of Le I NT rod.] Answer of Le Quien. — Covrayer's Supplement. xli Quien's appeared, "La Nullite &c." The Nullity of the Anglican Ordinations demonstrated anew, as well by the facts as by principle (" tant par les faits " que par le droit"), in answer to the Defence of the Reverend Father Le Courayer : Paris, 1730, in two volumes 12mo,b he yielded, though not till after some hesitation, to the opinion of his friends, and gave to the world a further 12mo volume of some magnitude, intitled " Supplement aux deux Ouvrages &c." A Supplement to the two Works drawn vp in Defence of the Validity of the Anglican Ordinations, intended as a Last Reply to the new Work of Father Le Quien on this subject, and to the Censures of certain Bishops of France [see p. xliv, and p. xlv, note i] . By Father Le Courayer, Canon Regular of St. Genevieve. Amsterdam, published by the Company. MDCCXXXII. Of this Supplement, in its Preface, consisting of xxviii pages, he speaks as follows : " Accordingly I doubted for some time whether I ought to " leave this Work [Le Quien's second] without reply, or give myself once " more the sad satisfaction of noticing the blunders, the falsehoods, and " the malignity of an adversary who has prostituted so sadly the reputation " he had acquired before, and which I should have been willing to have " preserved him even at the expense of my own, had I not feared that the *' truth would thereby receive some damage. It is this fear alone which " has made me yield to the opinion of some respectable persons, who have " represented to me that, if there was nothing to add to the authenticity of " the documents, and to the force of the proofs, which had been published " in my Dissertation and Defence in favour of the validity of the Anglican " Ordinations, it was at least of some importance to let the public know " the extent to which my adversaries had discovered their ignorance of the " facts, of the customs, and of the Registers of England, the knowledge of " which is absolutely necessary in historical questions ; and that on this *' ignorance alone are founded the greater part of their difficulties, which " a little more diligence or sincerity would have prevented or dissipated." (p. iii, iv.) The " Table of Chapters", i. e. of Contents, is as follows : " Chap. I. Idea of the new Work of Father Le Quien, and comparison of " it with the other. General reflections on the new imagination of the " author. Page 1. *' Chap. II. Odious conduct of Father Le Quien in his new Work. He " has had no regard therein either for the rules of civility or for those of " truth. 22. " Chap. III. Ignorance of Father Le Quien in all that concerns England. '* His perpetual mistakes form almost always the foundation of his " criticism. 44. b In this Work are contained the Oxford letter of the Abbe" Gould's to Le Quien diploma (see p. xlvi) with our author's himself, and the censure of St. Germain letter of thanks, Renaudot's Memoire, a (see p. xliv). Contents of the Supplement. [editor's " Chap. IV. New system substituted for the fable of the Tavern. " Nothing more vainly imagined than Father Le Quien's distinction " between the Bishops made under Elizabeth up to (jusqu' en) 1562 and " those who were nominated afterwards0. 75. " Chap. V. The process of Bonner against Horn on the subject of the " Oath of Supremacy, proves clearly that there was no distinction between " the Bishops of the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth, and that " they were all equally ordained. 103. " Chap. VI. We find nothing, either in the Controversialists of Eliza - " beth's time, or in those who came after them, to favour the pretended " distinction of Bishops of Elizabeth's time. 134. " Chap. VII. Continuation of the same subject. The chimerical dis- " tinction of Father Le Quien is supported neither by Sanders nor by " Stapleton. 170. " Chap. VIII. It is false that the Anglican Controversialists knew " nothing of the Consecration of the first Bishops; and even though they " had said nothing of it, their silence cannot weaken the steadfast and uni- " form deposition of all the public Records. 203. " Chap. IX. Defence of the authenticity of the Registers of Canterbury " against the false criticism of Father Le Quien. Ignorance or malignity " form the foundation of all his remarks. 22 1. " Chap. X. Short remarks on the new criticism which Father Le Quien " makes on the Records of Parker, and the proofs which he opposes to " them. 256. " Chap. XL Father Le Quien has in no degree weakened the proof " drawn from the Life of Parker. New mistakes of this Father on this " subject. 286. " Chap. XII. The new remarks of Father Le Quien on the subject of " Barlow do not weaken in any degree the proofs winch have been given " of his Consecration in the Defence. 315. '* Chap. XIII. The new Ordinal drawn up under Edward, and re-esta- " blished under Elizabeth, does not differ in anything essential from the " ancient Pontificals. 347. " Chap. XIV. The Ordinal of Edward was never declared insufficient by " any juridical judgment of the Church, either under Mary, or since her " death. 377- " Chap. XV. It is not true that the Ordinal of Edward was the work of c In his new Work Le Quien, accord- and that it was not till after the autho- ing to our author, gave up the Nag's-head rizing of the Edwardine Ordinal by Con- story, but maintained that that of the Lam- vocation in 156§», that the Bishops began beth Ordination was equally unfounded ; to be ordained according to it. • By the Parliament it appears to hare been authorized,— as already included by Statute in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI —in the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth ; but a doubt having been raised on the subject, a declaratory Act was passed in 1560. [NTROD.] Contents of the Supplement. xliii " the secular authority. Remarks on what our author says anew on this " point and on that of the Supremacy of the Kings of England. 410. " Chap. XVI. The sufficiency of the Ordinal of Edward, like the validity " of the Anglican Ordinations, is independent of the contests on the nature " of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Church has never defined in what *' consisted the idea of this Sacrifice. If the Author of the Dissertation " entered into this inquiry, it was only in order to clear up the subject, " and not to assure to the Ordinations their validity. 439. " Chap. XVII. The Church has always recognized a Sacrifice in the " Eucharist, and the Anglican Church does not condemn it in her 31st *' Article. 459. " Chap. XVIII. It is but a question of names to determine whether the " Eucharist ought to be called a proper Sacrifice ; and it is by the idea " which is attached to the word proper, that we must judge of what the " Catholics and the Anglicans admit or reject. 480. " Chap. XIX. Bad faith of the authors of the Censures in the imputa- " tions they have made against me, of having excluded the presence of " Jesus Christ from the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 499. " Chap. XX. The presence of Jesus Christ, although always supposed " in the Eucharist, is not what forms the idea of the Eucharistic Sacri- "fice. 521. " Chap. XXI. It is not on the presence of Jesus Christ that the Fathers " establish the idea of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Wrong use which the " theologians of the Cardinal de Noailles make of the passages of the " Fathers. 540. " Chap. XXII. Justification of the Author in the citation of the Theolo- " gians whom he has adduced in favour of his opinion of the Sacrifice. 563. " Chap. XXIII. Reflections on the manner in which Father Le Quien " seeks to elude different facts, and in which he proposes several (plusieurs) " others. We see throughout nothing but prejudice or want of sin- " cerity. 595. " [Advertisement to the Documents which follow. 627.] " Record of the delivering of the spiritualities of the Diocese of Chiches- " ter made to Curteys. [It is the Order of Parker to that effect, dated " Ap. 29. 1570.] 629. " Record of the Consecration of the same Bishop [May 21. 1570]. " [It includes at the beginning the Order of Parker to that effect.] 631 [— 637]. "d To all which is added a leaf of Errata. d The object of this latter document is its authenticity ; of the former, that there to shew by example that the circumstan- is no difficulty in Parker's having exercised tiality of the Record of Parker's Consecra- acts of jurisdiction before the date of his tion is no sufficient ground for suspecting Consecration. xliv Death of Le Quien. — Controversy [editor's Le Quien, if disposed to reply further, did not live to do it. He died March 12. 1733, aged 72; and thus ended, for the time, this memorable controversy. Long, however, before this period, the incidental controversy with respect to the doctrine of the Sacrifice, of the commencement of which some account has already been given (see p. xxxviii note z), had assumed an importance which had thrown into the shade the original one of the Anglican Orders, and been attended with consequences of the most serious and lasting character to our author himself. As this controversy, however, is foreign to our present purpose, it will be sufficient to notice it very briefly. Subsequently to what has already been mentioned (see the above note) as having taken place, in order to satisfy the minds of those who doubted of his orthodoxy, our author wrote, Mar. 11. 1727, a Letter to the Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris, with which, as he tells us, his Eminence testified his satisfaction to the Superior of his (our author's) Order (see p. 1, note c). Also another letter, dated Mar. 15. 1727, to M. 1' Abbe Girar- din, Doctor of the Sorbonne : compare p. xvi, and p. xvii, note c. These two Letters are spoken of in the 3d Chapter of the Relation, p. 54, &c, and form, together with an introductory paragraph, the 10th Article (p. 108 — 123) of the 2d or documentary volume of that Work, the former Letter beginning on p. 109, and the latter occupying pp. 115 — 123. Our author's opponents, however, continuing their efforts, succeeded at length in procuring a formal censure of the obnoxious Works by an Assem- bly of twenty e Bishops, with the Cardinal de Bissy f at their head, at the Abbey of St. Germain des Pres, near Paris, Aug. 22. 1727°'; and this measure being followed up by the Cardinal de Noailles and the Court (by the latter of whom the question had been referred to the Assembly), these writings were suppressed by authority, and he himself, though desirous (as he professed) to condemn any unsound senses attributed to them without ad- mitting those senses to be his, avoided further consequences only by making his escape into England in the latter part (see p. xlvii) of January 1728. 11 e So our author himself, Rel. vol. 1, Officer of Louis XIV. He was born in p. 173, 174, 178, 285, 290. According to 1657, made Bp of Toul in 1687, of Meaux the Biographie Universelle, " Twenty-two in 1704, Cardinal in 1715, and died in " Prelates, at the head of whom was the 1737. " Cardinal de Bissy, assembled at Paris B The Abp of Sens, and the Bishops " by order of the King, at St. Germain des of St. Pons, Avranches, Chalons, and Le " Pres, Aug. 22. 1727, censured the Dis- Puy endeavoured to soften this sentence. " sertation of Father Le Courayer and the Rel. vol. 1, p. 131. " Defence of this Dissertation, in which h To this step he had been encouraged " many other questions had been treated by the friendly assurances contained in the "of"; thirty-two articles in particular letters of Abp Wake (see p. xvii, xviii, note being condemned. c). In one of these letters (compare the 1 Henry de Thiard, son of Claude de Anecdotesof Bowyer, p. 84: alsop. v.notec Thiard, Count of Bissy, and a distinguished of this Introd.), dated Dec. 7. 1726, the Abp INTROl).] With respect to the Sacrifice. xlv The details of the various steps taken by his adversaries and himself in this difficult and painful business, occupy the greater part of the " Relation &c." so often already referred to, and form altogether a very interesting and instructive history1. It is a fact, however, worthy of particular notice, that as the question of the doctrinal statements of Courayer had no necessary connection with that of the Anglican Orders, so in condemning the former the Cardinal de Noailles pro- fessed distinctly that he pronounced no opinion as to the validity of the latter. This we learn distinctly from his own Mandate of Aug. 18. 1727 (see note i), translated, after an introductory paragraph, in the Historical Register for 1729 (vol. xiv), p. 37 — 39 ; and followed, after mention (p. 39, 40) of the notices an observation of our author's with respect to England's not being a very desi- rable residence for a religious man," because " of the unhappy differences of religion, by " which mutual charity is destroyed, and " the liberty which many take of speaking " against the doctrines of Christianity, and " corrupting the minds of the people." ( Anecd. of Bowyer as above.) In reply the Abp, amongst other matter, gives an in- teresting account of his own " almost mo- "nastic" manner of life (he being then nearly in his 70th year), together with the ways of his household. The last letter of the forty-five mentioned in the above note, is dated Jan. 31 (O. S.) 172J. 1 The most important of its remaining points were, 1. The " Denunciation to the " Bishops of France of a book intitled A " Defence &c. : by M. Claude le Pelletier: " 1727." This Pelletier was, it seems, a discreditable character (see Rel. vol. 1, p. 65—68, and the 11th Article, p. 124 —129, of vol. 2), and afterwards under- took the defence of the sentence of St. Germain.— 2. The Mandate of the Car- dinal de Noailles, which though it did not make its appearance till Sep. 5, was ante- dated by arrangement (according to our author), Aug. 18, in order to save the Car- dinal's dignity, by making it appear to have led the way to the censure of the Bishops, instead of (as in reality) being a consequence which that censure forced against his will upon him. This latter accordingly delayed its appearance till Sep. 10, "and was accompanied", says our author, " by a decree of Council dated the " 7th, which, in consequence of the judg- " ment of the Bishops, suppressed my " Works, and ordered that they should " be brought to the Lieutenant of Police " to be there torn up." Rel. vol. 1, p. 143, 144; &c— 3. The condemnation of the same Works by the Council of Embrun, Sep. 26. 1727. This Council had been assembled under the Abp of that place (Cardinal deTencin*) for the condemnation, which took place Aug. 20 the same year, of the Pastoral Letter of Soanen Bp of Senez, one of the Cardinal's Suffragans and a zealous opposer of " the Constitution" (see p. xvi), who also gave the signal for the Appeal against it in 1717. The Bishop, refusing to retract, was subse- quently suspended; and died, A.D. 1740, in the Abbey of Chaise-Dieu in Auvergne, to which he was banished by the King. — 4. The Pastoral Instruction of the Cardinal de Noaillesf, dated Oct. 31, but which did not appear till the 21st or 22d of De- cember. (Ibid. p. 293.) It was the al- leged unqualified submission to the Car- dinal's judgment concerning his books into which this Instruction interpreted a letter of our author's, dated Oct. 30, which he thought it so necessary to disavow, that he quitted his native country in order to do so in safety. — Other events of note were, the Mandate of the Bishop of Marseilles in April 1727 before, and those of several other Bishops after, the censure of St. Ger- main. Also a conference at Auteuil on the 29th of Oct., between our author and the Superior of his Order (see p. 1, note c), at which he was shewn a copy, nearly the same with that afterwards published, of the in- tended Pastoral Instruction. Both the Superior and the Due de Noailles, the Car- dinal's nephew, did their best all along, out of friendship for Courayer, to bring about an accommodation. • This Cardinal, — who at a later period issued a Mandate against our author's translation, with notes, of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent (see p. xlix), — had been made Abp of Embrun July 2. 1724 ; having previously been Bp of Grenoble; and eventually, in 1740, became Abp of Lyons. — The noted Madame de Tencin, of whom the infidel D'Alembert was the illegitimate offspring, — by her exposed, but brought up by a poor glazier's wife, — was his sister, liiiujraphie Uaiwrselte. t Some account of this Instruction is given in the 14lh Chapter of the Itelation. xlvi The Author's Oxford Degree. [editor's censures of St. Germain and Embrun (see again note i), by a trans- lation of our author's Letter of Jan 12. 1728 to the Cardinal de Noailles (with the prefixed Advertisement, p. 40, 41 )k, p. 41 — 49. The same thing is noticed by our author (Rel. vol. 1, Chap. 14, p. 269, 270) in his Instruction of Oct. 31 : see p. xlv, notes i and f. Previously to the time of our author's leaving France, on the 28th of August, 1727, the University of Oxford had conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Divinity, for which he bad returned thanks in a Latin letter, dated, " Hennemont, near St. Germain en Laye, Dec. 1. 1727.1" The diploma of the University, and the letter of thanks form, with an intro- ductory paragraph, the 17th Article (p. 182—188) of the 2d or docu- mentary volume of the Relation: also, as we are told by Nichols (Anec- dotes of Bowyer, p. 84 and 544, and Epist. Corresp. of Atterbury, p. 103, 104) in the Present State of the Republic of Letters for June 1727 (vol. I, p. 485) m. The lateness of his answer he attributes to the difficulties of his position, in which both his whole attention was occupied in warding off the efforts of his enemies, and also the expression of his gratitude was pretty certain to be turned against him. " Haleanment" near St. Germain en Laye", says the author of the Soci- k This Letter was printed (with the Ad- vertisement) both in French and in English, separately, by Sam. .Tallason, for Peter du Noyer, London 1728. The French (of both) was reprinted by our author in his Relation &c. vol. 2, Art. 23, p. 295—308 ; the English in the Historical Register as above. We are also referred by Nichols (Epistolary Correspondence of Atterbury, p. 103) to the Political State, vol. 35, p. 147: whether for the English or for the French, or for both, is not said. This letter is dated Jan. 12 (the day our author left Paris), but as it speaks of his intended retreat into England, was left with directions to delay the delivery. Accordingly his Eminence observes in his Pastoral of Feb. 15, that he did not receive it till Jan. 29. Rel., vol. 1, p. 311, 312 ; and vol. 2, p. 317. 1 " Dabam Hannemonte prope S. Ger- " manum in Laya, Kalendis Decembris an. " 1727." Rel. vol. 2, p. 188. By Henne- mont,— which the Socinian biographer in the next paragraph writes Haleanment, Atterbury in his Epistolary Correspond- ence (p. 103) Hanment, — is meant " the Priory of Hennemont", as our author dates, on the 27th of September, at the end of his explanations of censured pro- positions, preserved, with a short intro- duction, as Art. 18, p. 188 (the explana- tions themselves begin p. 189)— 228, of vol. 2 of the Relation. He also dates from Hennemont twice on Sep. 24, ibid. p. 244, 246 ; but from St. Genevieve Sep. 5, ibid. p. 180. On the 30th of Oct. he dates from Auteuil to the Cardinal de Noailles, on Dec. 2 from Nanterre to the same, and on Dec. 4 from St. Germain. St. Germain en Laye is a town of about 12,000 inhabitants, built on a slope rising from the Seine, 12 miles from Paris. In the environs is the Royal Palace where Louis XIV was born, and James II held his Court after he had lost possession of the British Crown.— Encyel. Brit. It is on the left bank. m Where there is also, according to the Allgemeine Encyklopaedie of 18)8, a full Analysis of the present Work. — The pub- lication is in 8vo : Soc. Life, p. xix. In the Quarterly Review for Dec. 1811 (No. XII, p. 394 : see p. lx note p, col. 2) will be found the Chancellor's letter, signed " Arran", and dated " Bagshot, Aug. 9, " 1727", recommending the University to confer their ' 1 highest degree of honour" upon him who had " so well defended the highest " order of this Church". — The Reviewer remarks (ibid.) that the date of the degree " is earlier than that supposed by Dr. Bell" (see the above note), — whereas Dr. Bell does not mention the date of the degree, but only that of our axithor's arrival in England, which the Reviewer erroneously assumes to have been earlier, instead of later, than that of the degree. " See note /. introd.J He comes over to England. xlvii nian Life already referred to, " was the place to which our author retreated " during the time of his disgrace, where he was visited by Bishop Atter- " bury, then an exile from his native country", p. xx. "This Bishop's " intimacy with Courayer, for whom he acknowledges a friendship, and a " parting visit from the Librarian on the evening before he left Paris, " occasioned the Prelate some trouble, and produced an unwelcome mes- " sage to him from the French King and the Cardinal de Noailles [read " Cardinal Fleury °], by the Lieutenant de Police [M. Herault.] For the par- " ticulars and the issue of this message, the curious are referred to Atter- " bury's ' Epistolary Correspondence, with historical notes, &c.' vol. iv, p. " 97 — 116 inclusive, 8vo. 1787." Ibid. p. xxi. — The affair is mentioned in Feb. 1728, p. 97, 98, p. 102—104, p. 106, p. 107, 108, and p. 109 — 113 (where we have the English of a letter of thanks sent both in English in his own and in French in another person's hand by Atterbury to the Lieutenant, with the Lieutenant's reply in French) ; in March 1728, p. 116 ; in Aug. 1728, p. 133, 134 ; — from which last place we learn that the Cardinal was not, or did not continue to be, so well satisfied as his message in the Lieutenant's letter appeared to imply). — It is also spoken of by our author himself (Rel. vol. 1, p. 327 — 329), who however goes no farther than the Lieutenant's letter, of which as well as the Bishop's he gives some account. " About a monthP, therefore, after the date of his letter to the University " of Oxford, in the depth of winter, P.i Courayer set out on his journey to " Calais in a stage coach, to which place he got without suffering any other " inconvenience than what he felt from the inclemency of the season, and " there he was obliged to remain for [more thanr] three days by contrary " winds. It is said, indeed, that he narrowly escaped apprehension in his " way3 : he got safe, however, to England, towards the end of January " 1727-8*, where he was embraced with open arms. " On his landing at Greenwich, Lord Viscount Perceval, afterwards Earl o " Fleury, then Prime Minister of " France", is the Editor's note to the words " the Cardinal" in p. 109 of the same Work and portion to which this biographer refers. Compare p. xx, with note I, and p. v, note e, of this Introduction. ' Besides that this is but little consistent with what is said in the latter part of the same paragraph, we learn from our author's own statement that he left Paris Jan. 12. 1728, i. e. six weeks after the date men- tioned. See more in note e, p. v, and note k, p. xlvi. H I. e. Pire, Father. r Relation &c. vol. 1, p. 312. » He wrote from Calais to the Superior of his Order (seep. 1, note c) Jan. 19, to in- form him of the step he was taking ; — not calculating apparently upon the chances of such delay, and the danger to which he might in consequence be exposed. Also to the Due de Noailles for the same pur- pose, Jan. 20. See these letters, Rel. vol. 2, Art. 22, p. 287— 291.— He had pre- viously obtained leave to compensate a disagreeable sojourn of four months at Hennemont (see p. xlvi) by a visit to Senlis, which however the publication of the Car- dinal's Instruction (see p. xlv, note /) de- termined him to abandon, but which fell in opportunely to cover his retreat into England. Rel. vol. 1, p. 309. ' He reached London Jan. 24, the same day (as he was informed by a letter of Feb. 12) that an order of Council was given for arresting him. This however, as well as other similar measures, appear to have been intended rather to mark displeasure and alarm others than with their ostensible object. (See Rel. vol. 1, p. 325 &c.) xlviii His reception in England. [editor's of Egmont, sent his coach with six horses to convey him to his house, which he desired the Doctor to consider, and to use, as his own : after dinner his Lordship made him a handsome present. Next day Dr. Wake, then Archbishop of Canterbury, had him to dine at his palace at Lam- beth, and made him a like present. Bishop Hare, Bishop Sherlock, and several other Prelates, treated him with similar generosity ; and soon after his arrival, the Marquis of Blandford made him a present of fifty pounds, through the hands of Nicholas Mann, Esq., afterwards Master of the Charter-house." Ibid. p. xxiv, xxv. " It is pleasing to be able to say, with certainty, to the honour of this nation, that very many of the tables and houses of the great, were gene- rously opened for the reception of P. Courayer, from the first moment of his arrival in England. He secured his future constant welcome bv his own merits, and an instructive, entertaining, and inoffensive manner of conversation. " He got early into the habit of living, for months together, in one or other of the first families in this kingdom ; and at the different habita- tions of the Countess of Hertford, afterwards Duchess of Somerset, it was not unusual for him to make visits of six months at a time." " He did not, however, continue very long a precarious pensioner on the bounty of our nobility, prelates, and gentry, who were not deficient in their generosity and attention to him. A national pension of 1001. per annum was settled upon him.v In 173G* this pension was doubled by u An amusing version of this appears in the Nouveau Diet. Hist. : " Two noblemen " gave him the use of their tables and " houses, one in the summer, and the other " in the winter." » It was obtained " with some difficulty", according to the Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. 84. Compare a letter of Atterbury's, in which he speaks of the policy of the English towards the French Court; Epist. Corresp. vol. 4, p. 133, 134. 1 Previously to this time, viz. July 11, 1733, which that year was the last day of Trinity or Act Term, we find him at Oxford, delivering in the Theatre a Latin Oration, which was afterwards published with the title "Oratio habita in Theatro Sheldoniano " a P. F. Courayer, S.T.P., Quinto Id. Julii " MDCCXXXIII." (An Oration delivered in the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford by P. F. Courayer, D.D., July 11, 1733.) In 4to, 9 pages, besides the title. The Socinian biographer (p. lxii) refers to this Oration as containing (p. 5 and 6) "some very " acrimonious passages", shewing in his " opinion that, as Dr. Clarke said of Abp " Wake on his promotion to the See of " Canterbury, P. Courayer, with all his " moderation, was ' Priest enough for the "'place'", of a Bishop in the Anglican Church : see p. Hi of this Introd. — There are five copies in the Bodleian, four in the General, and one, — printed by Bowyer (see p. 83 of Nichols's Anecdotes of that printer, 4to, 1782) together with some verses of his own recited at the same Act, — in the Gough Collection, in which is preserved also a translation of it " by a Gentleman of the " University of Oxford" printed in 8vo the following year. From vol. 2, p. 39 of the same Mr Nichols's Literary A necdotes of the Eighteenth Century, 1812, into which the former Anecdotes were incorporated, we gather that our author " was sneered at in " a pamphlet of eight pages," signed with his name, and containing two caricatures of him, in a white dress, with a bell in his hand. This pamphlet might perhaps have been supposed the same with the Letter (mentioned on the same page) from our author to "the Reverend William Vvhiston, " in answer to his Letter concerning the " holy Order of the Tertullyanites in Asia " Minor, being Father Courayer's first " Essay in the English tongue. To which " is prefixed, a sketch of the habit of the " Tertullyanites, which the curious will " not be sorry to see", published in 1728, introd.] His Council of Trent. — His income 8,c. xlix " Queen Caroline, a munificent patroness of men of letters, and of indigent " merit. To her he dedicated his French translation of 'Father Paul's " History of the Council of Trent', published in that years'; and his dedi- " cation is penned in elegant strains of lively and heartfelt gratitude. " By the sale of the translation just mentioned, he cleared, it is said, " 1500/., and was enabled to give 1600/. to Lord Feversham for an annuity " of 100/., which he enjoyed for almost forty years. " P. Courayer, after his coming into this country, was never in want of " anything that was necessary for him, or that could contribute to the " comfort of his life, which he protracted to the very advanced age of " ninety-five years. By degrees, and in no great length of time, he got " into very affluent circumstances, and was in the receipt of very much more " money yearly than his frugal mode of living required. " He did not, however, hoard up the overplus of his annual income, or " suffer his studious savings to accumulate. His dress, though always " remarkably neat, was not costly ; not even when he appeared in the habit " of a layman, and wore a sword, which he sometimes did, it is said, very *' awkwardly. He kept no house, he was in no one article of living ex- " pensive, and the indigent partook very freely in his good fortune. instead of a distinct publication in 1733, had not the Index, revised by Nichols himself, treated them as distinct. It may be added here that Ol. Kicerning, who published at Helmstadt in 1739 a Dis- sertation concerning the Ordinations of the Anglican Bishops, had enjoyed the advan- tage both of epistolary correspondence and also of conversations in England with our author, who however made some corrections in the Nouveau Bibliotheque, vol. VII, p. 341. — AUgemeine Encyklopadie of Leipsic 1818, compared with Maclaine, App. Ill, p. 1 18 (see note c, p. xvii, xviii). 7 "A French Translation of Father Paul's " [Italian] History of the Council of Trent, '* with notes critical, historical, and theolo- " gical, 1736, London, 2 volumes in folio ; " printed at Amsterdam in the same year " in two volumes 4to, and at Trevoux, " under the title of Amsterdam in 3 " volumes in 4to, with a Defence of the " Translation by the Author of it." Socini- an Life, p. lxxvi. — This Defence (" Defence " de la nouvelle &c." Defence of the new Translation of the History of the Council of Trent, " He was occasionally generous to " some of his relations in France" is the expression in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. The Socinian biographer, however, was in possession of some original information, see note h, p. vi, vii : — yet that his state- ment is at least somewhat overcharged, his own following paragraph implies. c Elsewhere (p. Hi) this biographer says that "it does not certainly appear that he " was ever actually excommunicated" from the Roman Catholic Communion. He was declared, however, to have incurred the greater excommunication, by his Su- perior Fr. de Riberolles, Abbot of St Genevieve, and Chief and Superior General of the Canons Regular of the Congregation of France, assisted by the Prior and others, Jan. 30, 1728.* The' sentence, preceded by the Abbot's circular letter (dated Feb. 1), and an introductory paragraph, forms the 25th Article, p. 322—333, of the 2nd or documentary volume of the "Relation &c." A reprinted letter of our author's to the Abbot, dated Mar. 15. 1728, commenting on this sentence, forms with an introductory paragraph the last Article, p. 333 — 346, of the same volume ; in which are contained also a variety of other letters relating to both controversies. • The Noureau Diet. Hist, of 1781) appears to suppose that this excommunication itself, the Socinian biopraphcr (p. xxii) that at least a direct threat of it, preceded and caused our author's departure. Both suppositions arc wrong. introd.] and opinions. — Warburton. — Voltaire. li "P. Courayer often withdrew ["for privacy"11], at Percy-lodge, &c. he " constantly attended the parish-church, and he always expressed great " satisfaction in the prayers of the Church of England." Ibid. p. xxxix. The following extract, given in the Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. 544, from a letter of Mr. Jeremiah Markland to Mr. Bowyer, dated Sep. 29. 1746, records the opinion of the former scholar with respect to our author's sen- timents at the time of his publishing his translation of Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent, i. e. ten years sooner : " Mr. Clarke has given me Father Courayer's Translation of the History " of the Council of Trente, with whose Preface I am so greatly pleased (hav- " ing just read it), that if he be no more a Papist in other tenets, than he "is in those he mentions, (which are many, and of the most distinguished " class,) I dare say, there are very few considerate Protestants who are not " as good Catholics as he is. If you have not read it, you have a great " pleasure to come." Of the same character appears to have been a Work which he published at Amsterdam in 1744, intitled : " Examen des defautes &c", "An Ex- " animation of the defects of theology, wherein is pointed out the means of " reforming them." In two volumes 12mo. In this Work, which was not known till long after to be his, and of which an analysis may be seen in Steeudlin's History of Theological Science, vol. 2, p. 349, " his object wa3 " to deliver theology from its barbarism, and make it more serviceable to " religion". Allgemeine Encyklopcedie of Leipsic 1818. Dr. Warburton's opinion of our author's writings may be seen in an ex- tract from a letter dated May 11. 1741, preserved in Nichols's Literary Anecdotes, vol. 5, p. 572.f With respect to the English in general, Voltaire (Age of Louis XIV, vol. 2. p. 371, 372, Eng. Trans. Ed. 8vo, 1752,— as quoted by the new Biog. Brit.), after mentioning Le Quien's reply to Courayer, adds : " But " the English pay no more regard to these disputes than the Turks do " to dissertations upon the Greek Church." That many, however, of the Anglican Clergy and others of that day thought differently, is shewn, as this biographer justly observes, by their conduct towards our author. The Encyclopedic Methodique quotes from Voltaire another passage relating to our author, in which he says of the Whigs, that " they are * Anecdotes of Bowyer p. 85. " by coming here than he could have got e " This copy of Courayer's book was " in peace at home ; and much more by " given to Mr. Clarke by Bishop Hare."— " writing for our Ordination than he would Socinian Life, p. 1. So also the Lit. Anecd. " have got by writing for our Faith. But, vol. 2, p. 44. " to be sure, he deserves it all, by so much ' This extract is as follows : — " One of " endeavouring in all his writings, to give " the most remarkable effects of the wise " us a good opinion of moderate French " project of an union with the Gallican " Popery ; a security I suppose against " Church, was Courayer's writings and " our falling in love with the worst kind of " banishment. However he has got more " Popery, the English." d 2 lii Various particulars concerning [editor's " even better pleased that the Bishops draw their authority from the " Parliament than from the Apostles." In 1749 we find our author present at the institution of the Rev. William Cole to the Rectory of Hornsey in Middlesex. Lit. Anecd. vol. 1, p. 658. " It is said indeed, I know not how truly, that P. Courayer was offered " and refused preferment, — a Bishopric, as I have heard, — in the Church of " England." Socinian Life, p. lxii. Compare p. xlviii. note x of this Introduction. With the Princess Amelia, daughter of George II, " and her sister "Caroline [Elizabeth-Caroline], it was a rule with P. Courayer, when in " London, to spend always one evening in the week. Their Royal Father '* was often, it is said, of their party; which must have been equally instruc- *' tive and entertaining ; for the Doctor was a cheerful man, and a lover " and promoter of innocent mirth. " In this little circle, contrary to the usual custom of Courts, P. Courayer " was probably most open and communicative. Supposing, no doubt, that " it best became his situation and circumstances in this country, he gene- " rally practised more reserve on religious subjects than appeared to have " been natural to him ; studiously declining in common conversation the " free communication of his thoughts on every topic that led to contro- " versy." Ibid. p. xlvi, xlvii. We are told also that, " according to the concurring testimonies of several " very credible witnesses, who knew him well, and were very much in his " company, he had — a considerable degree of natural timidity, which dic- '* tated to him a cautiousness of conversation", although not such as to " exceed the due bounds of circumspection ". Ibid. p. xlvii, xlviii. According to the same authority (p. lii — liv)e, a message was sent him about the end of the year 1763, from the Superior of his Order at St. Genevieve, by a relation of the Superior's, " that all his enemies were " then dead, and that, if he would resume his former station, he would be k The biographer's own words are: — " It is very certain, that long after his " coming here, even in the year 1763, he " was, at least intentionally, re-invited to " the country from which lie came on the " point of excommunication. [See notec] " This is vouched as a fact, on the per- " sonal information of a gentleman of " eminent knowledge, and unquestionable " veracity. The writer is not left at liberty " to mention the name of his informer ; " but he is the very person who brought a " message to P. Courayer, from the Supe- " rior of his Order at St. Genevieve, to the " following purpose, and given, so far as " the writer can remember, in the very " words of the Protestant messenger, who " was that Superior's relation. " ' About the end of 17fi3, I had it in " ' charge, from the Superior of his Order " 1 at St. Genevieve, who was my relation, " ' to call on Dr. Courayer, and to assure " ' him, that all his enemies were then " ' dead, and that, if he would resume his " ' former station, he would be received " 'with open amis, without recantation, or " ' any submission whatsoever.' On my " learned and worthy informer's return to " London, P. Courayer was at Windsor, " where he continued for some time ; and " it so happened, that the gentleman here " referred to, never delivered this message, " nor it is affirmed from his own know- " ledge, that the same, or any similar " message, was ever delivered to the Doctor " by any other messenger." INTROD.] his life in England. liii " received with open arras, without recantation, or any submission what- " ever." Courayer however being at Windsor, and continuing there for some time, it so happened that the messenger referred to (who was the Socinian biographer's informant) never delivered his message ; nor is it certain that it was ever delivered at all. At the same date a note in the old Biog. Brit. (1747 — 1766), — see p. xvii, xviii, note c, — says : "He is now [1763] (sic) four score and three " [it should be two] years of age, and in a good state of health." P. 4095. A few years later he published a French Translation, with notes'1, of Sleidan's Latin History of the Reformation, — printed at the Hague, 1767 — 1769', in 3 volumes 4to, and subsequently translated into German. — Concerning our author's own Translation see more, p. liv, and p. lvi, note u. Between the Jesuits and our author there had always been the strongest opposition ; " yet his humanity was excited on the suppression of their *' Order in 1773 ; and he lamented exceedingly the hardships of many men, " rendered by this event perfectly destitute. " He could never be brought to think favourably of Archibald Bower k, " author of the compilation called 'Lives of the Popes '; but always insisted " from the beginning of his acquaintance with him, that he was a dark man, " of a suspicious character, who pretended to have collected from books " which he certainly had never seen. The detection, for which the publick " was indebted to the ingenuity and laudable pains of Dr. Douglas [Bishop " of Salisbury], verified P. Courayer's suspicions." Ibid. p. xxxii, xxxiii. "P. Courayer, whether Papist or Protestant, was by all accounts a " Christian of the true breed, who retained to the last of a long life the re- " gard and esteem of all good men. The current of testimonies runs strong " and clear in favour of his character : he was well known, and generally " believed to be true and a friend to truth. His conversation, it is said, " was peculiarly edifying and pleasing, enlivened with much variety of lite- ** rary and historical anecdotes ; his manners were pure, unsuspicious, and " unsuspected ; and with all his politure, he never lost his sterling simpli- " city."1 Ibid. p. lxxiii, lxxiv. "P. Courayer's sight was very bad for many years, and for the two or " three last of his life he was entirely blind. In his life-time, it may be h " This Work is accompanied with co- " pious notes, wherein the author discusses "interesting facts." — Nouveau Diet. Hist. of 1 786 ; which observes further, that, though the author is not always impartial, " he is " yet more moderate in this than in his " other writings." ' So the Allgemeine Encyklop;edie of Leipsic 1818; rightly. Others less ac- curately, 1767; the Biographie Univer- selle, "1767 and 1769". k A Jesuit who renounced the Church of Rome; concerning whose very shocking history and ultimate disgrace see Chal- mers's New Biog. Diet. 1 " Although he had a very sharp tone " in his Works, he was in society agree- " able and polite; his morals were pure; " his conversation was instructive, and " mingled with a great number of literary " and historical anecdotes." Nouvean Diet. Hi.it. of 1786. liv His old age and death. — His [editor's " about twenty years before he died, he gave his books to Archbishop Teni- " son's Library at St. Martin's." Ibid. p. lxxvii. He was also nearly deaf, as appears from the following letter, addressed by him to Dr. Ducarel soon after the publication of his translation of Sleidan's History of the Reformation (see p. liii), and preserved in Nichols's Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century, vol. 9, p. 17 ; — in which same work, vol. 6, p. 380 — 405, may be seen an account of Dr. Ducarel. " Dear Doctor, May 30, 1769. " I thank you for the information you gave me of the reception of my " last volume of Sleidan's Translation. I would have had the honour to " present it myself to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury [Dr. Com- " wallis] ; but, being unknown to him, and being besides almost blind and " deaf, I thought more proper to send it directly to the Library, especially '* after Miss Talbot"1 told me that the two first volumes were left there. " I will be obliged to you, however, if you be so good to present my respects " to his Grace, and assure him, that, if it was not for my old age, and my *' deafness, I would be very glad to pay him my respects in person. I make " use at the same time of this opportunity to remind you of our old ac- " quaintance : and to assure you that I am, as much as ever, dear Doctor, " Your obedient servant, Pet. Fr. Le Courayer." The above is the only specimen the present Editor remembers to have seen of our author's English composition. " P. Courayer died", continues the Socinian biographer, " at his lodgings " in Spring-gardens", after an illness, it is said, of two days, on the 17th° " of October 1776, at the very advanced age of 95 ; and was buried, at his *' own desire, in the cloister of Westminster Abbey, by Dr. Bell, then " Chaplain to the Princess Amelia." P. lxxvii, lxxviii. " Dr. Courayer's Will, dated Feb. 3. 1774P, was proved at Doctors' Com- "mons, Oct. 24. 1776. He left 500/. to St. Martin's Parish, to the " Library of which he had many years before [see above] given all his Catharine, daughter of the Rev. Ed- ward Talbot, and grand-daughter of Dr. Talbot Bp of Oxford, Salisbury, and Dur- ham. She and her mother formed part of the domestic circle of the preceding Abp, Dr. Seeker, who died Aug. 3. 1768, set. 75. See Bart let ft Memoirs of Bp Butler, pp. 23, 246. In the same Work, p. 19, 20, may be seen an anecdote of Mr Talbot's fast- ing.— The first volume of the translation of Sleidan appeared in 1767. " " He died in Downing Street, 'West- minster." New Biog. Brit. 0 So too the Anecdotes of Bowyer, the new Biog. Brit., and others: Mr. Kynaston's Epitaph (see p. lvi) gives the 15th: the French biographers in the Encyclopedic Mcthodique, the Nouveau Diet. Hist., and the Biographic Universelle, the 16th. The 17th is most probably right. P In this Will he professed, — " That he " died a Member of the Catholic Church, " but without approving of many of the " opinions and superstitions which have " been introduced into the Romish Church, " and taught in their Schools and Semi- " naries, and which they have insisted on " as articles of faith, though to him they " appeared to be not only not founded in " truth, but also to be highly improbable." Nciv Biog. Brit. introd.] Will. — Portraits of him. lv " books. He bequeathed 200/. to the Parish of St. Margaret in West- " minster, a handsome sum of money to the poor of Vernon in Normandy, " where he was borntanCL'.- referred to in note c. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO THE PRECEDING INTRODUCTION. Page v, note e. To the mistakes of the Socinian biographer add in its proper place : — 8. On p. xxii it is implied that at least some direct threat of excommunication on the part of the General of his Order preceded and caused his departure. Compare p. 1, notes Ibid. col. 2, 1. 7 from the end, to " xlvi." add as a sub-note: This error, too, is at least naturally implied hi the statement of the Anecdotes of Howver, p. 85; in which we read that *' he pot safe to England, where he was well received ; hut he complained to Ahp " Wake that it was a had country for a religious man to reside in, because of the unhappy differences " Ac. as in the note referred to. To the sub-note already found on this page add as a new paragraph : The second has found its way also into the Allgeraeine Encyklopanlie of Leipsic 1818, through the fault, probably, of Bamberger (see the addition to p. vii, note *), who is mentioned in the list of authorities. From the same source may have been derived FMting for Eating: see p. 1. vii, in note *, after " 1816." insert: They were also made especial use of in Bamberger's German Anecdotes of the most celebrated British literary Characters of the 18th Cent., 8vo, 2 vols, 1786 and 1787; a compilation which, though useful, is without literary accuracy, — according to the compiler's Life in the Allgemeine Euey- kloptedie of Leipsic 1818. ix, to note k, omitting of course the italic reference, add as two new paragraphs : P.S. Since this Introduction was put into type, the present Editor has himself paid a visit to the Library, and turned through the leaves of the copy there preserved of the Dissertation, but without observing any thing more than two slight verbal corrections, both already included in the Errata at the end of the original, viz. those on the eighth and fourteenth pages of the Preface, of which the first is the one referred to in the Editor's note to p. 20 B 13. — In the Defence he did not observe any other additions or cor- rections than those which his friend had already communicated : it must be added, how- ever, that in the case of that Work he did not think it necessary to do much more than collate the matter already sent him. — The Supplement he turned through, and found three corrections, together with a note dated Dec. 14. 1737, and signed with the author's name ; all which he has thought it desirable to preserve at the end of this volume, after the additions and corrections to the Defence. In the same Library he saw also the second (or documentary) volume of the Relation (the first was not there, or not in the way) but did not observe any MS. corrections in it ; any more than in the"Examen &c." mentioned on p. li, which also was there, but which he did not feel it necessary to examine particularly. ix, to the end of the second paragraph, add as a note : It should be observed that at the end of the Defence there are a few additional Errata for the original of the present Work, besides those at the end of the present Work itself. Both the one and the other have been made use of by the present Editor ; by whom, how- ever,— in order to make this Edition as complete as possible, — for the benefit of those who may happen to have at hand the original of the present Work, but not that of its Defence, it has been thought best to reprint these additional Errata at the end of this volume, before the MS. additions and corrections to the Defence and Supplement men- tioned in note k and its PS. xvi, line 9, to " Sqavante" add as a note: "He had also furnished several [or many (plusieurs)] articles for the Journal de 1' Europe Scavante." Nonveau Did. Hist, of 1786. In the printed Catalogue of the King's Library in the British Museum is found the following fallacious entry : " Lettres sur ses querelles, et sur des Memoires dans 1' e Ixvi Additional Notes " Europe Savante. 12 vol. 8vo. a la Haye, 1718—1720." (Letters on his contests, and on Memoires in the Europe Savante, 12 volumes, 8)»o. the Hague, 1718— 1720.)— On asking for the Work so described, the first twelve Nos. of the Europe Savante itself (being the Nos. for 1718 — 1720) were brought the present Editor. Compare the additional notes to p. xlix, note y, and p. liii, 1. 10. xvii, line 4, to " chief" add as a note : In the Relation &c. vol. 1, p. 329, Father Prevot is mentioned as "one of the Librarians of St. Genevieve". Compare with this the quotation on p. xv. — Dr. Bell, too, in the Advertisement to the Traite Src. (see p. lix. lx), speaking of the time of our author's leaving France, says that he was then " chief Librarian". xvii, note c, line 4, to " 1720 " add as a sub-note : The first article in the Collection is a letter from Mr. B. to the Abp, dated Nov. 28. 1717 ; the last an extract of a letter from the Abp to Mr. B., dated Ap. 19. 1720. xviii, notec, last paragraph, to " 4090)" add as a sub-note: For the authorities on which the account of this earlier correspondence given in this article rests, see the article itself, comparing also a letter in the Gent. Mag. for 1767 (voL 37, p. 241), dated Can- terbury, Ap. 18. 1767, and written, as we learn from the Lit. Anecd.(see p. vii, note •), vol. 9, p. 355, by Dr. Osmund Beauvoir himself. The letter is written to defend the Abp against the charge of Archdeacon Blackburne, put forward in an anonymous Work intitled The Confessional, of having been willing to unite the Anglican and Galilean Churches, each community retaining most of its own pecu- liar doctrines; — a charge from which Maclaine and the Biog. Brit, also vindicate his Grace. The contrary, Dr. O. B. tells ns (p. 242J can be proved from his Grace's own letters, "and it is hoped will " by the publication of some of them", alluding of course to the above Edition of Mosheim, which came out the year after. To the end of the above-mentioned paragraph itself add : — We find him however, in a letter of his own, dated March 27. 1775, (Lit. Anecd. &c. vol. 9, p. 355,) mentioning the purchase of some other MSS ; and we may easily believe that, possessing as he did, the correspondence with respect to the projected union, he would be glad to procure also, if possible, and add to his collection, the letters which had passed through his father's hands to our author, who indeed may very naturally have given them to him before his death. — Dr. Osmund Beauvoir died himself A.D. 1789, aged 67 ; having been one of the most accomplished classical scholars of his day. Some account of him is given in the Lit. Anecd. vol. 9, p. 351 — 359 : see also pp. 747 and 810. xli, to note 6 add : — MS. list of publications connected with the present W ork, fur- nished by a friend.. The Editor has not been able to see Le Quien's second Work himself. xliv, to the end of note e add the following sentence and sub-note: — The Allgemeine Encyclopsedie, too, gives twenty-fwo Bishops and thirty-two articles.* • Before this decision took place our author wrote to complain to the Cardinal de Bissy Aug. 13 and 19 ; before it was announced (see p. xlv, note ?'), to Cardinal Fleury also (see p. xx, note I), Aug. 23. The only reply he received was a verbal message from the former Cardinal Aug. 21, after the busiuess had been settled in three or four sittings, (Rel. vol. 1, p. 128, with the memorandum just about to be mentioned.) These letters, with an introductory paragraph and a memorandum at the end, form the 14th Art. (p. 161 — 176) of the second (or documentary) volume of the Relation &c, the letters to the former Cardinal beginning p. 162 and 168, that to the latter p. 171. xlv, in note after 1727." add : — (MS list mentioned in the addition to note b, p. xli.) xlvi, to the end of note k add as a sub-note : In this latter volume this Pastoral is reprinted entire, and makes (with an introductory paragraph) Art. 24 (p. 309—321). xlvii, 1. 18, to " imply)." add as a note : On p. 124, in the postscript of a letter dated June 25. 1728, Mrs Morice (the Bishop's daughter) writes to her father : — " The inclosed letter is just now come from Pere " Courayer, and very opportunely, since mine scarce deserves your reading." xlix, note .r, after col. 1, 1. 3, add as a separate paragraph : The publication in 1729 of the Relation &c. which has so often been quoted has already been mentioned : see pp. viii. and xvii. xlix, to the last paragraph of note r add as a sub-note : Maclaine, however, in the place quoted, speaks of Kirprning's account of the correspondence with respect to the projected union (see p. xvii, note c) as " full of mistakes", and as having probably misled Mosheim, who had certainly, he says, a very imperfect idea of the matter. — Mosheim, it may be ob- served, presided at the delivery of this Dissertation {Allg. F.ncykl. <$c.) ,— which appears to have misled to the preceding Introduction. Ixvii Heumann, wlio in his Programma on the theology of Couraycr ( Nova Syll. vol. 1, p. 261 : see the additional note to p. li) wrongly attributes the Dissertation itself to Mosheim. — In the same plaee wo are also told, that our author, finding some errors in the Dissertation in question, correetcd them in a short Treatise whieh he inserted in the Nouvelle Bibliotheque, vol. 7, p. 541 &c.; from which it would seem that we should read, either 541 in the JUy. Encycl. (see the preceding paragraph), or 341 in this Programma. — It maybe added that we learn further from the same paper of Neumann's (p. 260, 261) that a little before KinTiiinu', Rathlefiufl also gave some account of our author's life in the Eurupa docta uostri tempuris {V Europe Sacanter), vol. 3, p. 233. xlix, note y, to the end of line 4 add as a sub-note : The Catalogue of the Kiug's Library in the British Museum represents this Edition as containing portrait.* of the Queen and our author. It should be the Queen and Father Paul. Compare thj addi- tional notes to p. xvi, 1. 9, and p. liii, 1. 10. Ibid., to the end of the first paragraph add : — It had been undertaken at the command of her Majesty, as appears from the opening of the dedication to which allusion has been made. Ibid., paragraph 2, to " Antony de Dominis" add as a sub-note : An Abp of Spalatro, who renounced, but subsequently returned to, the Communion of the Church of Rome. He was IiuiiiIm unci y preferred by James I. Ibid., last paragraph, after " 28, 29." insert: — Also Boswell's Life of Johnson. Ibid., to " German" add as a sub-note: The German Translation, however, according to the former authority (which quotes Ernesti's Theo- logical Library, vol. 2, p. 717 &c.), is full of faults, omissions, and inaccuracies. li, to 1. 1 5 add the following note and sub-note : For German opinions of this Work the Allgemeine Encyklopsdie of Leipsic 1818 refers to Salig's History of the Council of Trent, vol. 3, p. 197; Baumgarten's account of a Library at Halle, vol. 3, p. 450 ; Heumann's Programma* de Theologid Curayeriand, Gcettingen, 1745, 4to, — reprinted also in his Norn Si/llogc Dissrrtalioiium [in two volumes, 12mo, 1752 and 1754] vol. 1, p. 260 [ — 275] (see the additional sub-note to p. xlix, note x) ; — and the Gcettingen Literary Gazette, 1745, No. 43. * A short paper preceding, by the rules of the University, his Inaugural Oration on being made an Ordinary Professor of Theology. (P. 275.) lviii, 1. 13, to tranquillity." add as a note: The whole extract is : " Dr Courayer dined with us the day before he left Town : he " was more elated with having a letter from you, than he had been dejected with the " overthrow of the French : he looks well," &c. as before. liii, line 10, to "History of the Reformation" add as a note: It would seem from a general title-page prefixed to the proper title-page of the first volume, that our author had intended to translate all Sleidan's Works. It may be added that this prefixed general title-page has misled the compilers of the printed Catalogues both of the King's Library in the British Museum (compare the additional notes to p. xvi, 1. 9, and p. xlix, note y) and of the Bodleian. lix, last line, to " Prebendary of Westminster ;" add as a note : The Founder of the Bell Scholarships at Cambridge. Ixi, to note u add as a new paragraph : That he was a Socinian (in the popular sense of the term : see p. v, note c) is clear, not merely from his own language in his account of our author, but also from his own express declaration, "Mr. Lindsey and myself being both Unitarians", in a letter dated May 27. 1772, and preserved in Nichols's Literary Hist, of the 18th Cent. vol. 5, p. 425. — In the Lit. Anecd. (vol. 9, p. 805) we are told that " having long declined the Office of a teacher, " he became a warm admirer of the doctrinal system in Essex Street." e2 AN EPITOME OF THE WHOLE VOLUME, IN WHICH IS IXCICDED THE OLD TABLE OF CONTENTS. (Concerning this Epitome see the Editor's Introduction, p. xiii.) THE TITLE-PAGE OF THE PRESENT EDITION (P. i). Note. For the title-page of the original, see p. xviii, xix of the preceding Introduc- tion ; for an alteration which the author directed Mr. Williams to make in his English Edition, see that gentleman's Preface, p. 10 A. That alteration, however, (from A Dissertation 8(C. to A Defence, Sfc), having tended to confound the present Work itself with the Defence of the present Work published three years later by its author, and the present Work itself having been known and distinguished as the Dissertation SfC. during the protracted controversies to which its publication gave rise,— it has been thought best in the present Edition, to restore the original title. THE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. CONTAINING SOME ACCOUNT, AS WELL OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER EDITIONS, AS OF THE AUTHOR HIMSELF, AND THE MEMORABLE CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE PRESENT WORK GAVE RISE. I. Account of the present and former Editions. Page iii. Call for a new Edition of the present Work. — Browne's Work on the Nag's- head story. — Mistaken testimony of Courayer to the correctness of Mr. Williams's trans- lation.— iii, iv. Gradual discovery of the extreme wretchedness of that performance. — iv. Alterations made by Mr. Williams in consequence of directions from the author, but without any formal enumeration of the altered passages : — this an obstacle to the discard- ing altogether of his translation. — Plan the present Editor was obliged in consequence to follow. v. Statement of our author's Sociuian biographer (Dr. Calder) that the Work was re- printed in 1727 (the original Edition having been in 1723). — This biographer's account of the French part of our author's life filled with mistakes. — vL The question discussed. — Mistake of the Anecdotes of Bowyer, followed by the London Biog. Diet and others. — Errors with respect to Courayer in the Biographie Universelle. — Biographical Treasury. — vi, vii. Sources of the Socinian biographer's information. — vii. Jones of Nayland. — Smyth. — Nichols. — Kippis. — The existence of such Second Edition of no consequence, unless the Edition itself was revised by the author : — viii. if this could have been ascer- tained, the use of Mr. Williams's translation might have been almost entirely dispensed with. — Reasons for believing that, if there was a Second Edition, at all events it was not An Epitome of the whole Volume. Ixix revised by the author. — Mr. Williams's First Edition published both at London and at Dublin A.D. 1725. viii, ix. No MS. corrections in the copy of the original Edition preserved in Abp Tennison's Library, to which the author gave his books some time before his death. ix. Result of the collation the present Editor was obliged to make : — no sufficient reason for supposing that Mr. W. had authority for any other alterations than those for which he himself expressly claims such authority. — The difference between Mr. W.'s two Editions, notwithstanding what he professes in his Advertisement to the Second, comparatively unimportant. — x. The supposition that the faults of his First Edition may be transferred to those who had the care of his MS., which the Advertisement to his Second may seem to imply, and at all events our author directly advances in his favour, altogether untenable. — How such an extraordinarily wretched performance is to be ac- counted for : — xi. mutilations : — omission in both Editions of the whole third Article of the Appendix, in consequence of this translator's having altogether mistaken its contents! — How his Second Edition came to be so little improved. — Previous Work of his on the same subject. — How our author's complimentary letter to him may be accounted for. xii. Improvements in the present Edition : — the collation and correction of references and quotations : — the translation into English of all the Latin and other quotations not already translated. — More important additions are : — 1. Running titles at the tops and sides of the pages. — 2. Considerable insertions within brackets (besides the above trans- lations of quotations), — Mr. W.'s insertions being distinguished by an obelisk (•(■) or otherwise. — xiii. 3. A considerable body of Further Notes. — -4. An Epitome of the whole Volume, in which is included the old Table of Contents, — and which will also answer the purpose of an Index. — Mr. Williams's Index, or Apology for an Index, together with all his other Editorial matter, retained. — The present Introduction itself: — (reasons for saying so much with respect to Mr. W.'s Edition.) — xiii, xiv. Suggestion of some im- provements in arrangement for another Edition. — xiv. Why the Further Notes were not placed under the text in the present. — This Edition originally undertaken for the Anglo- Catholic Library. — Grounds of its withdrawal from that Series. — xv. Thanks for assistance. II. Account of the Author, and of the memorable controversies to which the present Work gave rise. xv. Birth and early studies &c. of Courayer. — He enters the Congregation of St. Gene- vie"ve : — is made a Presbyter of his Congregation and Professor of Theology in 170(i : — Chief Librarian in 1711. — The Library itself. — -xv, xvi. His earlier literary labours. — xvi. Though far from being a Jansenist, he was yet an Anti-Constitutionary, or Ap- pellant against the Bull Unigenitiis, — as was also till 1728, the Cardinal de Noailles. xvii. Origin of the present Work. — Mention of our author's Relation &c. published at Amsterdam in 1729.— The present Work approved by the Censor, Oct. 1. 1721; not- withstanding which the usual Privilege is withheld.— The author, however, enters into a correspondence witli Abp Wake, to the advantage of the Work. — Previous correspondence between the Abp and Dr Dupin with respect to a projected union of the Anglican and Gallican Churches. — Letters of his Grace to our author. — xvih. Mr. Beauvoir and his son Dr Osmund Beauvoir. — The Work at length printed privately by some of the author's friends, in the latter part of 1723. Title-page of the original. — xix. Its reception. — Complimentary letters. — Favourable Extracts in the Nouvelles Litteraires for Dec. 1 723 and the Journal des Scavans of Jan. and Feb. 1724. — xix, xx. Letters of our author, dated Jan. 12 and Feb. 5, 1724, to the Editor of the J. de S., in the former of which he consents to the mention of his name. — xx. The Editor, however, severely reprimanded by Cardinal Fleury. — Particulars re- specting this Cardinal and M. L' Abbe Fleury. !xx An Epitome Answers or attacks: our author's own account of them. 1. Disparaging Extrait of the Journalists de Trevoux, Jesuits, in their No. for March 1721. — Their previous announcement of the Work, as well as (xx, xxi) conduct towards him on a former occasion. — xxi. His letter to them on the occasion mentioned. — Specimen given by our author of their veracity. — His letter to them on the occasion alluded to. — Do. on the present occasion. 2. (xxii) Letters of a Theologian Sfc. (viz. the Abbe Gervaise), Paris 1724— Character and motives of the writer. — Character of the Letters. — Their fate, viz. to be suppressed by public authority. 3. The Dissertation of Father Courayer refuted by Father Hardouin of the Company of Jesus, Paris, 1721. — xxii, xxiii. Extraordinary ideas of this learned author : — he rejected as spurious nearly all the monuments of antiquity. — Other extravagancies. — His mode of dealing with the present Work. — His second vol. intended to have been suppressed, but brought out, together with Reflections, in consequence of his dissatisfaction with Le Quien's concessions. — xxiv. Our author considered himself "refuted" only in the title- page. 4. Work of Le Quien, "Nullity of the Anglican Ordinations, &c", Paris 1725. — Its great aim to raise doubt. 5. (xxiv, xxv) Memoires of Fennel, Paris 1726.— xxv. of tiresome length: — full of coarse, vulgar, and irrelevant matter. 6. Letter of a Benedictine (Pierre le Blanc) to our author, — confined to a theological difficulty. — Its civility and politeness an honourable exception. Spirit of the other answerers : — Hardouin. — xxvi. Of Le Quien more at length. — Courayer's own opinion. — A great part of his Work attributed to Pierre Badoire, one of the Approvers. — Alleged discreditable intention of his to contest without cause the fact of Renaudot's having written the Memoire to which the present Work is an an- swer.— xxvi, xxvii. Conduct with respect to a correspondence between our author and himself.— xxvii, xxviii. — Mode of dealing with the Anglican Deacons' Ordination Service and what our author had said of it. — xxviii. False quotations and translations charged against him by Browne. — xxviii-xxxi. Copious extracts from a letter to M. l'Abbe Su- taine, Prior of St. Genevieve, commenting severely on the character, both logical and moral, of his Answer. xxxi. This Work, however, in our author's opinion, not merely " the most consider- able", but also the only "rational" reply. Against this, therefore, his Defence of the present Work, published in 1728, was di- rected, although he includes in it such of the objections of the other answerers as had been omitted by Le Quien, or better handled by them. — xxxi, xxxii. This Work, like the preceding, approved by the Censor; but, like it, (xxxii) refused the Privilege, and in consequence printed privately. Extent of this second Work. — Title-page. — Reception. — Complimentary letters. — xxxiii. Extraits in the Journal des Scavans of Feb. and April 1727: the second sup- pressed by the Keeper of the Seals, though not in time to prevent the escape of a few copies, from which it was afterwards reprinted. — xxxiii-xxxviii. Contents of the Work at length. — (xxxvii.) Note concerning the two Latin Lives of Parker. — xxxviii. Do. con- cerning the "Important Observations" of the Coadjutor of Orleans, with which com- menced the Sacrificial controversy which eventually drove our author out of France, — as also concerning a MS. satire upon most of the Answers to the Dissertation. xxxviii. Answers to the Defence before Le Quien's. — 1. (xxxviii, xxxix.) That of Hardouin, — more extravagant than even his former production. — (Charge of forgery against Courayer by the same author: answered in a letter to Lord Pereival.) — 2. (xxxix) Of Theodoric de St. Rene : — doubts and speculations. — 3. (xl) Of the Sieur of the whole Volume. Ixxi Vivant:— admission.— "The English Work of an anonymous Jesuit", — "an ill assorted " compilation &c", — in answer to the Dissertation alone, though published after the Defence. — Certain more obscure replies. — The foregoing noticed in the Preface to the Relation. xl, xli. New Work of Le Quien in 1729 :— in consequence of which (xli) our author published at Amsterdam in 1732 a Supplement to his two preceding Works. — Severe remarks on the character both logical and moral of Le Quien's second Work, taken from the Preface to this Supplement. — xli-xliii. Contents of the Supplement at length, with a few notes.— xliv. Le Quien, if disposed to reply again, did not live to do it. The incidental controversy with respect to the Sacrifice xliv, xlv. Leading features of the history of this latter controversy. — " Denunciation &c." by Pelletier :— his character. — Letters of our author to the Cardinal de Noailles and M. Girardin, Doctor of the Sor- bonne. — Mandate of the Bp of Marseilles, April 1727. — Of the Cardinal de Noailles, which, according to our author, was ante-dated Aug. 18. though in reality later than the Assembly of St. Germain, — i. e. the condemnation by twenty Bishops assembled under the Cardinal de Bissy at St. Germain des Pres, near Paris, Aug. 22. 1727, of the Disser- tation and its Defence. — Order for the destruction of these Works. — Condemnation of the same by the Council of Embrun under Cardinal Tencin, the Abp of that See, Sep. 23 : — the Council had been assembled to condemn Soanen, Bp of Senez, a zealous Anti- Constitutionary : — who this Cardinal was. — Mandates of other Bishops. — Conference between our author and his Superior at Auteuil Oct. 29 Friendship towards him of the Superior and the Due de Noailles. — His letter of Oct 30 to the Cardinal de Noailles. — What our author professed. — Pastoral Instruction of the Cardinal de Noailles dated Oct. 31, but which did not appear till the 21st or 22nd of Dec. — In order to disavow safely the sense put by this Instruction upon his letter of Oct. 30, our author makes his escape into England in the latter part of January 1728. — Previous friendly assurances of Abp Wake The Cardinal de Noailles professed distinctly to pronounce no opinion as to validity of the Anglican Orders. — xlvi. Letter of Jan. 12. 1728 left by our author for the Cardinal de Noailles. — Degree of D.D. previously conferred on our author by the University of Oxford. — xlvi, xlvii. His retirement at that time, by leave, at the Priory of Hennemont near St. Germain en Laye. — His friendship for and parting visit from Bp Atterbury. xlvii. Journey to England.— Delay at Calais. — Friendly reception. — xlvii, xlviii. Pri- vate liberality and hospitality shewn him. — xlviii, xlix. National pension of £100 per annum: — doubled by Queen Caroline in 1736. — His Latin Oration at Oxford in 1733. — Jesting pamphlets concerning him. — His conversations and correspondence with Kicer- ning. — xlix. His French Translation, with notes, in 1736, of Father Paul's Italian His- tory of the Council of Trent. — (Antony de Dominis. — Dr. Johnson.) — Increase of income derived thereby. — xlix, 1. His easy circumstances, frugal habits, and extensive charities. ■ — 1. Relations in France. — His endeavours to confess. — Excommunicated by his Superior Jan. 30. 1728. — His letter to the Superior, Mar. 15. 1728. — 1, li. In London he attended only the services of the Church of Rome ; but in some country-places the Anglican prayers, with which "he always expressed great satisfaction". — li. Jer. Markland's opinion of his Preface to his Translation of the History of the Council of Trent. — His anonymous Work (Amsterdam, 1744) on the defects of theology. — Warburton's opinion of him. — Remarks of Voltaire. — Hi. Mention of our author in 1749. — Said to have been offered and to have refused a Bishopric in the Anglican Church. — Social in- tercourse with the Princesses Amelia and Elizabeth-Caroline, daughters of George II. — Reserve and cautiousness in conversation. — Invitation back to St Genevieve from the then Superior in 1763: — not certain it was ever delivered. — liii. Further mention of him the same year His French Translation, with notes, 1767-1769, of Skidan's Latin History of Ixxii An Epitome the Reformation. — Humane feelings on the suppression of the Jesuits in 1 773. — Suspicions of the character of Archibald Bower, author of the " Lives of the Popes", — verified by the detection for which the public was indebted to Dr Douglas. — Good character cf our author. — liii, liv. His failure of sight and hearing towards the end of his life. — liv. Letter from him. — Miss Talbot:— her family. — His death, Oct. 17. 1776, aged 95. — His burial. — His Will. — His books given before-hand to Abp Tennison's Library in St Martin's Parish London. — lv. An elder brother still alive. — Mrs Gulston's small portrait of him in bis old age. — Question about the place of his birth. — Bp Atterbury's picture of him in earlier life : — now in the Bodleian History of this picture, with further mention of its subject, from a letter of Mr. Godwyn's from Balliol College, Oxford, Nov. 27. 1768. — lvi. Extract of another letter of the same gentleman's dated Mar. 12. 1768. — Latin Epitaph by Mr. Kynaston, in full, corrected as it should have stood. — lvii. Literal English trans- lation of do. — Inscription (with translation) under the picture in the Bodleian. — Anec- dote from Ealing. — lvii, lviii. Descriptive particulars &c. concerning our author from Mrs Montagu's letters. lviii,-lx. Posthumous Works given by our author to the Princess Amelia (daughter of George II), and published by her Chaplain, Dr William Bell, Prebendary of Westminster, in 1787 and 1811 ; shewing clearly the fearfully unsound views into which he had fallen, as well on the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as on other points. — Some account of these Works. — Why they were not published sooner. — lx. Reasons of Dr Bell for publishing them at all. — Remark of Chalmers ; — who, however, is mistaken as to our author's character. — Dr Bell's conduct censured by the Quarterly Review; — defended in a letter in the Gent. Mag. — lx, lxi. Particulars treated of in our author's Latest Senti- ments (the Work published in 1787). — This last mentioned Work translated the same year by the Socinian (Dr Calder) already alluded to — Our author's views, however, not exactly those of the Socinians. — Synoptical view of his literary labours. lxi — lxiii. Remarks on the nature and moral of our author's case. — lxiii, lxi v. Preli- minary explanations regarding the present Work. — What the question is, and how much the author maintains. Additional Notes to the preceding Introduction. lxv. Mistakes of the Socinian biographer and others. — Bamberger. — Result of a visit by the present Editor to St. Martin's Library. — Additional Errata for the present Work, contained in the Defence. — lxv, &c. Mistakes in the Catalogue of the King's Library in the British Museum. — lxvi. Correspondence concerning the union of the Anglican and Gallican Churches : — Dr Osmund Beauvoir : — "The Confessional". — Original letters of Abp Wake to our author. — Our author's letters to the Cardinals de Bissy and Fleury. — Letter of his forwarded by Mrs Morice (daughter of Bp Atterbury) to her father. — The Relation &c. — Kicerning's mistakes: — Mosheim : — Heumann's Programma on our author's theology: — lxviL Rathlefius. — Queen Caroline (wife of George II). — Antony de Dominis German Translation and German opinions of our author's Council of Trent. — Our author in England. — Dr. Bell. — Dr Calder really a Socinian. Mr. Williams's Title-page and Dedication (p. 1 and 3). Mr. Williams's Advertisement (p. 4). The First Edition mutilated : — the Second corrected and improved*. Mr. Williams's Preface. Page 5. Reasons for translating this book. — Fitness of the author for his work. — French much in need of being undeceived. — Useful tendency of the Work : hopes of • Concerning this profession see the Editor's Introduction, p. ix — xi. of the whole Volume, lxxiii unity. — 6. Its reception in France. — Answers expected to it, especially from Father Le Quien: — his learning; — disadvantages. — 7. Incompetency of previous advocates of that side of the question. — "Exceptionable passages" in this Work: — allowance to be made for its author's being a Roman Catholic. — What the reader is to expect. — 8. Mr. Williams not at liberty to write against the Church of Rome in this Preface. — His answer to the author's objections as to the manner of the Anglican Bishops' coming into their Sees : — according to Mr. Williams the Marian, not the Elizabethan, Bishops the intruders. — 9. Anyhow (he maintains), upon the death of the former, the latter became legally pos- sessed.— The English Roman Catholics, according to Mr. Williams, not even on the footing of a national Church. — Execution of the translation: — the author's compliments. 10. Alterations directed by the author : — the French of the omitted passages retained in the Appendix: — the title altered. — Latin quotations not translated in the original Work: — translated where necessary, and the original thrown to the bottom of the page, in his Edition.* The Author's Letter to Mr. Williams. 11 and 14. (Supposed) fidelity of the translation (see the Editor's Introduction, p. xi, xii): — New that such a Work should come from a Catholic. — The Nag's-head story a parallel to that of Pope Joan: — truth in the end triumphant. — 12, 13 and 15, 16. Unity the author's object. — Testimony to the learning &c. of Anglicans. — Disposition towards those who may find fault with him. — Obligations to Mr. Williams. — Wish for the return of the Anglican Church. The Author's Preface. 17. The subject of this Work neglected in France: — not by the English. — Mason's Work. — Champney's answer: — unequal: — replied to by Mason. — 18. Bramhall. — Burnet. — Origin of the present Work. — Memoir of M. 1' Abbe Renaudot : — unsatisfactory. — 19. Author's own original design. — English pamphlet " De Vera fyc". — The question.— Anglican Schism not to be excused. — 20. Advantage of making known the truth of their Succession. — Opinion of Bossuet. — 21. Re-ordinations odious. — 22. Plan of the Work :— proofs of facts. — 23. Author's disinterestedness. — 2i. Delay of publication. — M. 1. Abbe Renaudot's Memoire. Memoire of M. L' Abbe Renaudot. 25. Lawful Ordination found only in the Church of Rome. — Attempts of Protestants to steal it. — Bohemian Brothers. — Richard Creagh. — 26'. Commissions of Queen Elizabeth. — Ordination of Parker. — 27. Objections of the Catholics. — Mason. — Record of the Ordi- nation : — not published till more than fifty years after the time. — 27. Barlow not conse- crated himself. — Bonner. — Edward the Sixth's Ordinal entirely defective. — 28. Ordina- tions under Henry VIII. allowed in Mary's reign. — 29. Eastern Ordinations. — Rectify- ing Act in the 8th year of Elizabeth. — Catholic challenges. — 30. Summing up. — Dif- ferent conduct of Anglicans towards the French Calvinists and towards such as go over to them from the Church of Rome. A DISSERTATION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE ENGLISH, &c. Chapter I. History of the Changes that have taken place in the administration of Orders among the English since the time of the Reformation. P. 31. Separation of Henry VIII. from the Church of Rome. — 1533 the first year of the Schism. — Henry VIII. made but few other innovations. — 32. Statute concerning Ordi- • Concerning (Ins profrssion see the Editor's Introduction, p. xii. lxxiv An Epitome nations. — Under Edward VI. an altogether new form of Ordination. — This aholished under Mary. — 33. Restored under Elizabeth in 1559. — Confirmed in 1566. — Episcopacy abolished at the time of the Rebellion. — Restored, and the Prayer-book and Form of Ordination revised, under Charles II. Changes in Scotland. — Superintendants &c. appointed in 1560. — 34. In 1572 a semblance of Bishops. — Discipline of 1578 : — fully established at Edinburgh in 1581. — Robert Bruce (1598) : — his idea of Ordination and imposition of hands. — 35. James L restores Episcopacy : — question about previous Orders. — The Rebellion : — Episcopacy abolished. — More regularly restored in 1664. — 36. Revolution of 1688 : — Episcopacy abolished a third time. Cases of England and Scotland compared. — 37. The Scotch Ordinations depend on the English. — Five changes in England. — Cromwell. — 38. Henry VIII.— Remaining question. — Parker. Chapter II. History of Parker's Ordination by Barlow. Authenticity of the Record wherein it is related, and falsehood of the stories published on the subject. 39. Elizabeth. — Death of Cardinal Pole. — Parker.— His election. — The Queen's Com- missions.— 40. Her dispensation. — 41. Parker confirmed and consecrated The Record. — Camden — 42. Parker's Journal. — Neale's alleged story as given by Champney : — 43. Re- futation of this story: — 44. from Rymer: — from probability: — Sanders: — 45. Bonner: — Scory: — 46. late origin of the story. — Three objections to the Record. — Obj. L 'The ' Record not produced for fifty years.' — Answer. — 47. The Record cited in Parker's own time. — Shewed to and examined by certain Roman Catholics in Abp Abbot's time. — 48. Their unreasonable request. — Re-examined at our author's desire. — Letter of Abp Wake to the author. — 49. Obj. II. 'Producers of the Record interested.' — Suspicion un- just.— The Record agrees with those in Rymer. — Had it been forged, it would have been drawn up differently. — 50. Obj. III. 'The Record variously cited.'— Answer. — Queen's Commission. — 51. Sutcliffe. — Butler. — Richard for John. — Those who have published the Record itself have always agreed. — 52. The Record still exists. — Reproaches of contem- poraries explained. — 53. Objection from the silence of Stow. — Answer. — Stow himself de- stroys the supposed inference. — 54. Possible causes of his silence. — Obj. ' Three of the ' Bps named in the first Commission had already been deposed: this Commission is ' therefore forged j &c.'_55. The fact not true.— The Bp of Durham.— Of Bath.— 56. Of Peterborough. — Stow's statement explained.— 57. Conclusion. — Testimony of the Earl of Nottingham. — Feigned evidence on the other side. Chapter III. Barlow, Parker's Consecrator, teas himself consecrated. Proofs of this Consecration. 58. Obj. "Barlow not consecrated" : — three grounds of objection. — 59. Answer: — testi- monies : — Godwin : — Wharton : — Le Neve : — 60. Strype. — Many other Consecrations omitted in Cranmer's Register. — 61. Apparent difficulty: — different style of reckoning. — Error of Strype. (Note of Mr. Williams's concerning other errors of his.) — 62. More definite facts which ascertain Barlow's Consecration. — King's Mandate : — penalties of not obeying. — Investiture. — 63. Seat in Parliament. — Usage in this respect: — Mocket: — Bramhall :— 64. Burnet :— Private letters.— Barlow summoned with the rest.— 65. Sat there. — Convocation : — Barlow present : — his place there : — usage in this respect. — Barlow consecrated others:— 66. Bulkeley :— (law of Henry VIII :—) Parker.— 67. His resignation assigned by Queen Mary as the ground of the vacancy of his See. — His sub- sequent deprivation forms no solid objection, but the contrary. — 68. Negative proof. — 69. Summing up. of the whole Volume. Ixxv Chapter IV. Answer to the reasons on the other side [see p. 58]. The public Instruments prove nothing against Barlow's Consecration. 69. First objection (see p. 58). — Want of the Record supplied by testimony, — by Acts, — by silence, — by acknowledgement, — (70) by examples of similar omissions. — Barlow not a mere Usufructuary. — Unreasonableness of objectors. — 71. Answer.— Second objection (see p. 58): — what strengthens it. — 72. Answer. — Consecrare often both inserted and omitted wrongly. — Examples, — 1. of wrong insertion: — Capon, — (73.) Hethe, — Hol- beche, — Wickham, — Hutton, — Bellot, — (74) Vaughan, — Thomborough. — 2. Of wrong omission : — Cowper, — Bradbridge, — (75) Hughes, — May [or Mey], — Matthews. — Sum- ming up. — 76. But the Instrument itself is miseopied :— testimony to that effect. — 77. Anyhow proof should be brought of Barlow's having been actually consecrated by Parker. — Negative testimonies to the contrary: Parker's Life, — (78.) Camden, — Godwin, — and others. — 79. Result. — Objection from the term Bishop Elect. — 80. Answer: — Barlow's case peculiar. — Admissions of Champney and Ward. — Reason of the term. — 81. Juxon a parallel case. — Barlow's Record of translation. — 82. Further remarks and confirmatory examples.— Supposed collusion between Cranmer and Barlow : — their heretical senti- ments.— 83. Answer. — Difficulty or rather impossibility of such a thing. — 84. Inci- dental proof of Barlow's Consecration from the charge of heresy made against him. — His practice. — 85. Other documents lost. — Inconsistency in the supposition. Chapter V. Bonner s threat of excommunication is chimerical ; and were it real, it would prove nothing against Barlow's Consecration. 86. Bonner's threat.' — Neale's (alleged) story. — 87. I. The story false. — Renaudot does not venture to insist on it. — 88. The threat altogether improbable. — Bonner deposed. — St. Mary le Bow and many other London Churches in the sole jurisdiction of the Ahp of Canterbury. — So the Palace of Lambeth, where Parker was consecrated. — 89. Bishops' residences in general exempt. — The threat inconsistent with itself. — 90. The Bp of Llandaff not likely to regard it. — Real case with respect to that Bp. — II. Even sup- posing the threat true, the supposed conclusion (91) would not follow. — Difference be- tween Kitchin's and Barlow's cases. — The other Consecrators not threatened. — 92. Ac- cording to Champney, on whose testimony the threat rests, Scory, not Barlow, was the Consecrator. — Dilemma. — 93. Conclusion. Chapter VI. There was nothing essential wanting either as to the matter or as to the form in the Consecration of Parker. 93. General maxims. — 94. Imposition of hands the only essential matter of Ordina- tion.— Unction, — Book of the Gospels, &c. — 95. Variety in ceremonies. — Renaudot. — Form of Ordination. — 96. The words Accipe %c. not used in the East, and not before modern times in the West. — Uniform prayers (97) not found in different Churches. — Prayer in general the only essential form of Ordination. — 98. Council of Trent. — General statement. — Matter and form. — 99. Botli retained in the English Ordinal. — Vicissitudes of that Ordinal. — Its contents. — Imposition of hands. — Records of English Consecra- tions:— Parker. — 100. Omitted ceremonies: — not essential. — Morinus. — 101. Objection of Renaudot. — 'Unknown form': — discussion. — 102. Eastern Rituals. — English case the same. — Eastern independence. — Previous submission of the English. — They retain their liberty.— The service itself.— 103. Prayers in the English Ordinal.— The Pontifical. — 104. Question in the English Ordinal. — Second Invocation (Accipe Sjc). — Conclusion. Ixxvi An Epitome Chapter VII. Continuation of the same subject. Answer to the difficulties. The alterations made by Charles the Second in the Ritual of Edward the Sixth do not prove that there was any essential defect in the Ordination of Parker. 105. Summing up. — Objection of Renaudot: — the words "Take the Holy Ghost" equally suitable to Bishops and Priests: — 106. additions made in consequence. — An- swer.— I. The fact false; the whole formulae having been already different. — 107. The additions made only for fuller explanation. — This proved by two reasons. — II. The principle also false. — 1. The validity of Ordination does not depend on this particular formula : — (a) because the use of the formula itself is modern in the West, while in the East it neither is nor ever has been used: — 108. (4) because the validity of the Sacraments does not in any case depend on certain words rather than the rest, unless these have been determined by our Saviour. — 109. Every Church has power to draw up her own Ritual. — 2. The validity of this particular formula does not depend on the addition ; for the addition itself is wanting as well in the Roman as in all the other Ordination Services. — 1 10. Objection. — Answer. — The formula as well determined by the rest of the Service in the Edwardine as in the Roman Ritual. — Particulars. — Ordination of Priests. — 111. Ordination of Bishops. — 112. The Roman Pontifical compared. — The ad- dition:— summing up. — 113. Jesuit Divines. — Error of Renaudot. — Objection. — 114. Answer Renaudot not charged wrongly. — The other hypothesis, however, untenable. — Some things mere ceremonies. — 115. Summing up. Chapter VIII. Ansu-er to the second difficulty [see p. 105]. The Form of Ordination pre- scribed by Edward the Sixth teas not proscribed by Law when Parker was consecrated. 116. Objection: — ' King Edward's Ritual prohibited by Law at the time of Parker's ' Ordination.' — This proved by the indictment of Bonner by Horn, — (117) and the con- duct of the Judges and Parliament with respect to that case. — Answer. — What is agreed. — 118. Bonner's Counsel. — Two pleas. — What is not agreed. — The first fact false. — 11!). Stapleton's reasoning. — 120. The second plea most insisted on. — The fact false. — Statutes: 2 and 3 Ed. 6, c. 1. — 3 and 4 Ed. 6. c. 12.— 5 and 6 Ed. 6. c. 1. — (Sect. V. given in full),— (121) 1 Mar. Sess. 2. c. 2.— (122) 1 Eliz. c. 2.— (123) 8 Eliz. c. 1.— Result- Cause of the difficulty — 124. The Ordinal part of the Prayer-book,— (Heylin,) — (125) and as such restored with it. — Table of Contents of the Prayer-book. — Words of the Statute of 1552. — Way in which it was understood. — 126. Heylin's statement — The 36th Article: — argument thence: — 127. Burnet's remarks. — Further arguments: — Ordination, if not regarded as a Sacrament, at least included in " the rites and cere- " monies of the Church". — Argument from what the Statute of Mary had repealed. — 128. Heylin. — Its re-establishment acknowledged by Roman Catholics: — Sanders, — Bossuet, — (129) Jesuits. — Statute of 1662: — 130. argument thence. — Objection: — why discharge Bonner? — Answer. — declaration of Convocation: — of Parliament. — 131. Bonner and the rest had suffered sufficiently : — moderation of the Queen. — Objection : — decision of Sir Robert Brooke.— 1 32. Observation of Champney. — Answer : — real case. — 1 33. Brooke's opinion given under Mary : — died before Elizabeth came to the Crown. — Abstract from the Grand Abridgement. — Champney's "bad faith". — 134. Objections. — Answers: sub- ject of the Act of 1597 ; — (135) English custom as to reprinting Law-books. — 136. Obj. : — the dispensing clause: — the notice taken of it in the Act of 1566. — 137. Answer. — 1. The clause not used in any of the Ordinations before 1566 except Parker's. — 2. Doc- trine of Anglicans as to Royal dispensations. — 3. What the Queen undertook to supply. — of the whole Volume. lxxvii 4. (138) Use made of the clause. — Act of Confirmation.— (139.) 5. Probable object of the clause : — Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale had been deprived in Mary's reign and never canonically restored : — terms of the dispensing clause itself. — The clause not found in the first Commission. — 6. Absolutions ad cautelam. — Conclusion.— 140. Statute of 1566 : — five things which it does according to Mason. — Objection answered. Chapter IX. Answer to the third difficulty. The heretical opinions of some of those employed in drawing up the Form of Ordinations appointed by Edward the Sixth, are not sufficient to invalidate the Ordinations performed according to this Form. 141. Vain efforts of objectors. — New objection : — Cranmer and Harlow in notorious error on the subject of Orders. — Their answers to certain questions. — 142. Qu. 12, 13, 14, 4 &c, 7, 9. — Result. — Cranmer imbibed these opinions in Germany and communi- cated tbem to others: — to Barlow among the first: — charge against Barlow in 1536. — 143. Objection pressed. — 144. Answer. — I. Fact: — the majority of the Commissioners dif- fered:— who the Commissioners were. — 144. Their answers to the same list of questions. — Qu. 7, 9, 11, 12, (145) 14 Result. — Cranmer over-ruled.— So in the case of the Six Articles. — Policy of the Committee. — 146. Of Queen Elizabeth. — Summing up. — Cranmer's views not fixed II. (147.) The argument unsound. — Reasons. — 1. The inward intention of the Minister does not affect the validity of a Sacrament, it being necessary only that he should intend to do what the Church does, and do it as a religious ceremony. — 2. The intention is to be judged of only by the outward behaviour. — 149. If the changes do not alter the substance of the form, it ought still to be regarded as the work of the Church. — Example of the ancient Church. — 150. Arian Baptism. — Baptism of the Reformed. — Other Sacraments. — 151. Obj. : — 'the form entirely changed in the ' English Ritual, which was also drawn up in opposition to the Church.' — Answer. — The fact not true with respect to the change. — Were it true, it would not prove the point. — Words of Father Alexander. — Baptism. — 152. English followed the Canons of the Council of Carthage. — Objection answered. — Reproaches of Calvin. — 153. Objection answered : — all others who have separated from the Church by heresy or schism have also lifted the standard against her. — Antiquity :— next Chapter. Chapter X. Examination into the power of a national Church in the administration of the Sacraments ; and whether by the changes she makes in their form she prejudices their validity, even when she does not nmke them until after she has fallen into schism or heresy. 154. Summing up. — Power of national Churches. — General usage. — 155. Syriac Liturgies. — Two classes of Sacraments. — Those of the second variable in form. — Ex- amples.— Penance. — Greek forms compared together. — Those of Gabriel of Philadelphia, — (156) of the Barberine Library, — of John the Monk, — and of John the Faster. — Greek and Latin forms compared. — 157. Objection. — Answer. — These forms do not relate to mere relaxations of censures or interdicts, but to the proper Sacrament : — this proved by the Offices themselves. — Other Sacraments. — 158. Extreme Unction. — Greek and Latin forms compared. — Different Latin forms compared. — 159. Fuither considerations. — Matrimony. — Conclusion.* • It will perhaps be observed that the remainder of the Epitome of the text is considerably fuller than the preceding portion: — this may partially (perhaps) be accounted for by a difference in the lxxviii An Epitome 160. Reason of the case. — I. Discipline: liberty of particular Churches : — (decrees of the Council of Trent on the subject of discipline not received in France.) — 161. Objection : — ' particular Churches cannot alter important points.' — Answer : — the principle not alto- gether true : — if true it would prove only schism, not nullity. — 162. Obj.: — ' the matter and form of the Sacraments sacred.' — Ans. : — the matter and form not invariable : — ex- planation of Boy vin : — 162. Divines quoted by him : — Cardinal Bona : — principle laid down by Courayer : things which have not been always and everywhere may be changed. — 164. Application of this principle. — II. Extent of the authority of the Church of Rome. — 165. Letter of St. Gregory. — Ancient book on the Sacraments. — Effects of this principle: — varieties: — 166. Fulbert of Chartres : — Gerson : — Rome, according to Walafridus Strabo, has adopted from the Offices of the Gallican Church : — those who have adopted the Roman Offices have not deprived themselves of the power of making changes :■ — this power exercised both in the refusal to adopt the changes made by Rome in her Pontifical in 1645 and in the restoration of abandoned usages : — St. Augustine : — Ernulphus Roffensis. — 167. Two difficulties. — Answer to the second: — forms not de- termined by Scripture variable: — Cardinal Bona: — Morinus: — 168. Answer to the first difficulty: — the right of inspection possessed by Rome not unlimited : — Council of Trent : — 169. Armenians andMaronites. — An objection answered. — Limits to the power of Rome. — 170. Difference between ought and can. — English changes not in essentials. — Quotations from Father Alexander. — 171. III. Variations in the Roman formulae. — Epistle of the Bp of Pianza with respect to the Roman Pontifical of 1485. — 172. Difference of ancient and modern forms of Penance, Orders, and Marriage. — Boyvin &c. — Inference. — 173. IV. No written formulae at first. — What follows. Conclusion. — Objection : — ' power lost by schism.' — Answer : — practice : — Renaudot : — (174.) Syriac Liturgies &c. — Armenian Eucharist. — 175. An objection answered. — Facts. — Variations in the Eucharistic Office. — The Canon. — Our Saviour's words. — Variations in the Syriac Liturgy of Matthew the Pastor, (176.) The Liturgies of Thomas of Heraclea, Dionysius Barsalibi, that which bears the name of St. Xystus, and the second attributed to St. Peter. — Lesser variations: — Elhiopic Liturgy. — 177. These changes made after separation. — 178. Variations in Ordination: — date of Rituals. — 179. Other Sacraments. — Conclusion. — Terms of reunion talked of for these Eastern Sects. — Objection met. — 180. Consequences: — 1. The same power ought not to have been contested with the Anglican Church: — 2. The Ordinations of that Church cannot be taxed with invalidity. — Proof of the first. — 181. Of the second. — Two difficulties. — Answer to the first: it is not true that we cannot prove the composition or alteration of the Liturgies or forms by schismatical bodies. — 1S2. Explanation of the second: — ad- mitted " that what is done by a schismatical Church is illicitly and illegitimately done, as " St. Augustine says" : — all that is contended is that this illegitimacy does not affect the validity of the Sacraments. — 183. Objection : ' the argument proves too much.' — Answer : — the question has been, not what could be done legitimately, even by Catholic Churches, but only what could be done validly: — 184. Anglican or even pure Calvinistic Baptism received. — Another objection met. — Conclusion. Chapter XI. Answer to the fourth difficult;/ [see p. 105]. It was not hy the secular, but by the Ecclesiastical authority, that the Anglican Ritual was altered. P. 185. This difficulty but little urged.— Objection :— 'it was not the Anglican Church ' but the secular power which changed the ancient usages :— all therefore that has been 'done in consequence is null.' — 186. Answer: — the fact untrue :— the new Form drawn up by spiritual persons.— Heylin.— Burnet.— 187. Collier.— Names of compilers.— No subsequent approbation by Parliament required before acting upon it. Words of the Act. of the whole Volume. lxxix — 188. Inference. Objection: — ' spiritual power granted the King' :— Act of 1535: — 1 El. c. 1: — 189. use made of this power. — Answer: concession: — what is denied. — 190. Proofs— Art. 37.— Canon 2 of 1603.— Convocation of 1640. — 191. Queen Eliza- beth's Injunctions of 1559. — 192. Apology of James I.— Statutes restrained by the sense put upon them.— Mocket.— 194. Bramhall.— 195. Burnet.— Brett.— Result— 196. Ad- mission :— limitation :— Bramhall : besides that the Stat. 25 Hen. 8. c. 21 " ought not to " be imputed to the Anglican Church, since Henry VIII was not then a Protestant" ; most probably " only the exercise of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the outer court" was intended : Commissions.— 197. Inference from the Statute itself.— Doctrine of the Anglican Divines : — Mocket : — James I :— Mason. — The Presbyterian School to be dis- tinguished.— The extravagancies of that party disavowed by the Anglican Church. — 199. Authorized doctrine of that Church.—" All that can be concluded at most from " these excesses is, that the Bishops cannot acquire or confer any lawful jurisdiction in a " Church where the King usurps such a jurisdiction." — Clergy included in the Parlia- ment— What that Assembly does. — 200. Conclusion. (PART OR VOLUME II OF THE ORIGINAL.) Chapter XII. Answer to the fifth difficult;) [see p. 102]. The doubts of the Divines who regard the English Ordinations as null are not sufficient to make them dubious, nor consequently invalid. P. 201. Objection from doubt :— Champney.— 202. Answer: St. Leo.— 203. The novelty of the form no solid objection. — Morinus. — Habert. — 204. Goar, Hallier, and others. — Habert. — The form of the Sacrament does not consist in certain words to the exclusion of the rest. — 205. Morinus. — Want of authority in the Church which intro- duced the new rite : — this objection met in Chap. 10. — 206. The changes shewn in the sixth and following Chapters not to be essential. — Objection : ' these Ordinations have ' never been recognized by Catholics.' — Answer.— Causes. — 207. Doubts must have some foundation. — Doubt with respect to the Greek Ordinations in 1639. — No foundation for such doubt in the Anglican alterations of the Form. — Doubt with respect to Barlow. — This difficulty met in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. — No reasonable doubt remains : — arguments to shew this, viz.: — 1. Long silence. — 2. Grounds of objection insufficient. — 209. 3. Contrast of these grounds with the evidences on the other side. — Improbabilities in supposing Barlow not to have been ordained. — 210. Shifting of the ground. — Nag's-head fable: — form: — Barlow.— 211. Objection of Champney. — Answer. — 212. Parallel oppo- site argument. — Doubts to be distinguished. — 213. Summing up. Two objections of the Journal de Trevoux of April 1722. — I. ' Divines being divided ' as to the sufficiency of imposition of hands and prayer alone, it can never be regarded as 'certain.' — 214. Answer: — facts, not reasonings, to be followed. — 215. Objection. — Answer.— 216. Proofs.— 217. Doubts endless. II. Second difficulty. ' The Episcopal presupposes the Sacerdotal Ordination, ' whereas the Anglicans, who so far from giving in their Ordinations, reject as chimerical, ' the power of consecrating and sacrificing the adorable Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, ' have no true Priests among them.' — 218. This difficulty as old as Champney. — Used by the writer as a kind of subsidiary reason. — All its propositions false or very uncertain. — 219. 1. The Episcopal does not necessarily presuppose the Sacerdotal Ordination. — Authorities which, according to our author, prove his point : — Bellarmine : — Jerome, &c. : — Zosimus : — examples. — 220. The assumption unfair. — 2. The Priesthood not con- ferred by the formula which expresses the power of sacrificing. — This formula not used in the East : — 221. nor anciently in the Latin Church. — The Anglican Divines (among Ixxx An Epitome many others William and John Forbes, Mason, Bp Andrewes, Thorndike, Jos. Mead, and Grabe) allow a representative and commemorative Sacrifice. — Quotations: — Andrewes: — John Forbes :— 222. Grabe :— 223. Comparison of the language, 1. of the Fathers.— St Chrysostom. — Eusebius of Caesarea. — 224. St. Augustine.— St. Ignatius, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, and the Fathers in general.— (225) 2. Of the Old Catholic Divines. — The Master of the Sentences (Peter Lombard): — St. Thomas Aquinas. — Hugo de Sancto Victore, Nicolas Lyra, and the greater part of the old Schoolmen.— 226. Cardinal Gropper, Cassander, Barnes, Ferus, and after them the Bishops of Belley (Camus) and Meaux (Bossuet), Father Veron, and others went no farther. — Particulars. — Bossuet: — Camus: — Veron: — Vasquez. — Observation. — 227. Power of sacrificing involved in the Anglican Ordination Service. — Further proof of this. — Parker, at all events, had been ordained Priest according to the Koman Pontifical. — 228. Concluding observation. Chapter XIII. Answer to the sixth difficulty [see p. 105], The re-ordinations of some English Bishops cannot be made to prove that there was any thing essential wanting in their Ordination. P. 228. Objection of Renaudot : ' Under both Mary and Elizabeth those ordained ' according to Edward VI's Ritual treated as mere laymen by the Catholics.' — Answer : — the facts true ; — but the proceedings under Mary not very uniform, — Latimer, Ridley, and Farrar, who had been made Bishops according to the Roman Pontifical, having been degraded from the Priesthood only.* — Quotation from Collier with respect to Latimer and Ridley: — 230. with respect to Farrar. — Burnet. — 231. Instructions of Mary. — Objection. — Answer. — Visitation questions of Bonner. — 232. Extract from a Bull of Julius III. to Cardinal Pole. — 234. Remarks upon it. — Continuation of the extract. — 235. Alleged offer of Pius IV to Elizabeth.— General deduction. As for the opinions of the Divines who object to the Ordinations of Elizabeth, their reasons depend on two false facts, viz. : — 1. according to those of the earliest date, — that they were contrary to the laws and performed by those who were not Bishops themselves : — 2. according to the later Divines, on account of the Nag's-head story. — 237. The second of these facts already proved false. — Also the first. — Stapleton, Harding, and other Catholic writers, it is true, denied them to be Bishops, — 238. but upon what grounds? — Because, as Harding says, they had been ordained by schismatic Bishops, and a defective rite, even Parker himself not having been consecrated by lawful Bishops. — 239. Mistaken notion of those times as to the necessity of the unction, the imposition of the book of the Gospels, and the delivery of the instruments. — Such a view no ground of argument. — 210. On the whole, the opinions of these Divines rest either on the false fact of the Nag's-head Ordination, or on the error of re-ordaining those ordained in schism or heresy, or on the mistaken notion just mentioned. The practice of the Church of Rome not uniform, as appears by the Bull of Julius III (see p. 232 — 235),— nor founded on any juridical and solemn examination of the ques- tion,— but owing to the statements, founded on false facts and unsound principles, of the English Catholics. — This confirmed by a letter of M. Fontanini 241. Former irre- gularities at Rome. — Case of Formosus (ob. 897). — Of Constantine (intruded 767): — 242. Extract from Anastasius the Librarian. True, as Auxilius (on the Ordinations of Formosus) has observed, we must not argue from bad examples : — 243. and accordingly the author concludes only, " that what is done at Rome is not always the rule of what " we ought to do". — More regard therefore to be had, according to St. Augustine's maxim, • In the case, however, of Latimer and Ridley, ut least, this was contrary to the Commission of Cardinal Pole. See more p. 228 A (i. e. p. 228, parag. 1). of the whole Volume. lxxxi to reason than to examples.— Objection. — Answer. — 244. Motives. — French and other Bishops not likely to have decided merely from passion (in the case of Constantine). — Quotation from Sigehert with respect to the case of Formosus. Chapter XIV. Continuation of the same subject. The re-ordinations of the English are contrary to all the principles now received in the Schools on the subject of re-ordinations. P. 245. Former doubts on the general question. — Now dispersed. — Reasons. — First received principle : — Sacraments impressing character are not to be reiterated ; — St. Au- gustine.— Second principle : — the conferring of a Sacrament out of the Church does not render it null. — 247. St. Augustine. — Optatus. — Third principle : — the case of Ordination the same with that of Baptism. — This maxim not always universally received : — Urban II. — Gratian. — Ground of the comparison. — 249. Fourth principle : — to reiterate a Sacra- ment there must either be a positive decree of the Church, or a clear nullity, or a solid and evident doubt. — St. Leo the Great. — Fifth principle : — in Ordination, as in the other Sacraments, many things are non-essential Morinus wrong in maintaining that things not necessarily essential, if omitted contrary to the commands of the Church, render an Ordination null. — 250. Application of these principles: — 251. first and second: — fifth: — third : — 252. fourth:— no decree of the Church against the Anglican Ordinations: — no evident nullity: — no sufficient doubt. — 253. Summing up. — Two alternatives: — it must be shewn either that the essentials were not observed, or that Morinus' s principle is sound. — The first position indefensible. — 254. Examination of Morinus's principle with respect to the omission of ceremonies. — Morinus, according to our author, inconsistent. — Ques- tion itself. — Distinction of cases. — 255. 1. The principle of Morinus true when the omission is such as to manifest a want of the intention of doing what the Church does ; — 2. not when it arises from necessity, or the like. — 256. Examples. — Baptism. — Orders: — Ordinations by one Bishop (in case of necessity) admitted in numerous in- stances.— 3. Neither is Ordination invalid when the omission is directed by the Church, either general or particular. — 257. Admission of Morinus. — His maxim must be restricted to the first of these three cases. — Cause of his error, a second maxim that the Church has power to determine the conditions of Ordination in such sort that if they be neglected, the act may be null. — 258. This principle only partially true. — At all events it cannot apply to things which have not been prescribed under such penalty. — Argument. — Further argument. — 259. The cases of Matrimony and Penance, alleged by Morinus, inapplicable ; Sacraments which do not imprint character (i. e. all except Baptism, Con- firmation, and Orders) being null whenever they are unlawful. — Matrimony. — 260. Penance. — Inference. — Negative argument. — Positive: — the Council of Trent distin- guishes between the essentials and the rites and ceremonies of the Sacraments. — 261. Objection. — Answer. — 262. Further observation. — Remarks with respect to the present practice of the Church of Rome. Chapter XV. Continuation of the same subject. How much the Church has varied with respect to re-ordinalions. Reflections on a principle proposed bi/ Mr. Thorndike to fix these variations, and to regulate this matter. It is not upon this principle that the Church has hitherto regulated her conduct on this head. P. 263. Vicissitudes of principles :— Pascal.— Observation. — The principles against reiteration reducible to two:— 1. That a Sacrament administered out of the Church is not therefore null. — 2. That we must reason about Ordination as about Baptism. — 264. These two maxims have been disputed. — Vicissitudes of the first as applied to Baptism. — St. Cyprian and the Churches of Africa.— 265. Felix of Misgirpa. — Januarius Muzu- f lxxxii An Epitome lensis. — Pelagius of Luperciana. — Orientals, even posterior to the Council of Nice : — Firmilian: — St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, and others. — 266. Against Ordination out of the Church the case still stronger. — Innocent L — 267. Second Council of Saragossa : — remark. — 268. Council of Rome (A.D. 769) on the business of Constantine, and Second of Soissons (A.D. 853) on that of Ebbo. — Answers in the Oriental Law, — 1. of a Patriarch of Constantinople to Martyrius Patriarch of Antioch, — and 2. of Balsamon to a Patriarch of Alexandria, — adduced by Morinus. — 269. Urban IL — Divines of the time of Cardinal Peter Damian, who however is of a different opinion himself. — 270. Facts. — (Observation of Auxilius.) — Council of Nice, A.D. 325. — Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, as interpreted by Balsamon and Zonaras. — Case of Photius ordained A.D. 858 :— 271. words of Adrian II : — of Anastasius the Librarian: — of Nicolas I :— 272. of Adrian II :_of the Eighth General Council (the Fourth of Con- stantinople) A.D. 869. — Observation: temporary reconciliation under John VIII, A.D. 879 : — variations. — 273. Cases of Constantine, Ebbo, and Formosus. — 1. Of Constantine : — extract from Anastasius. — (274) 2. Of Ebbo :— second Council of Soissons. — 3. Of Formosus. — Conclusion. Principle proposed by Mr. Thorndike for the explanation and settlement of these variations.— Extract. — 276. Observations, chiefly explanatory: — first: — 277. second: third: — 278. fourth : — fifth : — 279. sixth. — Summing up : — more to be said against this principle than for it. — On the whole, there has been little uniformity on this head, but *' if the principle now received in the Catholic Schools holds good, we cannot dispute "with the English the validity of their Ordination." Chapter XVI. The Succession of the English Bishops has not been interrupted by the Schism. P. 280. The author does not undertake to prove the Anglican Bishops legitimate. — What is wanting to make them lawful Bishops. — General argument. — Grounds of early objectors,— 281. while the Nag's-head story " was not as yet bora". Four epochs of danger to the Anglican Succession. — I. Henry VIII. — No difficulty in his reign. — Sanders. — Act of the first year of Mary. — Bishops consecrated after the Schism. — Several continued in their Sees without re-ordination. II. Edward VI. — The Rite altered; the number of the Ordainers preserved. — Two remarks. — 1. Twenty-six Sees in England [and Wales] ; — yet only six Bishops ordained by the new Rite ;— 284. the first June 29. 1550, the last May 26. 1553. — 2. The new Rite valid. — Admission of Cardinal Pole. — 285. Facts proving it to have been admitted. — III. Elizabeth. — This epoch insisted on with the greatest earnestness. — The old Bishops entirely wanting. — 286. Other difficulties. — Conditional admission. — Differences amongst objectors. — 287. Answer byway of recapitulation. — 1. Nag's-head story. — 288. 2. Barlow truly consecrated. — Anglicans in the case of the Donatists, &c. — 3. The new Form valid. — What must be proved to make it invalid. — 289. All these propositions false. — Result. — 4. Parker ordained according to the new Rite, and by a consecrated Bishop. — Summing up. IV. (290.) Cromwell.— No difficulty. — His policy. End of his projects. — Nine of the old Bishops alive in 1660. — 291. Who these were. — New Ordinations. — General objec- tion : — want of lawful right. — " 1. Because the greater part were ordained during the " life of the true Bishops, without their consent. — 2. Because they occupied their Sees in " virtue of a vicious title, that is to say, in virtue of provisions granted by a lay and " excommunicated prince. — 3. Because they are themselves notoriously excommunicated " and irregular." — Answer: — admission: — what the real question is; — viz. whether or not a succession of the substance of Orders has been so preserved among them as that by reconciliation with the Church what is faulty in their vocation may be corrected. — 292. of the whole Volume. lxxxiii Other separated bodies. — Case of the Donatists compared.— Cause of the practice adopted at Rome. — Letter of M. Fontanini. Chapter XVII. Conclusion and Recapitulation of this Treatise. P. 293. Impartiality with which the author professes to have treated the question. — Recapitulation. — Re- ordinations always odious. — Parker the stem of the new Ministry. — His Consecrator (Barlow) was consecrated himself. — 294. The contrary never main- tained during Parker's life. — The new Ritual does not differ in essentials from the Roman Pontifical.— The Nag's-head story utterly indefensible.— 295. The Ordination therefore not invalid in itself. — Other alleged grounds of nullity. — These refuted. — Spiritual authority in England. — Quotation from Bramhall.— 296. The Ordination Service re- formed by Ecclesiastics. — Powers of a national Church. — Schism does not alter the case. — 297. The re-ordination of the English is therefore indefensible.— What alter- ations make a Sacrament null : — Natalis Alexander. — 298. The doubt therefore without foundation. — Comparison of the argument on the two sides. — Succession. — 299. General observations : tendency of the Work. — Conclusion. (AUTHOR'S APPENDIX.) PROOFS ESTABLISHING THE FACTS ADVANCED IN THIS TREATISE. Article I. [f Translation of] a letter from the late M. J. Ben. Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, to Dom John Mahillon. (P. 301, 302.) In this letter, amongst other things, a favourable opinion is expressed of the Anglican Ordinations. Article II. Various Statutes [i. e. Acts, or portions of Acts,] of Parliament, of which mention has been made in this Work. P. 302 — 311. § 1. Act of 1535 (26 Henry 8, c. I) declaring the King Head of the Church of England. . . . P. 302 § 2. Statute of 1534 (25 Hen. 8, c. 21, § 3) concerning the necessity of applying to the Abp of Canterbury, or to some Bishop, to have dispensations. — Notice of, and deduction from, Sections 4, 5, and 17. . . . . . 303 Statutes concerning the Consecration of Bishops. § 3. Statute of 1534 (25 Hen. 8, c. 20, § 5—7) on this subject. Part of § 5 is omitted. .......... 804 Statutes for the Booh of Consecration of Bishops [$-c] made under Edward the Sixth in the Parliaments of 1549 and 1552. § 4. Act of 1549 (3 and 4 Ed. 6, c. 12) to order the drawing up of the new Form. (From Rastal's Abridgment) ....... 306 § 5. Statute of 1552 (5 and 6 Ed. 6, c. 1, § 5) to annex the Book of Ordination to that of Common Prayer ........ 306 § 6. Act of 1553 (1 Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2) for the repeal of the two preceding Acts. (From Rastal's Abridgment.) . . .... 307 Ixxxiv An Epitome § 7. Statute of 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 2, § 1—3) for the restoration of the Book of Common Prayer. .......... 307 § 8. Statute of 1566 (8 Eliz. c. 2, § 1 — 5) touching the validity of the Ordinations made since 1559. (Of § 2 the purport only is given) — Inference. . . 308 § 9. Act of 1597 (39 Eliz. c. 8) to confirm the deposition of the old Bishops and other Dignitaries, and the substitution of the new ones. — Inference. . .310 Article III. Extract from the Book of Common Prayer, and from the Formulary of Ordi- nations, which was joined to it by a Statute of the Parliament of the year 1552. (P. 311— 321.) [Editor's note concerning the omission of this whole Article in both Mr. "Williams's Editions, in consequence of his having mistaken the Ordination Service of Edward VI in spite both of the title and the introduction, for that of Charles II !] Introduction, p. 311, 312.— The Edwardine Form of Ordering Priests, 312—317.— Of Bishops, 318 — 321. — (Of the Epistles and Gospels only the beginnings and endings are given.) N.B. Of these Forms, instead of the Latin translation of which our author had made use, the present Editor has given the original English, — preserving however at the foot of p. 312, 313, the original Latin of the hymn Veni Creator. [See more in his Notes.] Article IV. Alterations made in the Ritual under Charles the Second. (P. 321 — 323.) § 1. Changes made in the Ordination of Priests. .... 321 § 2. Changes made in the Ordination of Bishops. .... 323 Article V. General authority given by Pope Julius the Third to Cardinal Pole for reconciling England to the Church of Rome. (P. 323—327.) Inference from the Bull. ....... 327 Article VI. A Collection of Records concerning Parker. (P. 328—336.) Introduction, p. 328. — § 1. Elizabeth's first Letters Patent for the Confirmation and Consecration of Parker, 328. — § 2. Her second ditto, with an introduction, and the judgment of six Canonists with respect to the clause Supplentes at the end of the letter, 329. — § 3. Confirmation of the Election of Parker by the consecrating Bishops, 330. — § 4. Record of Parker's Consecration taken from the Registers of the Church of Canter- bury, and from Corpus Christi College Library at Cambridge, together with two certi- ficates, and the mention of some other documents, 332. — § 5. Copy of a certificate of the verification for our author of the Record of Parker's Consecration in Bramhall's Works with the Registers at Lambeth. (The original of this Certificate was deposited by our author in the copy of Bramhall in the King's Library at Paris.) P. 335. Article VII. Attestations against the fable of Parker's Consecration in a Tavern*. (P. 336—339.) § 1. Attestation of the Bishop of Durham, [with the Certificate of the Notary.] 336 § 2. Certificate of some [f other] Bishops. ..... 338 • Rather, Attestations against the statement that Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham, had asserted in Par- liament a modified version of the Nug's-heud story. of the whole Volume. lxxxv §3. Certificate of some Peers. ....... 339 § 4. Certificate of the Clerk of the Parliament. .... ib. Article VIII. Records concerning Barlow. (P. 339 — 346.) Introduction. ........ 339 § 1. Commission to consecrate Barlow, dated Feb. 22. 153$. . . . ib. § 2. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of St. David's, Ap. 26. 1536 . 340 § 3. Parliamentary Writs (not in full) for 1536, in which Barlow is mentioned ib. § 4. Ditto for 1541, in which he is named before many Bishops certainly con- secrated. .......... 341 § 5. Conge d'elire for St. Asaph, after the translation of Barlow, dated May 29. 1536. . . . . . . . . . . ib. § 6. Commission (not in full) to consecrate Warton for St. Asaph, dated June 24. 1536. — Mention of Cranmer's Commission (in 154]) to consecrate Bulkeley, directed among others to Barlow. . . . . . . ib. § 7. Writ of nomination to the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, dated Feb. 26. 154J, with an introduction stating that it is inserted entire " because it is the first given in " Rymer's Collection by which it appears that the King had appropriated to himself the " nomination of Bishops, taking away from the Chapters the right of Election", and a mention of three other deeds which presuppose Barlow's consecration "by the proof they " furnish of the possession he enjoyed of the temporalities of the Church of Bath". 342 § 8. Conge d'elire for Bath and Wells, vacant by the resignation of Barlow, dated Mar. 13. 155$. 343 § 9. Commission of Mary to consecrate Barlow's successor (Bourne) to Bath and Wells, dated Mar. 28. 1554— Remark. ...... 344 § 10. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of Bath and Wells, dated Ap. 20. 1554. — Remark. ......... ib. § 11. Commission to confirm Barlow in the See of Chichester, dated Dec. 18. 1559, with a Certificate (dated June 19, 1721, but which does not appear in the French Edition : see Mr. Williams's Preface, p. 10 A.) of the verification of this Record, and an observation with respect to Rymer's error in transcribing it. . . . 345 § 12. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of Chichester, granted to Barlow, Mar. 27. 1560.— Remark. . . . . . . .346 -Article IX. Fragments of letters written to the author. (P. 345 — 364.) These extensive fragments of the two Latin letters (or two parts of one Latin letter : see the Editor's Introduction, p. xvii, note c) written by the learned Abp Wake to our author, relate throughout to the Consecration of Barlow, but contain at the same time a variety of important and interesting matter, of most of which, as well as of the contents of the same Prelate's English letters (see the same note), free use has been made in the text of this Work. (MR. WILLIAMS'S APPENDIX.) N° 1. A paragraph (in the original French) for which our author directed another (which see p. 62, 63) to be substituted: see Mr. Williams's Preface, p. 10 A. — Addition within brackets, by the Editor. ...... P. 365, 366 N° 2. The title of Chap. 15 as it stood in the French Edition, but for which he directed that at the head of p. 263 to be substituted. (Compare N° 3.) . . 366 N° 3. The conclusion of Chap. 15 as it stood in the French Edition, but for which, lxxxvi An Epitome of the whole "lest" (says Mr. Williams) "he should be thought to espouse Mr. Thomdike's prin- " ciples about re-ordination", he directed the one beginning on p. 275 to be sub- stituted. ......... 866 368 MR. WILLIAMS'S INDEX. (P. 369—374.) (In the Editor's foot-notes to d°, — p. 369. Mr. Williams's own Work on the Anglican Succession: — the Defence of the present Work : — 372. Neale. THE EDITOR'S FURTHER NOTES*. Among the subjects treated of in these Notes, besides corrections and translations (see Introd. p. xii), are: — In the notes to p. 1, Mr. Williams. — To p. 5, his Preface: — p. 10, the alterations he was authorised to make: — his translations of quotations. — 11-16, the author's letter to him. — 17, Mason. — " The Anglican Church". — 25, Richard Creagh. Chap. I. To p. 32, Statutes at large. — New Ordinal. — 33. Scotch Presbyterian Minis- ters.— 34. John Knox. — Superintendents. — 35. Lives of the Kings and Queens of Eng- land.— 37. Remnant of the Anglican Church in Scotland. Chap. II. P. 39. Compromise. — 41. Bramhall's Works. — 43. Bluet— Neale.— 48. Abp Wake. — 52. Stapleton. — 53. Stow. Chap. Ill, 60. Robert King, first Bp of Oxford. — 61. Strype. — 63. Author's correc- tions.— Process of making a Bishop. — 64. Daniel Pulteney. Chap. IV. 72. Suffragan or Titular Bishops: — Strype and Wharton: — Henrician Suffragans. — 82. Instruments of Investiture. Chap. VII. 110, &c. Quotations from the Anglican Ordinal : — mistake of our author. Chap. VIII. 116. Bonner.— 119. Feckenham.— 1 20, Sic. Statutes of Parliament— 128. Making Bishops. — 132, &c. Quotation of Champney's : — Ward. Chap. IX. 141. Barlow. — 142. Questions. — Heretical opinions of Cranmer and Barlow with respect to Consecration. — Also of one Talley. — 143. Compilers of the new Ordinal. — 144, 8£c. The other Bishops not of the opinion of Cranmer and Barlow. — 147. Decla- ration.— 151. Forms of Sacraments. Chap. X. 156, 8tc. Blunders of Mr. Williams.— 160. "Roman Catholic".— 177. Dis- ciples. Chap. XL 192 and 197. Works of James I 198. Royal abasement of Episcopacy. — 199. Votes of Bishops in Parliament. (Vol. II.) Chap. XII. 226. Edward Sheldon. Chap. XIII. 238. Harding. — 241. Dates of certain Popes 242. Passage from Anas- tasius the Librarian : — various readings : — Baronius : — Anastasius's use of the plu- perfect. Chap. XIV. 253. St. Leo. — 254. Morinus : what he really maintains. Chap. XV. 265. Council of Carthage.— St Felix.— Heretical Baptism :— St Athana- sius : — St Basil : — Pepuzeni 268. Subdeacons and Psaltanagnosts. — Greek Responses concerning heretical Orders. — 270. xeipoOereu). — Maximus the Cynic. — 271. Photius : Ignatius : — 272. Words of Nicolas I, Innocent I, Formosus, and Adrian II. — 273. Anastasius the Librarian : — various readings : — his use of the pluperfect. — 275-279. Author's alterations in the passage concerning the system of Thorndike : — plan pursued with respect to them. Chap. XVI. 281. Author's mistake with respect to Sanders. — 284. Edwardine Ordi- nal.— 290. Cromwell. — 291. Bishops who survived, and Bishops who were ordained imme- diately after, the Rebellion. Chap. XVII. 296. Bramhall. * The figures at the head of the last xlii page* of the volume should rather have been in italics. Volume. — Additional Errata for the Original. lxxxvii Author's Appendix: — Proofs. P. 301. Virtu. — 302. Statutes at large. — Old spelling. — 303. Dispensations: power allowed the Bishops. — 304. State mode of deal- ing with them : 305. English use of Latin participles. — Corporal oath. — Chapiter. — 306. The diphthongs a and oz. — Then and titan. — 312. English original and Latin translation of the Edwardine Ordination Service. — Old English spelling, pronunciation, and metre. — Dr. Cardwell's Edition of Edward the Sixth's Prayer-Books. — The spelling of Grafton's older than that of Whitchurche's impressions. — 312, 313. Hymn Veni Creator .— old English Breviaries: — the forms Paraclitus and Paraclitus : — iotacism : — acidia : — Kyrieleison and Ckristeleison -.—Letania and Letany .-—English rule. — Old Eng- lish accent : — diaeresis : — syncopation : — the letters /, n, r : — the words devil and evil : — custom and etymology Spirit : — 313. Christen. — Worldes end : — destruction of metre hy modernizers of spelling.— 321. Mistakes of our author— 323. PP.— 336. D.D.— 338. Certificate of the Bishops concerning Dr. Morton. — 349. Cranmer's Register. — 354. The guardianship of the temporalities of a See granted either before or after Con- secration : — Cardinal Wolsey 362. The Grand Abridgement : — differences between it and the Ascuns Sfc 363. Ridley's leases. Mr. Williams's Appendix and Index. ADDENDA TO THE PRECEDING NOTES. P. 17. Paris, when made an Archbishopric. — 18. Renaudot's MS. — 19-171. Various translations of quotations &c. not already translated. — 72. The Rev. W. Cole : — his acute interesting MS. notes to Strype's Memorials of Cranmer: — his MS. Index to d°. : — his MS. Athena Cantabrigienses. — 142 and 144. Opinions of Cranmer and Barlow with re- spect to the Sacraments. — 162. Morinus. — 165. Gregory the Great. MS. Additions etc. of the Author for the Defence of the present Work. MS. Corrections and a note of d° for the Supplement to the present Work and its Defence. On p. lxxii, immediately after the Epitome of the Additional Notes to the Introduc- tion should be inserted: An Epitome of the whole Volume (pp. lxviii — lxxxviii). Additional Errata for the Original of the present Work, taken from the defence. A Memorandum with respect to pp. 1 — 16 (p. lxxxviii). ADDITIONAL ERRATA IN THE FRENCH ORIGINAL OF THE PRESENT WORK, PRESERVED BY THE AUTHOR AS ART. XXV, VOL. IV, P. CXXXI1I CXXXV OF THE DEFENCE: SEE P. IXV OF THE PRESENT EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION, AS CORRECTED ON P. XLI AT THE END OF THE FURTHER NOTES. " Errors to correct in the Dissertation printed in 1723. " In the Errata printed at the end of my Dissertation, I have marked most of the " typographical errors, which are not properly anything more than words badly written. " By the printer's and my own inattention, there have slipped in some of greater conse- " quence, and which it is desirable to notice, in order to prevent the cavils for which " they have already given a handle, and of which they might perhaps occasion more. lxxxviii Additional Errata for the Original. — Memorandum. " Part I. P. 21, 1. 27, cinq autres] Read, quatre autres. — 1. 28, omit deux le 2 Mars et " deux le 24 Mars, and read et trois le 24 Mars. " P. 27, 1. 14, il y en avail trois Jesuites] Read, il y en avoit deux Jesuites. " P. 53, 1. 29, depuis pris de 700 ans] Read, depuis pres de 400 ans. " P. 104, 1. 25, I' onction n'esl et ri a ete en usage que cltez les Grecs] Read, — n'est et " n' a point ete en usage chez les Grecs. " P. 184, 1. 13, et selon Hcylin ces mimes Eveques] Read, et une partie des Eveques et " les autres Deputez qui avoient travaille, Sfc. V. p. 255. [See the Editor's note to p. 144, « 3-5.] " P. 254, 1. 8, ou par le plus grand nombre d' entr' eux] Read, ou le plus grand nombre " d' entr' eux. " Errors to correct in the fragments of Latin letters, which have been "joined to the Proofs of the first Dissertation. " Some errors having slipped into the fragments of Latin letters which I had joined to " the Proofs of my Dissertation, those who wrote them to me have wished that I should " inform the public of them ; persuaded (as they are) that one cannot carry too far exact- " ness and the love of truth, when the question is of things which concern religion. " P. xci, 1. 16, read, dubitandum. Fatcmur SfC. " P. xcii, marg. 1. 2, read, Godwin de Prtesulibus. " P. xciv, 1. 24, read Rawlins.— Ibid. 1. 28, after fuerit add, vigesimo primo Confir- " matio facta. " P. xcviii, 1. 2, read, consecrati, atque in eisdem installati fuissent. Ibid. 1. 28. After " the word celebrata add [Ehcto], although I believe this word is omitted in the Register, " and for this reason it is that it ought to be within brackets. " P. xcix, 1. 24, after Juxon read LL.D., that is to say Legum Doetore. " P. ci, 1. 8, read eligendi, De. " P. ciii, 1. 10. partim] Read statim. Ibid. 1. 23 and p. civ, 1. 4 and 30, omit Menevensis. " P. civ, 1. 7, for Diocceseos Menevens. read Dicecesanum. — Ibid. 1. 14, for ultimus read " penultimus. — Ibid. marg. 1. 7, read, FIJI, foil and 1. 14, read, Chap. XIII, § 3. " P. cvii, 1. 20, read, Wellensem elect us. — Ibid. 1. 36, read, de immani. — Ibid. marg. 1. 1, " read, A Dialogue. " P. cix, 1. 27, read, potuit, fuisse factam. " P. cxi, 1. penult, read, H'iUielmo Menevensi. " P. cxv, 1. 24, read Fitz., that is to say Fitzherbert. " P. cxvi, 1. 33, after creates add [and alter as follows] : post finem anni 154!) nostro more "fuisse sacratos." [The French Edition has nostro saltern more f. s., omitting " p. f. a. " 1549".] N.B. The following sixteen pages apply not to the present, but to Mr. Williams's, Translation: see the Title of this volume, and the Editor's Intro- duction, pp. Hi — xiv ; from which too the reader may learn also the real value both of the author's complimentary letter (p. 11 — 16), and of the alleged amendment of Mr. Williams's Second Edition (see his title-page and Adver- tisement).— For the place which these sixteen pages ought rather to have occu- pied see pp. xiii, xiv. Oxford, Ascension Monday (May 20) 1844. A DEFENCE OF THE VALIDITY OF THE ENGLISH ORDINATIONS, ANI> OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: PROOFS JUSTIFYING THE FACTS ADVANCED IN THIS TREATISE. WRITTEN IN FRENCH HY THE REV!' FATHER PETER FRANCIS EE COURAYKR, CANON REGULAR AND LIBRARIAN OF ST. GENEVIEVE AT FARIS. TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY DANIEL WILLIAMS, PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. TO WHICH IS PREFIXED, A LETTER FROM THE AUTHOR TO THE TRANSLATOR. Etsi hominum litigant mentes, non litigant sacramenta. Optat. Lib. 3. §. 9. LONDON: PRINTED BY H. P. FOB WILLIAM AND JOHN1 lNNYS, JOHN OSBORNE, AND CHARLES IUVINGTON. M.DCC, XXVIII, TO THE TWO GREAT ARBITERS OF LEARNING, THE UNIVERSITIES or OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE, THIS PERFORMANCE IS HUMBLY INSCRIBED, BY THEIR UNFEIGNED WELL-WISHER, THE TRANSLATORS AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER UPON THIS NEW EDITION. Soon after my arrival in England, the booksellers acquainted me that they intended to publish a new edition of this hook. I had not before seen this translation as it came from the press; but when I com- pared it with the original, I soon observed several expressions castrated, others so mutilated as not to be agreeable to the sense of the origi- nal ; and in short, some few whole paragraphs left out, exclusive of those which the learned author desired might be omitted, and which are inserted in the Appendix in their original language. Distance from the press is a general excuse upon these occasions, and often is a very just one ; but whether it will in all respects hold good in this case, I shall not take upon me now to determine, though I was really then in France. It will neither be a relief to the public, nor any satisfaction to me, to examine how these things happened : I am sure they are not now in my power to remedy anv other way than bv the considerable restitutions and alterations made in this present edition, which is the only one I recommend to the world as the standing translation of this Treatise. Finding myself obliged to make such considerable alterations in this review, I have at the same time corrected my own copy where I found expressions obscure, or where I thought my own style might be made more correct. This is what I think necessary to acquaint the reader with, being incapable of making him any other satisfac- tion for what is passed. D. W. London, December 18, 1726. THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE READER. It can be no surprise to the English reader, to find me concerned in the translation of a book, upon the subject of Ordination, wherein the honour and interest of our Reforma- tion is so nearly concerned, and which may contribute con- siderably to undeceive those of our own country who labour under heavy prejudices against it : and perhaps more upon this very head than any other. For however we may differ in other things, yet in this facts are to be followed, and not little, low prejudices. Besides, having been myself a formerly concerned in this controversy, I was naturally drawn on to engage in this undertaking. I must own, I was very well pleased to find a gentleman so noted in France for his piety and learning engage himself in this debate, being in every respect qualified to give his countrymen an idea of our Reformation, so different from that carried on in France by the Hugonots; a piece of service which the French indeed very much stood in need of, having hitherto been led away by the reports of weak, injudicious, prejudiced people, who gave such accounts of us as were more agreeable to the dictates of inclination, and want of temper, than to truth and knowledge. What the event of this may be, no man can foretel ; this being in the hands of God alone to determine. Yet who knows what a better acquaintance between us and the Gallican Clergy may in time produce? And 'tis more than possible that it may, one time or another, end in that union so much, so frequently wished for by the learned author of this a The Succession of Protestant Bishops asserted; &c. London, printed 1721, 6 THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. Treatise. I have always been of the opinion, that if our Church were more known abroad, her members would receive much better treatment from the wise and learned of all nations : and when men have once abandoned their passions, truth is not so difficult to be discovered, and consequently peace and unity restored, as some little people may imagine. I am very sensible that we have among ourselves some, even of the Clergy, that are sufficiently swayed by prejudice and passion : we have our implicit believers of Pope Joan, as well as they have their advocates for the Nag's-head story. Yet it is to be hoped we are not, on either side, to be swayed by men that are got into this low way of thinking ; for if this be the common case of the world, I am sure it is but in an indifferent situation. The reception which this Treatise has had from the learned men of France, is no small proof of what I now suggest; I mean, that amicable measures, and wise regula- tions and expedients, are at no infinite distance. There are two writers who have already done it public justice; the author of the Nouvelles Litteraires, and the compiler of the famous Journal des Scavans. The latter is known to be M. l'Abbe des Fontaines, of whom nothing more need to be said in his praise, than that he has been thought worthy of the post he now bears, of Inspector of Divinity Books in the Kings Library, by the famous Abbe Bignon, the great orna- ment of France. We are indeed told that we may expect some answers to this book, particularly from a man of known learning, Father le Quien, a Jacobin Friar ; but I am at a loss to guess how he will be able to get over the historical facts herein alleged, and continue just to his own character. It is however to be hoped, that he will take his informations from such as are qualified to acquaint him with the nature of our Ecclesiastical and Civil constitution, as well as with the history of that par- ticular period of time so much concerned in this debate : for as he is a foreigner, though in other respects never so learned, and but little acquainted with our language, which is an inconveniency that the learned author of this Treatise does not in the same degree labour under, he may for this reason be led into a multitude of mistakes. If I am rightly informed, THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 7 he is but meanly supported with coadjutors as to our English affairs ; however it is his business to see to this, since it is his own reputation, and not our cause, that is concerned in it. That side of the question which this learned gentleman is, it seems, inclined to engage in, has one advantage in his hands which I think it never had before ; and that is, to be treated of professedly, by a man of learning and character. Hitherto, for the most part, its advocates have been people concerned in low life, and unacquainted with the nature of the active part of Ecclesiastical and Civil affairs, and conse- quently unable to judge even of the force of an argument depending upon historical facts of this kind. And indeed, upon a strict enquiry, it will be found that the whole credit of this controversy has depended upon the reputation of a few weak, angry writers ; who, in opposition to the evident designs of nature, as well as education, have intruded them- selves upon the world as great and reputable authors. I know it is a mean art to despise an adversary, and it is very often a great weakness; but let any learned, judicious Roman Catholic review the controversy of his own side, and I am apt to think he will easily acknowledge the justice of my observation ; and that the adversaries of our Ordinations, for the most part, have not treated this subject either like scholars, divines, or gentlemen. The reader may expect to find in this Treatise several exceptionable passages ; and particularly the charge of schism imputed to the Church of England. But it is to be con- sidered, that our author is a professed Roman Catholic, and could do no otherwise, without involving his own Church in general, and himself in particular, in that guilt. Allowances of this kind are always to be made ; for his private opinion is one thing, and the reality of a fact is another ; nor is schism here the question professedly debated of. What the reader is here to expect, is a just and rational vindication of our Church from the ridiculous story of a ludicrous consecration of our Bishops, in Queen Elizabeth's time, at the Nag's-head in Cheapside: a calumny, first invented to support a weak cause, and continued by persons as weak and injudicious as the first inventors of it. The succession of our Bishops in general is demonstrated, and the validity of our Ordinal is 8 THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. also vindicated, with a great deal of learning as well as judgment: the powers of* a national Church are asserted; and it is fully proved, that in the alterations made by our Church, she did not act in the business of Ordinations inconsistently with those powers. How far this may extend to other instances, is left to the reader's judgment to determine. The author has tied up my hands from writing any thing against the Roman Church in this Preface ; so that I shall drop all debates of this nature at present, and leave every body to determine for themselves; nor am I inclined now to enter into a discussion of particular points, not only because it is the author's request, but also because it does not properly tall in with the design and the subject of this Treatise. There is one thing which I shall beg leave to mention, and which I hope neither the author, nor any of his Communion, will think shocking to their Church ; since it is only the sup- plying an historical fact which I think has been omitted. The author is pleased to raise an objection or two, in his sixteenth chapter, concerning the manner of our Bishops' coming to their Sees in Queen Elizabeth's reign ; which he owns was upon the foot of an intrusion, and therefore that they wei-e irregular Bishops, though not invalidly consecrated. Thus he leaves the state of our affairs at that time, upon the foot of a schismatical Church, and schismatical Bishops, without a right to exercise the powers of a national Church. But I must beg leave to observe, that this is not exactly the state of our case : for before this, in King Edward's reign, the majority of our Bishops came into a national Reformation, being headed by their Metropolitan ; and consequently we were not at that time upon the foot of intruders : and the manner how we afterwards came to be put, seemingly, upon that foot, when our Bishops were forcibly kept out of Parlia- ment and Convocation, is too notorious to all the world. Our Bishops were illegally excluded, banished, and put to death, in the reign of Queen Mary ; and those men whom he thinks unjustly deposed by Queen Elizabeth, were arbitrarily, and in defiance both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical laws, put into their places: so that the Marian Bishops are with more justice to be reputed intruders; and Queen Elizabeth only performed an act of justice, as Solomon did in the case of THE TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 9 Zadok and Abiathar, in restoring the regular remains of the banished Bishops to their former condition, and in deposing those who had assisted, and conspired in a schismatical manner, by making new consecrations, their Metropolitan being then living and uncondemned by any Ecclesiastical sentence ; and also in putting him and several of his College of Bishops to death. This I take to be the true state of the case, which will appear evident to every one that examines into the history of those times. But not to leave this matter liable to the least dispute, I shall presume to make one other observation, before I quit this head, which is this ; that supposing it granted, which we are under no manner of necessity to do, that our first Bishops did not so legally get into the possession of their Bishoprics as I maintain they did, and that Queen Mary's Bishops were unjustly deposed; yet since they took no care to keep up their succession, but suffered it to drop, the Bishops put in by Queen Elizabeth became afterwards, upon the death of the others, to be legally possessed of their Bishoprics, because there were none that either did or could put in a claim of right in opposition to theirs ; and therefore, in this sense at least, our Bishops are no intruders, and consequently no ille- gality on our part can arise from this particular. Nay, on the contrary, those of our country who adhered to a foreign Com- munion, upon their suffering their succession of Bishops to fall, ceased to be upon the foot even of a national Church : for a national Church without Bishops is, I think, somewhat new, even in the opinion of the learned men in communion with the Church of Rome. The reader will find this Treatise written with a great deal of judgment, candour, and learning. If I have done the author justice in delivering his sentiments and reasonings, though in a style far inferior to his own, in my translation, it is the utmost of my ambition. The author is pleased to pass some compliments upon me in the following Letter upon this head, which I cannot with any justice take to myself as a matter of right, and which I should have omitted, could I have done it without breaking in upon the rest of the contents : and there- fore the reader is to take what he finds of this kind, as the custom and way of speaking and writing in this complaisant country. LO THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. The author has thought fit to make some alterations in his copy, as the reader upon examination may find ; but I have ordered, for the satisfaction of the curious, that the passages left out in the body of the translation should be inserted at the end of the Appendix. I did not think it equally necessary to insert the original of the additions there likewise, because my translation is sufficient for the English reader, where he will find them in their proper places in the body of the work. The author has also thought fit to alter the title page ; for in the French edition he calls this book, " A Dissertation upon the Validity, &c"; but in this translation he would have it called "A Defence, &c." as being more agreeable to the design of this Treatise. I have only one thing more to detain the reader with, before he enters upon the perusal of this work ; which is, that the author's book being drawn up more for the use of the learned than the vulgar, he has not translated his Latin quota- tions, but inserted them entire into the body of the work. I have in some measure altered this disposition ; for where I thought a passage necessary to be translated, I have done it, and inserted the original at the bottom of the page ; where I have not, the unlearned reader may take it for granted, that the meaning of such a passage is contained in the words going before or following after, or that it is a matter of mere autho- rity, and a bare testimony of a fact alleged. Paris, Good-Friday, 1724. LETTRE DE L'AUTEUR AU TRADUCTEUR. Monsieur, Si je connois trop peu les finesses de la langue Angloise pour juger de l'elegance de votre traduction, j'en scais du moins assez pour garantir sa fidelite. Je la trouve tres nette et tres exacte, et elle repond fidelement a loriginal. C'cst un temoignage que la justice m'oblige de vous rendre devant le public ; et je le fais avec d'autant plus de plaisir, que je ne doute point que l'habilete du traducteur ne serve a relever cbez les Anglois un ouvrage, qui n'aura peut etre d'autre merite pour eux que celui d'avoir ete forme dans le sein de l'Eglise Catholique. En effet, il leur doit paroitre assez nou- veau de trouver un defenseur de leurs Ordinations parmi les Catholiques, ou ils n'ont presque trouve jusqu'ici que des adversaires. C'est ainsi qu'autrefois, a Thonncur de l'Eglise Romaine, et malgre les clameurs des ministres, le fameux Blondel s'eleva du sein des Eglises Protestantes pour aneantir la fable ridicule de la Papesse Jeanne, jusques-la si chere aux Reformes. Fable pour fable, celle de l'Ordination de Cheapside vaut bien celle de la Papesse Jeanne; et quelques uns de nos Scholastiques, et la plupart de nos Theologiens ou des Pretres Catholiques du pays, ne sont gueres moins attaches a l'une, que l'etoit a Pautre le vulgaire parmi les Protestans. Mais a la longue la verite se fait jour a travers les prejuges les plus anciens et les plus repandus ; et quand des deux cotes l'en- tetement et la prevention se soutiendroient encore dans quel- ques particidiers contre l'evidence des faits et la solidite des preuves, la verite n'en demeureroit pas moins triomphante au jugement des personnes eclairecs et non prevenues. 12 LETTRE DE l'aUTEUR AU TRADUCTEUR. C'est uniquement pour 1'eclaircir que j'ai entrepris ce Traite; et quoi qu' attache par examen et par inclination a 1'unite Catholique, je n'ai pas cru devoir epouser les prejuges de nos Theologiens, et nier des choses vraies parce qu'elles sont favorables a une Eglise qui s'est separee de nous. C'est cet attachement meme a 1'unite Catholique qui m'oblige de me rendre a la verite, puisque plus nous aimons l'Eghse, plus nous devons travailler a procurer la paix et la reunion de ceux que la connoissance de nos abus et l'imputation odieuse d'un exces d'intolerance et de prevention contre eux ont separes de nous. En effet, persuade qu'on doit etre encore plus dis- pose a reconnoitre le bien que le mal dans ceux qui nous sont opposes, et ayant d'ailleurs toujours trouve dans la plupart des membres de l'Eglise Anglicane, de grandes lumieres, une connoissance fort etendue de l'antiquite Ecclesiastique, et beaucoup d'eloignement du renversement presque total de la discipline, introduit dans les Eglises Presbyteriennes, je me fais un devoir de leur rendre la justice qu'ils meritent, et d'ouvrir a la paix un chemin que nos neveux suivront peut- etre avec plus de succes. Si Ton me fait un crime de cette tentative, je ne chercherai pas a m'en justifier; et content d' avoir suivi en cela l'esprit et les maximes de PEvangile, j'attribuerai tout ce qu'on pourra m'imputer d'odieux a un zele plus impetueux qu'eclaire, et qui est plutot excite par une prevention aveugle que par la science et la charite. Au reste, Monsieur, si mon ouvrage est goute en Angleterre, je ne doute pas que je n'en sois en partie redevable a la bonte de votre traduction. En me faisant parler votre langue, vous me procurez l'approbation d'une nation eclairee et sca- vante, et vous me naturalisez, pour ainsi dire, avec un peuple cstime par tout ce qu'il y a de scavans en Europe. C'est une obligation que j'aurai peine a reconnoitre, et que je ne puis acquitter que par le desir de voir finir le schisme et la division. Je souhaite que les semences de paix et de reunion que j'ai repandues dans ce Traite puissent fructifier, dans le temps, a 1'avantage de votre Eglise, et a la joie de la notre. Le retour de l'Eglise Anglicane a 1'unite Cathohque entraineroit bientot celui de toutcs les Eglises Protestantes, qui paroissent sentir, mieux que jamais, le defaut de leur gouvcrnemcnt, et les exces de leurs premiers R eformateurs. C'est le plus ardent et le LETTRE DE l'aUTEUR AU TRADUCTEIIR. 13 plus sincere de mes vceux, et je ne crois pas pouvoir mieux vous marquer l'estime singuliere que j'ai pour votre nation et pour vous en partieulier. Je suis avec toute la reconnoissance et la consideration possible, Monsieur, Votre tres-humble et tres-obeissant Serviteur, P. F. LE COURAYER. A Paris, ce 14 Mars 1721. THE AUTHOR'S LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR. Sir, If I am too little acquainted with the niceties of the English language to judge of the elegance of your translation, I know enough at least to warrant its fidelity. I find it very clear and very exact, and it faithfully answers to the original. This is a testimony which justice obliges me to give you before the public; and I do it with so much the more pleasure, because I doubt not that the skill of the translator may contribute to raise among the English the reputation of a work, which perhaps will have no other merit with them, but that of having been formed in the bosom of the Catholic Church. Indeed it must appear somewhat new to them to find a defender of their Ordinations among the Catholics, where hitherto they have found hardly any thing but adversaries. It was thus that in time past, to the honour of the Church of Rome, and in spite of the clamours of the Ministers, the famous Blondel rose up from the bosom of the Protestant Churches, to annihilate the ridiculous fable of Pope Joan, to that time so dear to the Reformed. Fable for fable, that of the Ordination of Cheapside is as much to be regarded as that of Pope Joan ; and some of our Schoolmen, and the greater part of our Divines and Catholic Priests of the country, are scarcely less attached to the one, than the rabble among the Pro- testants were to the other. But in time the truth makes its way through prejudices the most ancient and the most universal ; and though on both sides obstinacy and prepossession should still maintain their ground in some individuals against the evidence of facts and the solidity of proofs, yet would the truth THE AUTHOR'S LETTER TO THE TRANSLATOR. 1 ;5 remain none the less triumphant in the judgment of enlight- ened and unprejudiced persons. It is only to clear up the truth that I have undertaken this Treatise ; and though attached by judgment and inclina- tion to Catholic unity, I did not think myself obliged to espouse the prejudices of our Divines, and to deny things that arc true because they are favourable to a Church that has sepa- rated herself from us. It is even this attachment to Catholic unity that obliges me to yield to the truth, since the more we love the Church, the more we ought to labour to pro- cure the peace and the reunion of those whom the know- ledge of our abuses, and the odious imputation of excessive intolerance and prejudice against them, have separated from us. In fact, being persuaded that we ought to be still more disposed to acknowledge the good than the evil in those that are opposed to us, and moreover having always found in the greater part of the members of the Church of England great understanding, a very extensive knowledge of Ecclesiastical antiquity, and a great aversion to that almost total overthrow of discipline introduced into the Presbyterian Churches, I reckon it my duty to do them the justice they deserve, and to open a way to peace which our posterity will perhaps follow with more success. If this attempt be imputed to me as a crime, I shall not endeavour to justify myself from it; and satisfied with having followed in this matter the spirit and the maxims of the Gospel, I shall attribute all odious imputations which may be laid to my charge to a zeal more violent than enlightened, and which is raised rather by a blind prejudice than by knowledge and charity. In fine, Sir, if my work be relished in England, I doubt not that I shall be in part indebted for it to the goodness of your translation. In making mc speak your language, you procure me the approbation of an enlightened and learned nation, and you naturalize mc, so to say, among a people esteemed by all the learned in Europe. This is an obligation I shall hardly be able sufficiently to acknowledge, and which I cannot otherwise repay than by the desire of seeing an end put to the schism and division. I wish the seeds of peace and reunion which I have scattered in this Treatise, may in time bear fruit, to the advantage of your Church, and the joy of ours. 16 the author's letter to the translator. The return of the Church of England to Catholic unity would quickly draw after it that of all the Protestant Churches, which seem to be more sensible than ever of the defect of their government, and the excesses of their first Reformers. This is my most sincere and ardent wish, and I think I cannot better shew you the singular esteem I have for your nation and for you in particular. I am with all possible gratitude and respect, Sir, Your very obedient humble Servant, P. F. LE COURAYER. Paris, March 14, 1721. the AUTHOR'S PREFACE. How important soever the subject on which I propose to throw light in this Treatise, I do not find that our French writers have hitherto applied themselves to examine it. Whether it be that the question has not appeared to them of a nature to excite their curiosity, or that they have wanted the records necessary for informing themselves exactly in the truth of the facts, or that, being already otherwise determined by the condemnation pronounced in the reign of Queen Mary against the Bishops ordained according to the Ritual of Edward the Sixth, that predetermination has stood them in the stead of certain truth, — be this as it may, they have dispensed with enquiry, and contented themselves in this, as in many other matters, to think as others thought before them, without examining whether they were in the right or no. The English Protestants, more concerned to defend the validity of the Ordinations of their Bishops, have also applied themselves with more diligence to enquire after what might serve to establish them. The first who did this with success was Francis Mason, Archdeacon of Norfolk, who, in his Treatise entitled "A Defence of the Church of England," dedicated to Henri dc Gondi Bishop of Paris, has collected together, with great variety as well as judgment, all the stronger and more convincing arguments on this subject. This Treatise, first composed in English, and afterwards augmented by the author, and translated into Latin by one of his friends, was attacked by an English Doctor of the Sor- bonne, Champney by name ; but with so unequal a force that the advantage was altogether on the side of the defender of the Church of England. The Latin Edition, which was not published till after Mason's death, contained an answer to c 18 THE AUTHORS PREFACE. the Doctor ; and I do not know that this was ever replied to, whether because of Champney's incapacity to do it, or for some other reason with which we are unacquainted. As afterwards there arose, from time to time, other writers who continued to attack the validity of the Ordinations solemnized since the changes made under King Edward, so the Church of England has not wanted defenders. Amongst the rest, Bramhall Archbishop of Armagh, Burnet Bishop of Salisbury, and many others since, have signalized themselves in this dispute; and have also, by new examinations, put the matter in a better light. However, as most of the English books are but little known in France, and moreover, as we have but little concerned ourselves to clear up this diffi- culty, I do not find that we have changed our prejudices, or that we think upon this subject otherwise than we did before. Perhaps I should not have engaged myself to examine this question more deeply, had I not been determined to it by the publication of a Memoire which appeared before the public some time since. This Memoire was inserted in the new edition of a work of Monsieur L'Abbe Gould, entitled " The True Faith of the Catholic Church, &c." The Doctor, who has given us an extract from it in the Journal des Scavans of the 27 th of January 1721, tells us, That the author is a man remarkable for his writings and his profound acquaintance with the Oriental languages ; and by this description it was easy to recognize Monsieur L'Abbe Renaudot, who carries with him his own recommendation, and whose mere name is an eulogy. This name promised something exact and superior. I was in hopes to find, in my reading him, a solution of my doubts, and I expected at least some new light in a matter whereof the author was in a condition, and had a capacity to instruct. I was deceived in my expectations. And how, in fact, could I yield to arguments which have so little convinced Monsieur Dissert. L'Abbe Renaudot himself, that he concludes his Memoire with acknowledging, that if he has not proofs sufficient to convince himself absolutely of the nullity of the English Ordi- nations, they arc at least strong enough to give him a just cause to doubt of their validity. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 1!) All the benefit then which I received by reading his book was, that it revived in me a desire to re-examine a question which I had formerly studied; and this desire produced a Memoire which I communicated to some of my friends, who were so kind as to do me the favour to examine it, and who had the goodness to approve of it. My design had been at first to proceed no farther than that Memoire ; but my friends thought otherwise, because they did not find it so full as the importance of the subject deserved. I was forced therefore to new mould what I had written, that I might give a just compass both to the proofs and to the difficulties ; and this was the origin of the Treatise which I now commit to the judgment of the public, and what at the same time has retarded its publication. This delay however has not been altogether useless. While I was taking the time necessary to search for all the materials of which I could make use, an English author, more diligent than myself, answered this Memoire of Monsieur Renaudot's, in a pamphlet entitled, De Vera et non Interrupta Episcoporum ad nos usque Anglorum Successione, ad Amicum Epistola. This pamphlet, though very short, contains notwithstanding the strongest proofs of the vali- dity of the English Ordinations, and some remarks altogether new upon certain facts. Of these I have made a good use in this Treatise ; and the author writes with so much assurance of what he advances, that I have not scrupled to make him a voucher for these facts. If the works of the English in favour of their Ministry were better known, I should not have troubled the public with a book of which it would have had but little need ; but I hope I shall be indulged in some degree in favour of a question so important, and so little examined among us, as that I propose to treat of. The thing in question is no less than to know whether the Church of England, formerly so illustrious, and even now so respectable for the enlightenment of her Prelates, and the erudition of her Clergy, is without a Succession, without a Hierarchy, and without a Ministry. Many of our Divines maintain this, and the English deny it. It is true that though these latter should be in the right, yet their separation would not thereby become either more justifiable, or fitter to inspire them with confidence: nothing c 2 20 THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. can excuse schism. There is never, according to St. Augustine, just reason to break unity. Even our abuses and our vices, though they may palliate their schism in the eyes of the simple, cannot justify it, when the matter is weighed by the doctrines and principles of the ancient Church ; and do what they will to weaken its authority, it is a weight that bears them down, and gives us an advantage which they cannot pretend to deny. But though in proving their Succession, they recover not all the advantages they have lost in separating themselves from the Church, it is nevertheless one of which we ought carefully to make the best use for them, and which it is important not to lose. How much soever separated we may be from each other, our reunion is nothing impossible. Of all the Churches which have broken the unity, the Church of England has kept the nearest to us. She has even retained the greater part of our customs and ceremonies ; and if some Divines laboured with the same industry to reunite men's minds, and to banish all the seeds of division, as they seem bent on perpetuating it, and heightening disputes, we might perhaps in our own days see the Schism end, and peace, and the blessings of truth and charity, return. This is the motive I proposed to myself in examining this important question. As, however, the part I have taken on this subject has not hitherto been much followed by our authors, people will perhaps be surprised that I should have abandoned them, and undertaken the defence of the Church of England against them. But the truth ought to be dearer to us than the nearest ties, and we have no other interest in all our enquiries, than to seek and embrace it. After all, the part I have thought myself obliged to take must not be supposed so extraordinary that I might not calm the scruples of some Divines by very respectable authorities. The learned Bishop of Meaux, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, whose zeal and erudition have been so long the admiration of all France, was much inclined to this side ; and in a letter written to D. Jean Mabillon, dated the 12th of August 1685, (the original whereof was communicated to me by D. Vincent Thuillier, a learned Benedictine of my acquaintance,) he delivers his thoughts concerning it clearly enough. " As to tiie author's preface. 21 the affair of England," says he, " besides the difficulty with respect to the first Bishops, the authors of the Schism, there is also another great one at the time of Cromwell ; when it is contended that the succession of the Ordination was inter- rupted. The English maintain the contrary ; and as to the succession at the beginning of the Schism, they maintain that there is no difficulty; and in this they seem to be in the right." This authority alone deserves a particular attention, and gives us to understand that from that time views were enter- tained concerning the reunion of the two Churches; and if the majority of our Divines have not entered into these views, but condemned with little reflection the validity of the English Ordinations, it was because they scarcely eyer attempted seriously to examine the question, but were determined rather by prejudice and example, than by any true knowledge of the matter. The mere fear of seeming to favour schism or heresy is enough of itself, at certain times, to make men avoid tlxe examination of facts from which instruction might be drawn ; and in a situation so favourable to prejudices and error, it is no wonder that the false opinions are perpetuated, and by a sort of tradition acquire an air of authority which belongs only to the truth. It is only in order to find out the truth, and contribute by this means to bring the Schism the more speedily to an end, that I have engaged in this enquiry. Re-ordinations have always had something odious in the Church ; and in propor- tion as men have applied themselves to reason about Divinity by principles, the difficulties about the Ordinations of heretics and schismatics have been abated. At last this was laid down as an undoubted maxim, That all those Ordinations, in which nothing essential was omitted, should be accounted valid, by reason of the sacramental stamp, which is indelible. It is then to this point that we must refer all we have to examine in this Treatise. The importance of the subject obliges me to do it with all the exactness and impartiality that I possibly can. It is true that the advantages which would arise from the reunion of the Church of England with us, ought naturally to incline us to favour whatever tends to prove the validity of their Ministry. But as in the examina- tion of facts Ave ought to regard only what establishes or 22 THE AUTHOR S PREFACE. destroys their certainty, we must renounce the path of prejudice and interest, in order to be determined only by the evidence and the solidity of the proofs. In order to treat this subject with some method, I shall first set forth the changes that have happened in the Church of Eng- land with regard to the succession of their Bishops, and their Ordination. I shall shew afterwards that notwitbstanding the changes introduced by Edward the Sixth in the Ordinal, there was nothing essential omitted in the Consecration of Parker, who is the origin and source of the English Ministry, such as it subsists at this day. In the chapters that follow, I shall prove the truth of Barlow's Consecration, upon which that of Parker depends; and I shall endeavour to refute all the arguments which are brought against it. In fine, in discussing some general difficulties which are made use of to attack the validity of the new Ordinations, I shall endeavour to lay down principles and maxims which may serve not only to establish the goodness of the English Ordinations, but also to the decision of other facts that might happen of the same kind. I shall moreover examine with some care, what authority a national Church may challenge in what concerns the administration of the Sacraments: and I hope to make it evident, that the Church of England has not exceeded her powers in those alterations she thought it right to make in her Rites. By the examination of all these facts, and of these principles, it will be easy to decide what ought to be thought of the practice of many Bishops, who re-ordain the English; and I think men will be easily convinced by the proofs we have produced, that this custom is contrary to all the received maxims of the Church in the matter of Re-or- dinations, and that it is founded only upon chimerical facts, upon opinions that are abandoned, and upon doubts that have no foundation. For the rest, I have made it my particular care through this whole Dissertation, to advance nothing without proof. The documents I have caused to be printed at the end of this Treatise, are my vouchers for the truth of the facts. Where printed books are deficient, I have had recourse to the Archives, if not by myself, at least by persons of distinction, who have the privilege of consulting every where, and who THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 23 have had the kindness to forward my designs. The extracts of some letters with which they have honoured me, and which I have inserted among my Proofs, may take the place of original acts, the citations being copied out of the Regis- ters. If I have suppressed the authors' names, it has been rather out of deference to their own modesty, than from any wish to make their researches my own. Besides, my silence is altogether a loss to me, since their correspondence would do me honour, and I should find in the praise they deserve, and which they oblige me to suppress, a return flattering to my self-love. The truth is, I have put all in requisition, and spared neither pains nor friends, in order to inform myself, or be undeceived. I dare flatter myself further, that I have brought neither prejudice nor interest to the examination of this question. I may be deceived as well as another, and perhaps more easily than another man; but people may depend upon a docile disposition in me, if any one convinces me that 1 have been mistaken ; and I shall esteem it as great an honour to retract my error, as to have discovered the truth. Far from fearing to be undeceived, I invite all those to write that arc well versed in this subject ; and so long as charity and decorum are observed, the controversy will tend only to make the truth triumphant. But what those of different sentiments must have some regard to, is not to pretend to confute me by odious consequences or endless objections. They must confine themselves, as I have done, to matters of fact, and not call in Theology to their aid, except so far as some principles arc necessary to deduce their application. Any other method would be foreign to the purpose ; and I declare beforehand, that I do not intend to give weight to odious suspicions, by removing them, nor to follow , endless digressions, which would make one lose sight of the subject of the debate. I have not given myself up to conjectures, nor to sallies of imagination; facts only require fidelity, and this I have scrupulously observed. I have advanced nothing but upon the authority of contemporary witnesses, or of authors who have examined the Registers themselves. One may suffi- ciently rely on the fidelity of the English, who publish with 24 the author's preface. almost equal readiness, what is against them, and what is in their favour. It is not necessary that I should explain to the public the reasons that have retarded the publication of this work, which was finished long ago. This is a secret which concerns only the author : what is most material, is that it prove useful, how- ever late the time of its appearing. The impatience caused by the delay, and the novelty of the subject, would assure me all the success imaginable, if I could but flatter myself that I have not weakened the truth by my defects. It is the public that must determine this, and their judgment I am far from declining; for which way soever it be, either their approbation will confirm me in the truth, if I have found it, or their censure will bring me back to it, if I have deviated from it. But in order that nobody may be obliged to search else- where for the Memoire to which it is the purpose of this Treatise to reply, and that there may be no room left to imagine it has been misrepresented in order to its being the more easily refuted, I have thought it right both for the reader's convenience, and for my own justification, to have it printed at the head of this Dissertation, as it is published in Monsieur L'Abbe Gould's work. That pious and zealous author will not accuse me of having concealed the difficulties put forth in the Memoire. All he can complain of is, that I have made Monsieur L'Abbe Renaudot its author. But even in this particular, he ought rather to complain of the authors of the Journal des Scavans, since it was they that acquainted the public with this circumstance, and I have a right to pre- sume that they would not have done it without some reason or knowledge of the matter. MEMOIRE OF MONSIEUR L'ABBE RENAUDOT UPON THE VALIDITY OF THE ENGLISH ORDINATIONS, EXTRACTED FROM MONSIEUR l'aBBE GOULI>'s BOOK ENTITLED, THE TRUE FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, &C. PRINTED AT PARIS BY J. B. COIGNARD. EDITION OF 1720. That which ought to be yet still more convincing, [that Page 183. the surest way to salvation is to be in Communion with the Roman Church,] is that the lawful Ordination communicated by Jesus Christ to His Apostles and their successors, is no where to be met with but in that Church, as the Protestants themselves have acknowledged ; since they have occasionally been seen endeavouring to steal Ordination from us. The Bohemian brothers formerly attempted it ; and is it not known that Queen Elizabeth of England, not being able to find any Catholic Bishop who was inclined to consecrate Parker, whom she had made Archbishop of Canterbury, used all manner of means towards my Lord Richard Creagh Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland, then a prisoner in the Tower of London, to oblige him to lay hands upon him"? That holy Prelate however chose rather to languish under the chains of his prison, than to purchase his liberty by com- mitting so horrid a sacrilege. Matthew Parker had been nominated to the Archbishopric of Canterbury in 1559, by Queen Elizabeth, who having wished to have him consecrated by a Catholic Bishop, wished also that the new Bishops should be ordained after the same [* On this story sec the Editor's notes. En. ] 26 WEMOIRE OF M. l'aBBE RKNAtTDOT. manner, in order that the validity of their Ordination might not afterwards he called in question. To this end there was issued a Commission directed to Gilbert Bishop of Bath, Cuthbert Bishop of Durham, David Bishop of Peterborough, Anthony Bishop of Landaff, and Scory and Barlow, who are styled Bishops, but without any mention of their Sees ; which makes it credible that they were not consecrated. The three first refused to consecrate Parker: whereupon Elizabeth had despatched a second Commission directed to Barlow, to Anthony of Landaff, to Scory, to Coverdale, to two suffragans, and to Bale Bishop of Ossory in Ireland. The Bishop of Landaff refused to act, although he had taken the Oath of Supremacy; and at last, after several difficulties, it was Barlow, assisted by Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskins, that consecrated Parker on the 6thb of December 1559, and Parker afterwards ordained all the rest from whom the Church of England derives her Ordination. The Consecration of Parker was immediately disputed against by the Catholics, who demonstrated the nullity of it by substantial arguments ; and some persons, as ocular wit- nesses, asserted that it was performed clandestinely in a tavern. The Protestants defended themselves but very in- sufficiently from this accusation, which was objected to them at the time, or some few years afterwards, by several Catho- lics ; and some of them had nothing else to say for themselves, but that Ordination, as practised up to that time, was not necessary. In short, it was not till the year 1616c that Mason, having undertaken to draw up an apology for the English Ordinations, quoted a register at Lambeth, which contained an account of Parker's Ordination. Burnet and Collier, who have written since, have published it as an authentic record, to refute the story of the tavern, and at the same time to prove that the Ordination of Parker was regu- larly performed; although this very record, such as they published it more than fifty years after the time, proves quite the contrary. b The author of the Memoire is mis- shews how well qualified this writer taken : Parker was not consecrated until was to engage in this subject, when it the 17th of December. appears he had not so much as con- c Another mistake : Mason's book was suited the books that treat of it. but first published in 161.3, and there Has writ by hearsay only. [N.B. This note no edition published in 1616. This is not in the French edition. Ed.] MEMOIRE OF M. l'ABBE RENAUDOT. 27 For, first, it proves that Barlow was the consecrating Bishop; and it cannot be proved that he was consecrated him- self. It is true he had been nominated to several Bishoprics, but Mason owns that he could not find the record of his Ordination in Cranmer's register, though all the rest were exactly set down there, and even their translations. Godwin, a very faulty author, says positively, but without proof, that Barlow was consecrated in 1535 ; but this assertion is destroyed by indisputable proofs; for Rymer has lately published, among his records taken out of the English Archives, a Com- mission of Queen Elizabeth's directed to Parker to consecrate Barlow as Bishop of Chichester, and another to consecrate Scory, who was also one of the assisting Bishops. The Bishop of Landaff refused to consecrate Parker, because Bonner Catholic Bishop of London, then a prisoner and deposed, signified to him that he would excommunicate him if he presumed to perform that office. Bonner would have sent the same message to Barlow, if he had thought him a Bishop. This same Bonner was molested in 1564 by Horn Bishop of Winchester, who had been ordained by Parker, because he had refused, even to that time, to take the Oath of Supre- macy. He answered no otherwise than that it was Horn's business, as well as that of the rest, to prove that they were Bishops. The Judges would determine nothing, and the affair was laid before Parliament, who declared that those persons ordained according to the Pontifical of Edward the Sixth were true Bishops ; but the accusation against Bonner was dropped. This same Lambeth Register supplies us with another proof, which is of no less force against the validity of Parker's Ordination ; which is, that he was ordained according to the Pontifical of Edward the Sixth, and every one must agree that this form is entirely defective ; for it is conceived in these words: " Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee hy Imposition of Hands : For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, hut of power, and love, and of soberness.'' It will never be found that any Church has ordained Bishops after this manner; since this form is as well adapted to the Ordination of Priests as to that of 28 ME.MOIRE OF M. l'aBBE HLNAI DOT. Bishops; which was the reason why at the Restoration of King Charles the Second, some words were added to it, to determine its sense to the Priesthood or to the Episcopate. But, as the English Catholic Divines have very wisely ob- served, a form unknown to the whole Latin Church, ancient as well as modern, of which no trace is found in the Ponti- ficals of all Christian countries, cannot be looked upon as valid. So that if there remained but one doubt as well grounded as this, there is neither a Priest nor Bishop in England, ordained in this manner, that can be assured of his Ordina- tion : and that so much the more because in the beginning of Henry the Eighth's Schism, though he made no alterations as to doctrine and the administration of the Sacraments, yet Cranmer and his adherents were consulted with upon several articles. The eleventh was, " Whether the Ordination of Priests and Bishops were necessary?" Cranmer and Barlow answered that it was not, and that the appointment of the Prince was sufficient. Yet while this Prince lived, there was no Consecration made but according to the Roman Pontifical; for which reason the Catholics have never made any difficulty in acknowledging those as true Priests and Bishops, who were ordained after this manner. If some have contended that the defect of power, because they received it from the King, rendered the Ordination null ; yet this opinion has not been approved by the rest, since it only proves the illegality, and not the nullity of the Ordination. This was likewise the judgment of Cardinal Pole, whose capacity everybody knows. For in the reign of Queen Mary, he, together with the re- maining Catholic Bishops and the most learned Divines, ordained that the Priests and Bishops who should reunite themselves to the Catholic Church, should be reinstated in their functions, provided they had been ordained according to the Roman Pontifical; and that those who had been ordained by the Ritual of Edward the Sixth should be re-or- dained, in case they were found worthy of it. Conformably to this resolution, those who were condemned to death as heretics, were not degraded except of those Orders which they had received according to the Roman Pontifical; the others, being regarded as laymen, were not degraded at all. MEMOIRE OF M. l'aIJBE RENAUDOT. 29 What then can this succession be, of which the Church of England boasts so much, against which there are doubts so strong and pressing, that they cannot be answered ? and that too while there is no Communion separated from that of Rome, against which the same objections can be raised ? The succession of the Bishops of the Greek Church is very- certain, nor can any reasonable difficulty be raised against the validity of their Ordinations. The Copts of Alexandria have their Bishops ordained by DioscorOs and his successors. The Syrian Jacobites, and the Ncstorians, prove also in like manner the succession of the Episcopate among them ; and as their Offices of Ordination are the same with those of the Greeks, none can dispute their authority. In fine, we meet, in the history of the Church of Alexandria, with something that resembles the English Ordinations, which makes it appear that those people, amidst all the evils they endured from the infidels, had neither forgotten nor despised the ancient doc- trine and discipline of the Church. Ethiopia was without Priests, by reason of the long vacancy of the Metropolitan See. The King obliged one of those that remained, to execute the office of a Metropolitan, and to perform Ordinations ; which the Patriarchs of Alexandria declared null. This King had the same authority with Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth, and even a greater, according to Monsieur Ludolph, who certainly is much mistaken. He had stronger reasons than these two others. Nevertheless the Church of Alexan- dria did not judge otherwise of these Ordinations, than the Catholics judge of that of Parker. Such is the original of the Ordinations of all the Bishops and Priests of England. To establish its validity, which was contested, because the Acts relating to religion passed by Edward the Sixth had been repealed by Queen Mary, a new Act was passed in the eighth year of Elizabeth, by which the Act which had regulated the Form of Ordination was revived. This Act rectified all the defects that might be found in such an Ordination ; and this Statute, as null as that which it rectified and confirmed, is the foundation of the whole English Ordination. In vain have the Catholic Doctors, as well in that age as since, reproached the Church of England in their public 30 MEMOIRE OF M. L'ABBE RENAUDOT. writings with the nullity of an Ordination so irregular ; and pressed them to name the Bishop who consecrated Dr. Parker and the rest, and in what place they were consecrated. She kept a profound silence upon this subject for the space of fifty-four years. So that the validity of the Ordination of the whole Protestant Clergy of England, as appears even by the thirty- sixth Article of their Confession, is founded only upon an Act of Parliament, and upon Queen Elizabeth's dispensation ; and this being so, must it not of necessity be allowed that this Church is entirely destitute of the Succession and of lawful Ordination ? But what is very remarkable is, that the very objections which we make against these gentlemen upon the subject of the nullity of their Ordination, they themselves make to the French Calvinists ; since they do not receive their Ministers among them to preach, or to perform any other Ecclesiastical functions, without ordaining them anew, as destitute of the sacramental stamp [of Orders] before. They do not observe the same conduct towards the apostate Priests and Monks of the Catholic Church ; they receive them joyfully, and with open arms, without ordaining them anew, provided they shew them their Letters of Orders in due form. A DEFENCE OP THE VALIDITY OF THE ENGLISH ORDINATIONS, CHAP. I. HISTORY OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE ADMI- NISTRATION OF ORDERS AMONG THE ENGLISH SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION. It is well known upon what occasion Henry the Eighth separated himself from the Church of Rome. That Prince's divorce a from Queen Catharine, and his criminal marriage with Ann Boleyn, is the epoch, and was the origin, of that sad event. The English themselves are ashamed of it, and have no other plea to urge, to cover a beginning so scandalous, than that saying of St. Augustine, That God can cause the greatest good to spring from the greatest evil. This is not the place to examine whether the application of this maxim is just; but what is certain is this, that the separation of that Prince drew, almost in an instant, his whole kingdom after him, and by a rebound those of Scotland and Ireland; and that the consequences were soon seen in the overthrow of all the ancient laws, and of subordination to legitimate authority. To confine myself here to what regards the subject of the Ordinations ; the innovations began in the year 1533, which was the first year of the Schism. But as Henry, though he separated himself from the Church of Rome, remained attached to her doctrine, and was a declared enemy to the new opinions, these innovations were but few, and nothing more was done in his reign than to abolish out of the Ordinal the Oath of Obedience which the Bishops made to the Pope at 1 The sentence of divorce was pronounced by Cranmer in 1533. 32 A DEFENCE OF THE VALIDITY C H A P. their Ordination. With the exception of this change all the - rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual were religiously preserved. "Henry the Eighth," says Sanders b, "ordained that no one elected a Bishop should seek Ponti- fical Bulls, or the Apostolic mandate concerning Consecration, but only exhibit the King's Diploma; in pursuance of which, being ordained by three Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, he was ordered by an Act of Parliament, made in imitation of the ancient Canons, to be a true Bishop ; nor was any one otherwise ordained to be acknow- ledged as such ; yet the ceremonial and solemn unction, according to Ecclesiastical usage, he chose should still be used in that Consecration." In fact, by the statute passed the twenty-fifth year of Henry the Eighth it was ordered0, that the Archbishops or Bishops, to whom the King's patent should be addressed for the Consecration of any Bishop, should pro- ceed to that office, and use all the benedictions and cere- monies requisite in such case. But at that time there had been nothing changed from the Roman Pontifical. Thus it scarcely appeared at all during this reign, that there had been any innovation in this Office, although one of the most solemn in the Church. But under Edward the Sixth, things did not stop here. The Roman Pontifical was abandoned, and in its place was substituted a Form of Ordination altogether new, which was published by the authority of Parliament in 1549d. In 1552, this Formulary was annexed to the Book of Common-Prayer, and the Parliament authorized it anewe. This statute was repealed in the first year of the reign of Queen Maryf, and the use of the Roman Pontifical resumed in the Ordination of Bishops; but this practice continued only during the reign of that Princess. One of the first cares of Elizabeth, as soon b Henricus VIII. deerevit, ne quis- astico adhuc in consecratione ilia adhi- quam electus in Episcopum Bullas beri voluit. Sand, de Schism. Angl. Pontificias scu mandalum Apostolicum lib. 3. pag. 348. de consecratione requireret, sed Regium ' Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 425. tantum diploma adferret ; secundum This and the following Statutes are quod, a tribus Episcopis, cum consensu given among the Proofs. Metropolitan ordinatus, jubebatur lege d Ibid. p. 674. and Heylin's Histiry comitiorum, facta ad imitationem anti- of the Reformation p. 82. quorum canonum, esse verus Episcopus; e Statutes at large, vol. 1. p. 676. nec alio modo ordinatum pro Episcopo ' Ibid. p. 70!). and Heylin, p. 198. agno-sci oportere : ceremoniam autem [vol. 2. p. 28.] et solennem unctionem more Ecclesi- OF THE ENGLISH ORDINATIONS. 33 as she had ascended the throne, was to put matters upon the same footing as they were in the time of King Edward ; and in order to this, in her first Parliament, held in the year 1559g, the Book of Common-Prayer was restored with the same authority which it had under that Prince. This Statute was confirmed in the year 1566, and at the same time that they declared valid all the Ordinations performed under Elizabeth, according to the Ritual of Edward the Sixth, they there explained themselves more clearly and precisely with respect to the new Form of Ordination, which was solemnly confirmed and ratified11. The revolution which was brought about by the Rebellion against King Charles the First, introduced a change in the discipline of the kingdom. On the twenty-sixth of January 1643', a Bill was passed in the House of Lords for the aboli- tion of Episcopacy ; and in 1646J this abolition was confirmed by an Ordinance of both Houses. However this change lasted but a little while, and ended with the death of Cromwell. One of the first cares of Charles the Second was to restore the usages which existed before the troubles, and he gave a Commission to some Bishops and several Divines to review the Book of Common-Prayer, and the Form of Ordination. This Book and Form, together with the corrections and addi- tions that were made in them, were approved by Parliament in 1662 k, and this is the last period wherein any variations happened upon this head. For since that time, this Church has always conformed to the new Ritual of Charles the Second. How considerable soever these innovations may appear, Changesin they are nothing in comparison with what happened in Scot- Scotldnd- land. As the Presbyterian government got the upper hand from the first in that Church, the Reformers introduced into it, together with the doctrine of Calvin, all the maxims and discipline of Geneva. They established, in the year 1560, Elders, Ministers, and Deacons; and, according to the example of the Lutheran Churches in Germany, a species of Bishops also, whom they styled Superintendents. To the Assembly held in the month of January 1561 were presented, 8 Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 763. and Trial] of William Laud, p. 200. h Ibid. p. 816. J Collier's Hist. vol. 2. p. 821, 848. 1 The Life [History of the Troub'es k Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 1198. 34 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT c H A P. Articles of Ecclesiastical Polity1, drawn up by John Knoxm, a — Presbyterian, wherein there was mention made of the Election and Ordination of Superintendents, Ministers, Deacons, and Elders, and wherein, though the imposition of hands had been preserved, yet it was not reputed as a thing neces- sary"; but these articles were not ratified, and it was by their private authority alone, that the new Ministers established their new discipline in Scotland. In the year 1572°, they wished to give some fixed form to their discipline, and extended the power of the Bishops a little further than the Presbyterians wished ; and, says Caldenvood p, "This was the first sort of Bishops which was brought in to our Reformed Kirk:" but even this kind of re-establishment of Episcopacy did not continue long. For, as the same author adds, they were not endured at most above three or four years, and the Assembly itself would not give a positive approbation to the book of discipline, and abide by the judgment of the Commissioners. In a word, by the book of discipline presented to the Parliament of Scotland in 1578, we see plainly, that they preserved nothing but mere Presby- terianism, though they retained the name of Bishopsq. For it was the imposition of the hands of the Elders which they required for the Election of the Ministers r, and they ordered that the Bishops should be subject to the Presbytery ; and that they should not perform any function, but what should be given them in charge by the Church8. This discipline was fully established at Edinburgh in 1581, and it was that year that the first Presbytery was formed there1 under the authority of the laws. Under the shadow of this discipline, the maxim extended itself, That imposition of hands was unnecessary in the Ordination of Ministers. In fact, Robert Bruce, who was afterwards for several years a preacher at Edinburgh, having been chosen one of the Ministers of that city in 1598, and being pressed to receive imposition of hands", refused it, on the 1 Calderwood's Hist, of the Church 4 [See Chap. 4. of the book itself in] of Scotland, p. 24. Spotswood's Hist. Spotswood, p. 292. [and in Caldenvood, of the Church of Scotland, p. 152. p. 10.5.] m [Spotswood, p. 1 74.] r [Ibid. Chap. 3.] " [lb. p. 156. Caldenvood, p. 26.] 5 Spots, p. 303. [Cald. p. 85.] " Spotswood, p. 260. ' Calderwood, p. 116. p History &c p. 56. u Spots, p. 451. Cald. p. 423. OF THE CHANGES IN SCOTLAND. 35 ground, as he said, that the approbation of the Assembly served him instead of Ordination. He afterwards received it, being forced to it by the importunity of several persons, but declared that he did not look upon this imposition of hands as a new Ordination, but simply as a designation to a particular flock ; and it appears that the Ordainers consented thereto. A few years afterwards, James the First united in himself the Episco- Crowns of England and Scotland. This Prince, zealous for stored^" Episcopacy, was desirous to re-establish it in Scotland. But as they had no Bishops there who had power to consecrate others, he sent for three Ministers to come into England, whom he had consecrated in 1610, by the Bishops of London, Ely, Rochester, and Worcester v; and these Bishops afterwards consecrated others according to the Ritual of Edward the Sixth. This consecration was not without some difficulty, because the Bishop of Ely wished to have these Ministers ordained Priests before they were consecrated, they not having received the Order of Priesthood from any Bishop. But Bancroft Arch- bishop of Canterbury having maintained w, that the Ordination given by Presbyters ought to be esteemed valid, when there were no Bishops, or that otherwise the greater part of the reformed Churches would be found to want Ministers, and that more- over the Episcopal power might supply the other Orders, of which there were examples in antiquity, this opinion was acquiesced in, and they contented themselves with consecrating the new Bishops, without making them pass through the inferior Orders. Things continued nearly in this state until the time of the famous Rebellion which brought King Charles the First to the block. For at that time Episcopacy was again abolished x in Abolished- the Assemblies of Glasgow and Edinburgh >, in order to re-esta- blish Presbyterianism upon its ruins. It continued actually suppressed, notwithstanding the opposition of the old Bishops, until the Restoration of King Charles the Second, who made it his business to restore to the Bishops their authority and their Restored. Consecration. It was for this that in 16G4, he caused four v Spotswood, p. 514. Caldenvood, History, vol. 2. p. 702. p. G44. x The Life [History of the Troubles " Heylin's Hist, of the Presbyterians, and Trial] of W. Laud, p. 50'. p. 387. and Collier's Ecclesiastical * In [1638 and] 1G39. D 2 EFFECTS OF THE REVOLUTION OF 1688. CHAP. Presbyterian Ministers to come to London, who, after having '- acknowledged the invalidity of their former Ordination, and having been first ordained Deacons and Priests, were con- secrated Bishops by the Bishop of Winchester, assisted by two others 7. This one might have imagined would have been the last period of these changes; but the Revolution of 1688 gave birth to a new turn in the government of that Church a. The Scottish Bishops were much attached to King James the Second. Upon the news of the expedition of the Prince of Orange against his father-in-law, these Prelates wrote to the King to assure him of their fidelity. This letter was fatal not only to the Bishops who had written it, but even to Episcopacy itself. For the Presbyterians, taking advantage of the favour which King William bore towards them, and of the hatred he conceived against the Bishops who were attached to King James, made a solemn demand in Parliament in 1689, for the Abolished, abolition of Episcopacy b. This demand was granted them in 1695. The Marquess of Tweedale assured both Houses on the part of King William'', that His Majesty would take especial care of the peace of the Church, and that his inten- tion was to maintain the Presbyterian government such as it had been established. This was the final termination of the movements which had agitated that Church ever since the commencement of the Reformation ; and there is reason to believe that Episcopacy is become too odious there to be able to recover itself, if Calvinism does not give way to the old religion. Changes The result of the facts which we have just related is, that compared. ^e changes in the Church of England must not be con- founded with those in the Church of Scotland ; that in the one Episcopacy has always been the prevailing government, excepting a few years wherein it appeared to be abolished, but through which nevertheless there remained Bishops enough to consecrate new ones, immediately after the Restoration of Charles the Second; but that in Scotland, on the contrary, at the beginning of the pretended Reformation, Episcopacy was * Collier's Ecclesiastical Hist vol. a The Lives of King William and 2. p. 887. The Life of King Charles Queen Mar)", [in vol. 3. &c. (as in the the Second, [in vol. 3. of "A complete preceding note),] p. 520. History of England," &c. London, b lb. p. 538. 1706,] r. 253. c lb. p. 701. GENERAL STATEMENT. 37 annihilated, and has reappeared only by intervals, and that too so weakened by the usurpations of the Presbyterian Ministers, that the Bishops preserved only the shadow of their authority and dignity. It is not then the Ordination of the Scottish Bishops that I am to consider here. The first, whom they called Superintendents, in imitation of the German Churches, were no true Bishops, as it would be easy to shew, nor can we recognise as such any but those whom King James the First and King Charles the Second brought into England in 1610 and 1664 to be there consecrated, and those whom these Bishops consecrated afterwards. But these two efforts having led to no succession, and the validity of their Ordination depending entirely upon that of the English Bishops, it is unnecessary to enter into the question of the validity or invalidity of the Scottish Ordinations ; and what we have to say concerning the Ordination of the English, will be more than sufficient to determine what we ought to think of the others. As to what regards the changes of the Church of England Five with respect to the Ordination of her Bishops, they reduce E^gilnV" themselves properly to five. 1. That which was made under Henry the Eighth. 2. That under Edward the Sixth. 3. That under Elizabeth. 4. That under Cromwell. 5. And lastly, that under Charles the Second. Under Henry the Eighth, the oath which they were accustomed to take to the Pope was abolished out of the form of Ordination, but the rest of the ceremonial subsisted as it did before. Under Edward the Sixth, there was nothing preserved as the substance of Ordination except the im- position of hands ; and as to the prayers and forms, they were almost all changed. Under Elizabeth the Ritual of Edward was restored, but the difficulty is to know whether it was done by a sufficient authority. Under Cromwell Episcopacy was abolished in 1646, and along with it the Formulary of Ordi- nations. Lastly, under Charles the Second, when Episcopacy was re-established, the old Formulary of Edward the Sixth was restored, but revised, and such as it is still used in the Church of England, which has solemnly received and approved it. The change that happened in the time of Cromwell Cromwell, gives us no trouble. As there were no Ordinations per- formed during the time of his government, there is nothing to discuss on this head. The Bishops who survived that 38 QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED. c ha P. Usurper ordained others in the room of those that were ' dead ; and there was no other misfortune attending this inter- ruption, but the long vacancy of several Sees. Henrv the There is no greater trouble with respect to what happened in ' the time of Henry the Eighth. All Catholics agree that the bare omission of the oath made to the Pope, is not sufficient to render an Ordination invalid; and besides, several of the Bishops ordained by Cranmer without having taken that oath having been allowed as true Bishops, and not re- ordained at the time of the union under Mary, the thing appears indisputable. Remaining It remains that we consider whether the Ordinations per- formed according to the new Ritual of Edward the Sixth, Eliza- beth, and Charles the Second, may and ought to be received as valid. We make here but one question of these three different periods ; for it will be seen as we go on, that we ought to give but one and the same decision to them all, the changes made under Charles the Second having been of too little importance to produce any difference in the judgment we ought to pass on the subject. It is true, that some people would have the addition pass for essential which was made in the time of Charles the Second to the form, Accipc Spirit um Sanctum d; but I do not see how it can be proved, and the mere comparison of the Roman Pontifical is sufficient to prove the contrary. Parker. But before examining what proves the validity or invalidity of the English Ordinations, it is convenient to relate the history of that of Parker, in which are found more difficulties than in any other. As this Prelate is the stem and source of the new Ministry, if his Ordination is invalid, the others fall of themselves : and on the contrary, the validity of it naturally establishes the truth of the Hierarchy in that Church, although schism and error have obscured its Succession. It is then on this particular fact that we must fasten, as that which alone can serve to determine clearly this question. And as Monsieur L'Abbe Renaudot, in his Memoire, has used all his efforts to destroy the validity of this Ordination, it is neces- sary to acquaint the reader at once with the state of the case, by setting forth clearly and succinctly in what manner the affair was transacted. d [Receive the Holy Ghost.] CHAP. II. HISTORY OF PARKERS ORDINATION BY BARLOW. AUTHENTICITY OF THE RECORD WHEREIN IT IS RELATED, AND FALSEHOOD OF THE STORIES PUBLISHED ON THE SUBJECT. Cardinal Pole surviving Queen Mary but a few hours, Nov. isbs. Elizabeth, at her coming to the Crown, found the Archbishop- ric of Canterbury at her disposal; a post of great conse- quence with respect to the situation in which the Church of England was, as also with regard to the Queen's particular views. She thought no one more proper to fill that See than Matthew Parker. This Doctor had very reputably filled Parker, several stations in the reign of Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth ; but being despoiled of all his dignities in the time of Queen Mary, he led a private life, and shut himself up amongst his books, in order to make study his principal entertainment. As soon as Queen Elizabeth had ascended the throne, he was recalled to Court, and employed in the Reformation which that Princess proposed to establish in her dominions. As she thought Parker a fit person to further her designs, she at once fixed her eyes upon him, to raise him to the See of Canterbury. Accordingly, after the first measures necessary to be taken at the beginning of a new reign, she addressed, on the eighteenth of July 1559, a conge. oVelire* to the Chapter of Canterbury. This Chapter was divided about the business of the Refor- Elected, mation ; and those who were attached to the Catholic party absenting themselves, the others, although the fewer in number, chose, on the first of August, by way of compromise, Matthew Parker for their Archbishop, and certified this election to the Queen, in order that she might give it effect by her Letters Patent. She did sob, and on the ninth of September directed a Commission to Cuthbert Bishop of Durham, Gilbert Bishop a The Life of Matthew Parker, p. 52. [Rymer, vol. 15. p. 536.] b Life of Parker, p. 54. 40 HISTORICAL ACCOUNT chap, of Bath, David Bishop of Peterborough, Anthony Bishop of — — — Landaff, William Barlow, Bishop, and John Scory also Bishop0, for the Consecration and Confirmation of Parker. This Commission was never executed, for what reason is un- known. There is, however, some ground to believe that part of these Bishops, continuing Catholics, refused to take part in this Ordination, and that the time which passed between this first and the second Commission was employed in finding out other Bishops to substitute in the room of the former ones. Be this as it may, the Queen had despatched, on the sixth of December d, a second Commission, addressed to Anthony Bishop of LandafF, William Barlow formerly Bishop of Bath, now Bishop elect of Chichester, J ohn Scory formerly Bishop of Chichester, now Bishop elect of Hereford, Miles Coverdale formerly Bishop of Exeter, Richard (for John) of Bedford, and John of Thetford, Suffragan Bishops, and John Bale Bishop of Ossory, to the end that all, or at least four of them, should proceed to the Consecration of Parker. These Letters Patent contain one clause which did not appear in the others, and which has since furnished the ground for an objection against this Ordination. It is that the Queen says, that she supplies by her own authority all that should be done upon this occasion contrary to the usages of the Realm, or to the Ecclesiastical Laws. Supplentes nichilominus, suprema auctoritate nostra rerjia, ex mero motu ac certa scientia nostris, si quid, aut in hits qua juxta mandatum nostrum pradictum per vos Jient, aut in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facultate, vestris, ad pramissa pcrjicicnda, desit aut deerit eorum, qua per statuta luijus reyni, aut per leges ecelcsiasticas, in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt, temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id postulante. Although Anthony Bishop of Landaff had taken the Oath of Supremacy, it appeared that he would not take part in this Consecration, on account either of his infirmities, or of his attachment to the Church, or for some other reason which we cannot divine. Thus Barlow found himself at the head of the Commission ; and assisted by John Scory Bishop elect of Hereford, Miles Coverdale late Bishop of Exeter, and John c * Rymer, vol. 15. p. 511. and 519. Sre the Proofs. of parker's ordination. 41 Hodgskins Suffragan of Bedford, confirmed Parker's election Confirmed, on the ninth of Deccmbere. The Record of Confirmation is found in Archbishop BramhaH's Worksf; and the author of the Life of Matthew Parker has also inserted several portions of it in his history. The Consecration was put off for some days, and at length Conse- was performed at Lambeth, on Sunday the seventeenth 0fuated- December 1559, by the same Bishops who had confirmed the election. The Record is found in BramhaH's Works, and in Burnet's History among the Records and we shall insert a copy at the end of this work, as a document too essential to this See the Treatise to be omitted. By this Record we see clearly, that the Proofs- Ritual of Edward the Sixth was exactly observed. For they began first with the morning prayers, after which the Bishop of Hereford preached the sermon before the ceremony began. Afterwards Parker was presented to Barlow, and when he had taken the oaths to the Queen, and the prayers prescribed in the new Ritual had been said, they laid their hands on him, saying to him in English, Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by imposition of hands; 8fc. They afterwards delivered the Bible into his hands, and communicated together, after which the ceremony ended. It is thus that this fact is given in the relation of which the original is preserved in the Registers of Canterbury11, and in Corpus Christi College Library at Cam- bridge'; and we see that all that is there related agrees with the public Records which arc found in Rymer's Collection, and in the Registers of Canterbury, against which one cannot object without having good reasons. It is no doubt from these Registers that Camden, a contcm- Camden, porary author, and one of the most exact and judicious writers England has produced, drew his account of this Ordination, entirely conformable to that we have just given. "k Matthew « Life of Parker, p. 55. Arohiepiscopatnm Cantuariensem rite f [I'a^e 1022. ] electus, concinnc habita, Spiritu Sancto B Bramhall, p. [1014. and] 1051. and invocato, et Eucharistia celebrate, im- Burnet, vol. 2. Appendix, p. 363. pc-Mlione manuum trium quondam Epl- h [Copied, Bramliall, p. 1044.] Bcoporum, Gul. Barlovi Bathoniensis, 1 [Copied, Bramhall, p. 1051. and Joan. Seorii Ciocslrionsis, Milonis Co- Burnet, 1. c.] verdali Exoniensis, et Joan. Sufl'ra- k AJatthams Parkerus. vir pins, cm- ganei Hedfordiciisis, Lambetlue conse- ditus, et moribns mode.-iUsimis, <)iii cratur. Ille po,tea conscrravit Edmim- HenricoVIH asacris Collegiate? Eccle- dum Grindallum, && Camden. Annul siic Stoke- Clara Decanus prasfuerat, ad EKz. p. 38. [t l>. 49. Ed. Hcam.] 42 neajl's account chap. Parker," says he, " a pious and learned man, and of '■ very modest behaviour, who being Chaplain in Ordinary to Henry the Eighth, had presided as Dean over the Collegiate Church of Stoke-Clare, having been duly elected Archbishop of Canterbury,— after the preaching of a Sermon, the invoca- tion of the Holy Ghost, and the celebration of the Eucharist, — by the imposition of the hands of three late Bishops, namely, of William Barlow formerly Bishop of Bath, John Scory formerly Bishop of Chichester, and Miles Coverdale formerly Bishop of Exeter, and of John Suffragan Bishop of Bedford, was consecrated at Lambeth. He afterwards consecrated Parker's Edmund Grindal," &c. All this agrees perfectly with the Journal of the life of Parker, which was found after his death among his papers, and which Mr. Strype has printed among the documents annexed as proofs to his history, in which there are these remarkable words; "'December 17, 1559. Was con- secrated Archbishop of Canterbury. Alas! Alas! O Lord God, for what times hast thou preserved me !" &c. ; and we do not find that these so precise testimonies are destroyed or weak- ened by any proof or Record to the contrary. Neal's Nevertheless, how reasonable soever it may seem to give s ry. cre(lit rather to public and solemn Records, than to mere vague stories, yet several Catholic writers have not failed to lay great stress on an account altogether different from what has just been related. "mIn the beginning of Queen Eliza- 1 17. Deccmbr. Ann. ]559. conse- ponere recusavit. Expectantes ergo isti cratus sum in Archiepiscopum Can- spesuafrustrati, se illusos interpretantes, tuarien. Heu ! Heu ! Domine Deus, in senem, quern antea honore et reverentia quae tcmpora servasti me ? &c. Life of non mediocri prosequebantur, oppro- Parltcr, Appendix, p. 15. briis lacessere ca-perunt, quidani inter "' Initio regtii Elizabethan, deposit is illos dicentes : Delirus iste senex existi- ct in custodiam coujecti-Catholicis Epi- mat nos Episcopos non fore, nisi liniti scopis, ut infra vidcbimus, alii creandi, et oho delibuti fueri/nus ; tam Epi- ct illis sufficiendi erant. Qui fuerunt scopum senem quam Catholieum eon- ad illam dignitatem nominati et eleeti, secrationis ritum ludibrio habentes. ex eondicto in quodam hospitio (cui Consecratore tameu frustrati, novum insigne erat Ca]>ut Mannuli, in vico dicto coguntur qua?rere consilium, et ad Cheapside) Londini convenerunt. Illue Scoreum apostatam Monachum (qui etiam invitatus venit Landavensis Epi- sub Edvardo sexto absque ulla con- scopus, multa senectntc jam deerepitus, secratione, ut statim videbimus, Epi- vir simplex et meticulosus. Ab ipso scopatum invaserat), ut ab eo ordina- expectabant ordinationem novi candi- rentur, reeurrunt. I>te, qui cum habitu dati. Quod Bonerus Episcopus Lon- religioso conscientiam omnem exuerat, dinensis, in carcere religionis ergo rem cito peregit, hac usus ca?remonia. constitutus, subolfaciens, minatus est Mis omnibus ante ipsum genua flecten- Landavensi excommunicationem si eos tibus, unicuique illorum Biblia super ordinaret : quo nuncio territus, et tactus caput imponens, dixit, Accipite potesta- etiam fortassis intrinsecus conscientiae tern verbum Dei sincere pncdicandi. Et stimulis, ille pedem retulit, et oculorum sicsurrexerunt omnesEpiscopi. Champ- infirmitatem causatus, manus eis im- nei/deiucutium HIinistroruw,cAi.yA9~. of parkeii's ordination. 43 beth's reign," says Champney upon the testimony of several writers, " the Catholic Bishops having been deposed and imprisoned, as we shall see hereafter, others were to be ordained and substituted in their places. They who were nominated and elected to that dignity met at London by ap- pointment, in an Inn whose sign was a Nag's-head in the Street called Cheapside. Thither likewise, upon invitation, came the Bishop of Landaff, grown dccrepid by reason of great age, a simple and timorous man. From him the new candidates ex- pected Ordination. Which Bonner Bishop of London, then in prison on account of religion, getting scent of, threatened him of Landaff with excommunication if he ordained them; with which message being terrified, and perhaps also being inwardly touched with the stings of conscience, he drew back, and excusing himself on account of the infirmity of his eyes, refused to lay hands upon them. The new candidates being thus deceived in their expectations, and considering themselves mocked, began to revile the old man, whom they had before treated with no small honour and reverence, some of them saying, 'This old fool thinks we shall not be Bishops unless we are anointed and smeared with oil'; ridiculing as well the old Bishop as the Catholic rite of Consecration. Being deprived however of a Consecrator, they were forced to seek for a new expedient, and had recourse for their Ordination to Scory, an apostate Monk, who, without any Consecration, as we shall presently see, had invaded the Episcopate under Edward the Sixth. This man who, together with his religious habit, had put off all conscience, soon performed what they desired, using this ceremony. They all kneeling before him, laying the Bible upon the head of each of them, he said, 'Receive power to preach the word of God sincerely'; and thus they all rose up Bishops." Champney adds, that he had this account from one named Thomas Bluet, who learnt it himself from Thomas Ncal, then an officer of Bishop Bonner's, who had sent him to the Bishop of Landaff, to forbid him to proceed further under pain of excommunication, and to be a witness of what should take place there, and who actually was one. Nothing seems more particular than such a testimony, but itefutcU. when ouly hearsays are produced, it is rare to meet with truth. 44 REFUTATION OF NEAL's ACCOUNT chap. Nothing, in fact, is less consistent than this whole account, : — and its falsehood forces itself on the eyes of all the world. To put this beyond dispute, let us doubt, if you please, for a moment of the authenticity of this Record of Parker's Con- secration, we cannot at least accuse as false and supposititious all those which Ryrner has given us in his Collection of pubhc Records. But the truth of these Instruments cannot subsist with the account of Neal as related by Champney. For, 1. according to Neal, all the new Bishops were ordained together by Scory ; and by Rymer's Collection, which agrees in this matter with Parker's Register, we find Commissions for the Ordinations of these Bishops of different dates, and the Register relates the different days on which these Ordinations were performed. Thus" after the Consecration of Parker, which took place on the seventeenth of December, Parker himself consecrated four others on the twenty-first. Five more were consecrated on the twenty-first of January 15 two on the second of March, and two more on the twenty-fourth of March. If then Neal's account is true, not only the Record of Parker's Ordination is false, but also all these different Records, and by consequence all the Queen's Commissions and Letters Patent, which are given us among the most authentic Records drawn from public Registers, are equally false. 2. We have found in the same Collection0, the Act of the Investiture of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his tempo- ralities, dated the twenty-first day of March, which agrees with the Record of Ordination such as we give it : we must suppose then that this new Record also is forged, and that it is not found in the Archives of the Realm, which is ridiculous. 3. What probability is there that these Bishops, whose inter- est required them at least to put the best face on their schism, should choose a tavern for such a ceremony, and moreover that they should be so imprudent as to make it so little a secret, as that it should have been able to come to the knowledge of the Bishop of London ? That they should admit there unknown persons, such as Neal, and that a suspicious person should have been able to be witness of a proceeding it was so much their interest to conceal. Men so disposed as these Bishops " Life of Parker, p, (i3. 0 Rymcr, vol. 1 o. p. 573. of parker's ordination. 45 arc presumed to have been, would never have made all this ado: Consecration must have appeared to them very indif- ferent, and assuredly they might as well have had none'at all, as that which the story supposes them to have received. 4. According to Sanders, notwithstanding the repeal of the old laws, Queen Elizabeth always took care that those whom she nominated for Bishops should be ordained with the ceremonies prescribed by the laws of the Realm. " Elizabeth indeed so conferred these [offices] by Letters Patent," says this author, whose testimony cannot be suspected, "as that those on whom they were conferred were obliged to be ordained by certain persons, and by a certain ceremony, prescribed by the laws of the Realm." But if in the first Ordination made at the beginning of the reign of that Princess, they had violated 'the laws with as little precaution as the story of the tavern supposes, is there the least room to doubt that this author, so diligent to forget nothing that might blacken the new Ecclesiastical government introduced into England, would have animadverted on an Ordination so irregular, and not foregone a proof so clear and so convincing of the in- validity of their ministry ? 5. The threat which Bonner is supposed to make is ridiculous: the Bishop of Landaff, who, although attached to the Catholic doctrine, had been so cowardly as to side with the Schism against his conscience, was he likely to be much concerned about an excommunication which he had already incurred by taking the Oath of Supremacy? And could Bonner himself suppose that the Bishop of Landaff would trouble himself much about it? 6. -Neal's account states that Scory had intruded himself into the Episcopal function without ever having received Consecration. Sub Edwardo sexto absque ulla consecratione Episcopatum invaserat. But this fact is entirely false. He was consecrated by Cranmer, according to the new Ritual of Edward ; and this is a fact publicly acknowledged by all historians. Cranmer's Register proves it. The author of the Fasti EcclesicB Anglicaim marks the day of his Consecration ; p Elizabotha quidem ita liaec[f odicia] certis personis, ac rilu etiam ceito, se- perliteras patentee conferebat, ut tamen cundum leges regni ordinari. Sande- Oportueril cos quibus collata erant, a rus de Schism. Ang. lib. 3. p. 347. 46 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD chap, and it would be surprising that he should have been ignorant — — — of it, if the account were not a tissue of falsehoods. 7. If this story had had but the shadow of truth, why was not Parker reproached with it in his own lifetime? And why did they not attempt to prove his Ordination null, because performed contrary to the laws and rules then in force, and by persons who could not be regarded as Bishops ? In fact, this fable, which had its birth in the reign of King James the First, is not to be met with in any of the authors who have written in Parker's own time. Sanders himself, as I have already observed, makes no mention of it, and yet he would not have forgotten it, if he had heard it spoken of. There is some reason i for thinking that the dinner which took place on the ninth of December, at the ceremony of Parker's Confirmation, but which was eight days before his Consecration, was what furnished the ground for this story, which was afterwards embellished with further fictions. But to convince one's self yet more clearly that all this is only a fable, it will be convenient to examine what is said against the authenticity of the Record we have given, objections Three things are principally urged, in order to make it cord.0 Re" suspected of forgery. 1. That it was fifty years before it was produced. 2. That the persons who published it, having an interest in the forgery, ought to be suspected by us. 3. That the authors who have cited it giving different accounts of the names of the Consecrators, this disagreement marks evidently that it is forged. This is all that can be said with any tolerable plausibility to make our Record suspected, in opposi- tion to the presumption which both the reading of the Record itself, and the authentic certificates which attest its truth and antiquity, form in its favour. But not to dwell upon bare presumptions, let us examine more particularly the difficulties brought against us. First. This Record, they say, was not produced until more than fifty years after the fact happened ; and what likelihood is there that it should have been so long shut up, if the thing Answer, had been genuine ? I doubt whether this objection is quite serious ; because, in short, is it the custom to publish all the Records of ceremonies which take place? If the fable of " [Sec the Life of Parker, p. 57; Bramhall, p. 446; and Burnet, Hist. Rcf. vol. 2. p. 404. Ed. ] OF PARKER S ORDINATION. 1? the Ordination at a tavern had been more ancient than it is, they would also have published sooner the proper Record to destroy it; but as it was known how the thing had taken place, what necessity was there to publish the relation of it ? How many Records are kept shut up, which arc not the less authentic for that reason ? And besides, was it ever refused to be produced, or to be shewn to those who wished to assure themselves concerning' it? It would be a strange thing if all the Records that have been kept private till now should become suspected, merely because they have never been produced. What would become of all our history, if, to establish suspicions, no more were necessary than to put forward that the Records were long kept secret ? Let us add that this Record was cited in Parker's own time, Cited in and this citation proves its existence. For in the Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, published at London in 1572, before the death of Parker, it is written of him, '"Accordingly, in the year of our Lord 1559, he was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury by the Dean and Chapter of the Metropolitan Church of Canterbury, and was afterwards in the same year, on the seventeenth of December, consecrated by means of four Bishops, William of Chichester, John of Hereford, Miles late Bishop of Exeter, and Richard (read John) of Bedford, required by a certain law enacted concerning this business." And there is this note in the margin, Hce conse- crationes et confirmationes in Registris apparent. "These Consecrations and Confirmations appear in the Registers." Camden, Godwin, Hall, and other writers, were acquainted with this Record, and cited it, without any one's daring to charge the Registers with forgery. But what Godwin relates is still stronger, and puts the matter out of dispute. George Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury5, being willing to Examined convince Fitzherbert how little foundation there was for those catholics" suspicions to which he gave weight against the Registers, and to confute him by shewing them to Catholics, as he had wished, caused four Catholics to come to him, three whereof ' Anno itaque Domini 1559, Cantua- Herefordensi, Milonc quondam Exoni- riensis Archiepiseopus electus est a ensi, et Richard" (leg. Johanne) Bedfor- Decano et Capitulo Ecclesia> .Mctropo- densi, lege quadam de hac re lata liticEC Cantuai iriisis. Postcaque eodem requisites, consecratus est. Life of anno, 17. die Decembris, adhibitis qua- Parka; Appendix, p. 151. tuor Episcopis, W. Ciccstrensi, Johanne s Godwin dc Proes. Anglian, p. 219. 48 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD CHAP, were Jesuits, and in the presence of the Bishops of London, '- — Durham, Ely, Bath, Lincoln, and Rochester, suffered them to examine the Register as much as they pleased. They did so, and promised to testify it to Fitzherbert. It is true that, being again remanded to prison, and having required that the book should be put into their bands, that they might examine it with greater attention, they were refused, and only told that those books were not allowed to be removed ; that they might examine them again upon the place, but that they would not trust them in their hands. This refusal is insisted upon to give a colour to the charge of forgery. But, in truth, was this a reasonable request? And ought they not to have expected such an answer ? If this were sufficient to create a suspicion that the Registers were forged, what Record can be free from suspicion ? nothing being so unusual as to entrust to strangers or to enemies essential documents whose preserva- tion is of immeasurable importance. Again In circumstances where nothing of this nature was to be latel>' apprehended, the inspection and examination of these Regis- ters has always been permitted without the least difficulty. I can affirm this from my own experience. In pursuance of the design I had formed of assuring myself more strongly of the authenticity of these Records, though I was unknown to the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet, upon my bare applica- tion, he kindly permitted a new examination to be made in the presence of four witnesses, two whereof arc Catholics, and the other two of the Church of England. It will appear by the certificate which I have inserted among my Proofs, (the original whereof I have deposited in the King's Library', to be annexed to Bramhall's works, which are there,) that the Record printed in Bramhall's book is entirely conformable to the Registers. And this Prelate in sending it me, assures me, by his letter of the twenty-first of February, old style, 172^, that the writing is of the same time, and by the same hand with the rest of the following Records in the same Register; so that if these former Records are false, we must suppose that all the others, even those that regard affairs purely civil, are so also ; a thing which cannot be maintained. ' [t The King of France's Library at Paris.] of pakkeh's ordination. 19 "I answer," says the Archbishop, "that you may depend upon it, that the whole entry of the Acts of M. Parker's Consecration, with all the Instruments relating to it, in my Registers, are written in the same hand with the other Acts of what passed during his Archiepiscopate, and all at the time that they were done." This first objection then is rather unreasonable ; but it is not on this that they insist most, but on another, namely, that this Record and these Registers have been pro- obj. IL duced only by those who were interested to falsify them, and who, being the sole guardians of these monuments, could with impunity forge or at least alter them. Suspicions, it is true, Answer, are ordinarily and mutually raised by all parties, and it is a scandal to mankind, that they have, by frequent frauds, given cause to think that probity and good faith cannot subsist among men of different interests, and differing sentiments. Nevertheless justice requires that we should not give weight to such suspicions, unless there be further some proofs of forgery or alteration. Rut there are many reasons that evince that there is nothing of this kind in this case. The first, which we have already touched upon before, is that no body can accuse the Record of Parker's Consecration, or the Registers wherein it is recorded, of forgery or corrup- tion, without throwing the same suspicion on the public Records collected by Rymer. For we see that the Records in that Collection, as well with regard to the substance, as to the dates, agree perfectly with our Record, and with the Registers. Rut where there is a harmony so perfect, what likelihood is there of forgery ? And how can an endless uncertainty of fact be avoided in history, if, without proof, and without foun- dation, the slightest suspicions and the most unreasonable prejudices are to suffice to discredit Records which the public faith has rendered sacred ? A second reason which ought to appear convincing is, that if they had wished to forge Records, they would not have confined themselves to these, and they would have dressed them up otherwise than they arc. First, they would have given us the Record of Barlow's Consecration, which is so essential in this affair. They would have omitted the clause in the Mandate for Parker's Consecration from which so E 50 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD CHAP, much advantage is endeavoured to be taken against him. — — — In a word, they would have omitted nothing essential, nor inserted any thing that was to their prejudice. Besides, if they were to forge a relation, why should they not make the Consecration to have been performed according to the rites of the Roman Pontifical, rather than according to King Edward's Ordinal. It would have cost them no more forgery, and they would thereby have prejudiced the Catholics in favour of their Ordination, which it was their interest to do. This, nevertheless, was not done. The forgery is therefore a mere chimera, and has no other foundation than an unreason- able distrust and prejudice, in. " The The variations which are found among the different authors riously who cite the Registers, form the third objection to their au- cited." thenticity, and this, in my opinion, has the greatest show of truth, and is the most reasonable. This disagreement is very certain. For one says that Parker was consecrated by Barlow, Seory, Coverdale, and John Suffragan of Dover. Sutcliffe joins to the three first two Suffragans. The author of the Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, joins to the three Bishops but one Suffragan, who is Richard Suffragan of Bedford. Mason agrees with this latter as to the number ; but he calls the Suffragan, John. Lastly, the Commission of the sixth of December, which is found in Rymer, names seven to whom the Mandate for Consecration is addressed ; that is to say, the Bishop of Landaff, Barlow, Scary, Cover- dale, Richard Suffragan of Bedford, John Suffragan of Thet- ford, and the Bishop of Ossory in Ireland. Thus we have five differing accounts in the case of a single fact. What are Ave to believe amidst so much variety ? And what greater proof of forgery in a Record, than the contrariety which is found amongst those that cite it ? Answer. This difficulty may stagger one at first ; but as the dis- agreement, which at first seems considerable, reduces itself at the bottom to a little matter, the difficulty falls to the ground at the same time, as we are about to shew. First, the Queen's Letters Patent for the Consecration of Parker must not be regarded as a side of the question and a variation. She addresses her Letters to seven, but the same Letters express, that it is enough that four of them execute of parser's ordination. 51 that Commission. Quatenus vos, aid ad minus quatuor vestrum, — eundem Magistrum Matheum Parker in Arcldepiscopum ct Pastorcm Ecclcsim jiraidicta; consecrare—velitis cum effectu. But this is what Mason, the author of the Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, and Butler, and since them Bramhall, Burnet, Collier, and all the rest agree with. If Sutcliffe mentions two Suffragans, it is because he was deceived by the Queen's Letters, in which there were two actually named, and did not observe that the Record inserted in the Registers mentioned but one. And as to Butler, who names a different Suffragan, if it be not a fault of the tran- scriber or of the printer, this author could not have consulted the Registers, and must have cited them no otherwise than upon hearsay, and with a bad memory. The last difference is nothing. The Suffragan of Bedford is called Richard by some, and John by others. The cause of this difference comes from the Letters, which give him in fact the name of Richard incorrectly for that of John. Some then have kept to the Record of Consecration, others have thought it right to reform it by the Queen's Letters ; and this is what has produced this slight difference, which we easily see is not at all essential. But what ought here to be observed is, that those who have published the Record itself, have always agreed. Bramhall and Burnet have published it entire. Mason and Collier have given either large extracts, or the substance of the whole ; and we find no disagreement in what they have published. The variations in question, then, do not come from the Record, and ought not to be produced as a proof of its being a forgery. Before this Record had been made public, there is reason to believe that it was cited only upon unfaithful reports, of mistaken memory. But is it surprising if such citations are not always given exactly ? And should a man dare for such slight variations to condemn a Record on the substance of which all agree? For, as we have seen, all allow that the Ordination was performed by Barlow, Scory, and Coverdale. All, except one author who mentions two, add one Suffragan ; and if they do not agree in the name, we see the reason clearly in the Queen's Letters, wherein he is found wrongly named. e 2 52 DEFENSE OF THE RECORD CHAP. These differences therefore do not prove that there were different Records of this Consecration, but that the one in the Registers was not always carefully consulted by those who quoted it ; and this is what we see daily instances of among those who cite manuscripts, whose citations are found defective by those who consult them more carefully afterwards; because the former, whether from precipitation, or from forgetfulness, or from inadvertency, have not always read or cited exactly. Lastly, the Record exists still in the Registers, which have not changed. It is more than a hundred years that it has been seen such as it subsists at this day. Those who have cited it differently may have done so by hearsay. There is no dif- ference except about one fact. This fact is only one name put for another. Even the variety in these citations, proves that there had been neither collusion nor bad faith, but that they did not think fit to conceal, in favour of their own party, the blunders made by unexact writers, in giving wrongly important facts. All these circumstances united, shew that the differences objected are insufficient to prove the Record in question a forgery ; and that, in spite of these disagreements, it retains its whole authority; especially after the authentic certificates given by public characters to attest that the Record is such as it has been published. Objection. But, it is objected, many writers contemporary with Parker highly reproached him, as well as the other new Bishops, that they had not been consecrated : the Record of Consecration then is forged ; and if the story of the tavern is not true, it is at all events true that there was no real Ordination. Answer. This consequence might appear well grounded in their opinion who made these reproaches, without the Record's being forged. These Bishops, according to them, were not consecrated, because they were not ordained by that form which appeared to them essential, and because they did not regard as Bishops those who consecrated them. They might therefore think the Record of Consecration genuine, and yet believe that these Bishops were not consecrated ; because the Record in question mentioned only a Consecration which they considered entirely invalid. This is what evidently appears from Stapleton's way of reasoning against Horn OF PARKER S ORDINATION. 53 Bishop of Winchester; ""Who knows not," says he, "that you and your colleagues were ordained, I will not say otherwise than the Canons of the Church require, hut not even according to the direction of your own Statutes?" It was not then an entire omission of Consecration, but the want of a Canonical Con- secration, with which he reproached him : it was a Canonical Consecration which he defied him to prove : xNec approbatam et assuetam vocationem aut consecrationem ostendere unquam poteris. It is in this sense that they upbraided the new Bishops with not being Bishops, and with not having been ordained. But is there the least room to conclude from such a way of reasoning, that the Record of Parker's Consecration is forged, when if it be looked upon as genuine, the argu- ment still retains its whole force ? In default of positive proofs, they have recourse to negative silence ones, to weaken the truth of the Records preserved in the ot tow' Registers, and to endeavour to support the fable of the tavern, which falls to pieces on every side. Not even the silence of Stow, the celebrated English Chronographer, can escape being made by Champney to weigh against the Ordination of Parker, which he does not mention, says hey, because if he had re- lated in what manner things were performed at the Nag's- head, he could not have failed to bring upon himself the anger of those whose interest it was to bury in oblivion so scandalous a story. It is true, that to draw advantage from a silence so equivocal, he is made to confide to his friends in private what he did not dare to publish in writing2: but, unluckily for ( lhampney, these friends are dumb witnesses, who are no proof, and in a matter of testimony and dispute are of no authority. In fact, to destroy the advantage which it is wished to draw from this pretended silence, and to convince these dumb Answer, witnesses, produced by Champney, of falsehood, it is sufficient to remark, that if the history of the Ordination performed at the Nag's-head be true, not only Parker, but all the new Bishops nominated with him by Queen Elizabeth, had no other Ordination. Nevertheless, according to Stowa, in his u Quia nescit, te tuosque collegas, y De Vocat. Minist. cap. 14, p. 502. non dico alitor quam requirunt Canonea [et 504.] Ecclesiae,scdnec secundum prrescriptum z [Ibid. p. 501.] Statutorum vestrorum ordinatos esse? a The Survey of London, p. 181. Stapletoni Opera, vol. 2. p. 839, 810. [p. 533. Ed. 1G33.] ■ [Ibid. p. 839.] 54 DEFENCE OF THE RECOHD C H A P. Description of the Antiquities of the City of London, Grindal, — — — who was one of the new Bishops nominated at the same time with Parker, was not consecrated till the 21st of December 1559. Now this fact alone, related by Stow, destroys the history of the Nag's-head, the argument brought from his silence in his Chronicle, and the pretended secret confided to his dumb friends, who say nothing at all. For, to agree with the Nag's-head fable, the Ordination of Parker, of Grindal, and of the rest, should have been performed in the month of September 1559, by Scory. But according to Stow, Grindal was not ordained until the 21st of December the same year, by Parker. He was ignorant therefore of the Nag's-head fable, and could not confide it to any secret friends; and seeing his testimony agrees with Parker's Register, and llymer's Records, he therefore bears witness to the authen- ticity of these Records, and consequently decides in favour of the account of Parker's Consecration, against the fable of the tavern. Let people, after this, judge as they will of the silence which Stow has kept in his Chronicle ; it is certain that it cannot have been from the motive alleged, that he has so done. Perhaps he thought it enough to have mentioned Parker's Election, without speaking of his Consecration. Perhaps he thought it unnecessary to give the particulars of a ceremony in which they did but renew what was done in the time of King Edward. In fine, perhaps he had not seen the Record of Parker's Consecration, which was not as yet pub- lished, and without which he could not exactly describe this ceremony. But, let what will be the cause of his silence (for one may imagine an infinity), it is at all events very evident, from the facts he relates in his History of London, that nothing can be concluded from it contrary to the account preserved in the Registers, or in favour of the story of the tavern, which his testimony destroys. A last re- Finally, the last resource in favour of the fable, and in oppo- source. siti0n to the relation, is that the first three Bishops nominated in the Commission issued the ninth of September 1559 for the Consecration of Parker, viz. Tonstal Bishop of Dur- ham, Bourne Bishop of Bath, and Pole Bishop of Peter- borough, were deposed in the month of July the same year, of Parker's ordination. 55 according to Stow's Chronicle, for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy. But, say they, there is no likelihood that the Queen would have chosen to employ for the Consecration of Parker, Bishops whom she had just deposed two months heforc : this Commission is therefore forged ; and if this first he so, it is highly probable that that of the sixth of December is of the same stamp, and consequently also the account of the Ordination performed in pursuance of this latter Commission: there was therefore no other Consecration but that which took place at the Nag's-head in London, in the month of September 1559. If this be the last resource in favour of this fable, I think it Answer, will readily be allowed, that to have recourse to such defences, is to have no defence at all. I agree that it really is highly improbable, that the Queen should choose to nominate for the Consecration of Parker, Bishops whom she had caused to be deposed two months before. But what should thence have been concluded, is not that this Commission was forged ; but that then, namely, on the ninth of September 1559, these three Bishops had not as yet been deposed, as may easily be proved by facts not at all doubtful. For, 1. as to the Bishop of Durham, it appears by a manu- The fact script in the Cotton Library, cited by Mr. Strype, in his Annals of the Reformation b, that he was not dispossessed of his Bishopric till the twenty-ninth of September 1559. This manuscript is supported by another proof, which can still less be objected to, viz. the Registers of the Chapter of Durham, where we find even to the seventeenth of September, that is to say, eight entire days after the Commission of the ninth, acts of jurisdiction exercised by Tonstal, and confirmed by the Chapter: he was therefore until then in peaceable pos- session of that Church, and his deposition must be posterior to these acts, and consequently to the Commission of the ninth ; and this agrees with the manuscript, which does not mention it till the twenty-ninth. 2. The thing is yet more evident with regard to Bourne Bishop of Bath ; for all agree, that this Bishop, like the rest, was deposed only because he refused to take the Oath of b Vol. 3. p. I 11. [vol. 1. p. 1 12. Ed. 172.5—31.] 56 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD chap. Supremacy. But the Oath of Supremacy was not tendered : — him until the end of October 1559. Rymer' furnishes us with a proof ; for we find in his Collection, a Commission dated the eighteenth of October, to tender him the Oath of Supremacy. lie had not, then, refused it as yet ; and conse- quently his deposition, which supposes that refusal, is long posterior to the Commission dated September the ninth, and a fortiori cannot have been in the month of July 1559. 3. As to Pole Bishop of Peterborough, he cannot have been dispossessed until about the same time that the Bishop of Bath was, that is to say, about the latter end of October, or the beginning of November. For by the Register of the Church of Peterborough, we find acts of jurisdiction exer- cised by him up to the end of September ; and besides, the Chapter of Canterbury, who, during the vacancy of the Me- tropolitan See, exercised the Metropolitan jurisdiction over the vacant Churches depending on Canterbury, did not take upon them the government of the Church of Peterborough till the eleventh of November 1559 d. Therefore Pole's depo- sition could not be long before that time ; and at all events, it is certain that it was long after the ninth of September, which is the date of the first Commission. This Commission therefore is not forged, as they conclude it from a fact noto- riously false ; and, on the contrary, all these several Records agree so exactly that they support one another, and that it is impossible to dispute their truth without destroying the whole certainty of history, stow ex- But nevertheless, it is said, Stow sets down the deposition plained. Qf tiie Bj^opg m the month of July 1559. It is true: but his testimony is framed in such a manner, that no use can be made of it. For, first, Stow does not say that the three particular Bishops here spoken of were deposed at that time. Secondly, what he docs say may easily be reconciled, without contradicting the facts we have just given. In fact, the Queen's first Commission for causing the Oath of Supremacy to be taken by the Bishops and others having been issued in the month of May 1559, the Oath was accord- ingly tendered to several in that same month, as well as in the ' Vol. 15. p. 545. d Ant. Hanner, p. 151. OF PARKE11 S ORDINATION. 57 months of June and July following, and upon their refusal, several were deposed at that time. If then Stow is to he understood hut of some Bishops, it is very certain that there were some deposed in the month of July, as Heath Archbishop of Yorke, Thirl by Bishop of Elye, &c. But it is very false that all were deposed at the same time, and we have authentic dates of the deposition of many in the following months. The testimony of Stow then is here produced irrelevantly, and can have no weight, because he does not say what they would have him say ; and because if he did, he would evidently be convicted of falsehood. It ought therefore to stand as certain, that the Record of Conciu- Parker's Ordination, such as it is produced from the Registers, Siolu is authentic; that the story of the Cheapside Ordination is ridiculous ; that a hearsay of an unknown person cannot be brought in competition with the Records which remain in the public Registers; that even setting testimony against testi- mony, one ought to give credit much rather to that of the Earl E. of Not- of Nottingham, High Admiral of England, who was present at tinghdm" the ceremony, and at the dinner given at the Palace of Lambeth, than that of an unknown person like Neal ; and, since there are several obvious falsehoods found in Neat's account, which moreover contradicts all the public Records, there is not the least room to hesitate with respect to the preference which ought to be given to the truth above the fable, of which the pretended narration of Champney has all the marks. Let us add, before we finish upon this head, that as false- Falsehood, hood can be supported only by falsehood, so to support the story of the Nag's-head, recourse was had to feigned wit- nesses, such as the Bishop of Durham, born three years after the Consecration of Parker, and whom they apparently thought dead when they produced his testimony. It will be seen however by the documents we have published among the Records annexed to this Treatise, that this testimony is disowned by the Bishop himself, and by several Lords of Parliament, both spiritual and temporal, and that they attest the truth of the Ordination, such as we have set it forth, drawn from the public Registers. v Strype-s Annals, vol. 3. p. 113. [vol. 1. p. 1 11. Ed. 1725— 31-1 CHAP. III. barlow, Parker's consecrator, was himself consecraied. l'roofs of this consecration. CHAP. As few at this day dispute the authenticity of the Records — — 1 — which prove the Ordination of Parker, those who attack the validity of the English Ordinations, without stopping to contest the truth of the relation which contains the proof and history of the Consecration of this Prelate, who is the stem of the new Ministry, pretend to destroy this Ordination by two facts ; which if they could be proved true, would ruin it past all remedy. The first regards Barlow, Parker's Consecrator; and the other is the form he used in the ceremony of this Ordi- nation. It is pretended, then, that Barlow was not conse- crated himself, and that the Rite of which he made use is entirely insufficient to ensure the validity of Ordination. Either the one or the other of these facts would be sufficient of itself to annihilate the English Hierarchy: they cannot then be examined with too great attention and exactness, and we shall begin with that of Barlow. Our business is to ascertain whether he was ever conse- crated. M. L'Abbe Renaudot denies it, or at least throws out in his Memoire such considerable doubts on this point as are Three ob- equivalent to entirely denying it. Three things are princi- jections. pa]ly insisted upon to support this doubt. The first is, that Cran- mer's Register, which contains the Ordinations performed by that Prelate, or by his order, does not contain that of Barlow, and that the Record of it could never be found. The second, which he thinks demonstrative, is, that in Rymer's Collection3, there is a Commission of the Queen's addressed to Parker, already consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, to confirm and consecrate Barlow Bishop of Chichester. But, it is said, if he had been consecrated when he ordained Parker, would Parker have received a Commission to consecrate him him- 1 Vol. 15. p. 660. TESTIMONIES TO BARLOW's CONSECRATION. 59 self? The third is, that Bonner Bishop of London, having had Anthony Bishop of Landaff threatened with excommuni- cation, if he meddled in the Ordination of Parker, would not have failed to make the same threat to Barlow likewise, if he had thought him a Bishop ; and that his not having done it is a proof that he did not believe him such, although he could not have been ignorant of it, had the thing been true. But before we proceed to examine these difficulties, it will Testimo- be convenient to set forth the proofs we find of Barlow's Consecration. I shall not dwell on the testimony of Godwin, Godwin, which M. L'Abbe Renaudot rejects, because this author is in his opinion not very exact. He says positively that Barlow was consecrated in the month of February 1535. "b William Barlow, Prior of the Canons Regular of Bisham, was conse- crated February 22, 1535. Afterwards, in the month of April following, he was translated to St. David's." But not to insist upon this testimony, I proceed to other less suspected and more certain proofs. All are sufficiently aware of the exactness of Wharton, Wharton, the author of the Anglia Sacra. See what he says of William Barlow in the catalogue he has given of the Bishops of St. Asaph. '"William Barlow, at that time Prior of the Canons Regular of Bisham, of the Order of St. Augustine, having been elected Bishop by the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph in the year 1536, January the sixteenth, was con- firmed on the twenty-third of February following by Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury." The author of the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, who appears Le Neve, to have laboured with great exactness, and among very authentic documents, expresses himself after the same manner with Wharton. " William Barlow, S. T. P." says this author'1, writing in English, "was elected Jan. 16. 1535, confirmed Febr. 23. following." Neither the one nor the other really speak of any thing but his Confirmation; but " Gulielmus Barlow, Canonicorum nis Augustiniani, a Deeano ei Capitulo mense sequente Meneviam translatus episcopo Cant, die 23. Fcbrnarii se- est. Godwin, de l'rasulibits Anglite, quentis confirinatus est. De Episc. p. t!63. Lond. et Aasae. p. 359. c Willelmus Barlow, tunc Trior Oa- d Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 22. nonicoium Regulariumde Bisham, Ordi- Regularium apud Bisham l'rin 60 MANY OTHER CONSECRATION! C nf P ^e Consecration cannot have been delayed long after the Confirmation, both because the laws made by Henry the Eighth fixed at twenty days the time within which the ceremony must be performed without further delay, on pain of incurring the penalties of a Praemunire, and also because in the month of April following, there is proof that Barlow was already consecrated, as will appear in the following SJrype. part of this chapter. Mr. Strype also, the author of the Life of Cranmere, without any hesitation, places Barlow's Conse- cration in the year 1535, at the same time observing that the Record of it was not inserted in the Registers, any more than that of the Consecration of Edward Fox for the Bishopric of Hereford, which was performed the same year ; and of which the Record was recovered from another place, according to the author of the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Sfth °e ^e s^ence t^ien °^ Cranmer's Register is no decisive proof Register, of the omission of this Consecration. For, as it has been very well observed by Francis Mason f, in his Defence of the Ministry of the Church of England, there are many others who have also been omitted, whose Consecrations are not- withstanding very certain. For instance, Gardiner's Conse- cration cannot be found in the Register of Canterbury : is it the less certain for that? That of Fox, as I have observed, was equally omitted. If the Record of it, which was found elsewhere, did not appear, should we have any better founda- tion for calling it in question, because the Register of Canterbury makes no mention of it? We see no mention made in Cranmer's Register of the Ordination of King, Suffragan Bishop of Lincoln B: yet we do not doubt that it was very real, and we even know that it took place in 1541. The author of a Letter which has lately been pub- lished on the Succession of the English Bishops, and who has himself consulted the Registers of Canterbury, gives account of a considerable number of omissions of the same kind. For, according to him, without mentioning Fox's and Gardiner's Consecrations, which are not found, how many others are omitted ? " h We confess," says this author, " that c Memorials of C runner, p. 37. 6 Memorials of Cranmer, p. 95. ' Vindiciae Eccl. Angl. lib. 3. c. 10. h Fatemur in Kegistro Cranmeri non P- 369. reperiri(_'onsecrationemBarlowii,sednee OMITTED IN CRANMER'S REGISTEK. Gl the Consecration of Barlow is not to be found in Cranmer's Register, nor yet those of several other Bishops, about whose Ordination, however, no one ever yet doubted. Such are those of Fox Bishop of Hereford, Sampson of Chichester, Bell of Worcester, Day of Chichester; all whose Consecrations, if I have not very hastily run over that Register, are entirely omitted. What shall I say of Gardiner Bishop of Winchester, Latimer of Worcester, White of Lincoln, Bayne of Lichfield Turberville of Exeter, Hopton of Norwich, Goldwell of St. Asaph, whose Confirmations and Consecrations, if I am not very much mistaken, are not to be found now in the Archicpiscopal Registers?" Silence, then, is no convincing proof, when we have from other sources positive facts which supply its absence, as in this case. There might, perhaps, be some objection made to these first Apparent authorities, because Wharton places Barlow's Consecration in difficulty- the year 1536, whereas all the others mention it 1535 : but this difference proceeds only from the different way of reckon- ing. Wharton beginning the year with the first of January, according to the new style, was obliged to place it in 1536 ; whereas the others following the English account, by which the year does not begin till the twenty-fifth of March, were equally obliged to fix it in 1535, because the Consecration having taken place in the month of February, the year 1536 was not yet begun. Nothing is more easy than to reconcile in this way authors who seem to contradict one another. But how, it may be Error of asked, can we reconcile with the other writers the author of strype- Cranmer's Life', who dates this Consecration on the twenty- aliorum plurimorum Episcoporum, dc chiepiscopalibus hoc tempore habentur ? quorum tameu Ordinatione nunquam De Vera ct nun Interrupta Episc. Ang. adhuc a quoquam fuit dul>itatum : Foxii Successione Epist. p. 16'. He-efordensis Episeopi, Sauipsouis Ci- ' It is a misfortune that must attend cestrensis, Belli Wigorniensis, Daii ordinary readers, in their perusal of the Cicestrensis, quorum omnium Conse- several laborious tracts published by crationes aut ego festinanter admodum Mr. Strype, to be led into errors ; few ilium Registrum percurri, aut in eo writers having committed more mistakes plane desiderantur. Quid dicam de than he has done, which weak or mali- Gardinero Wintoniensi, de Latimero cious adversaries may one time or Other Wigomiensi, de Whito Lincolniensi, dc make ill uses of. His writings will not Bayno Liclifeldensi, de Turbervillo always fall into the hands of such can- Exoniensi, Hoptono Norwicensi, Gold- did, judicious readers as our author is ; wcllo Asaphensi Episcopis ; quorum and therefore it would be an act of great aut ego egrcgie fallor, aut nec Confir- charity, or rather justice, to the public, matio nec Consecratio in Rcgistris Ar- and reputation to himself, to review 02 OTHER PROOFS chap, sixth of September 1535? I own it cannot be attempted, it : — being a plain error, as the conge cTvlire^ bears date only the seventh of January 153 J, and the election was made the sixteenth ; the Mandate to confirm and consecrate was not till the twenty-second of February. The cause of this author's mistake was, that having placed the Consecration of Fox Bishop of Hereford1 on the twenty-sixth of September 1535, and designing to acquaint his readers that the Record of it had not been inserted in the Registers, any more than that of Barlow's, he forgot to date the Consecration of the latter ; mentioning both together, as if both had been of the same date. But not to insist any more on these authorities, there are facts still more definite, which ascertain Barlow's Consecra- tion. 1. M. L'Abbe Renaudot and all the rest agree that in Henry the Eighth's reign, with the exception of the Oath of Obedience to the Pope, there was no innovation made in the statute of Consecration of Bishops. Nay further, by a law made in Eighth, the twenty-fifth year of this King, that is to say, in 1533, and consequently before Barlow's Consecration, all Archbishops and Bishops to whom the King's Mandate for Consecration is directed, are forbidden, under the penalties of a Praemunire, to delay more than twenty days to perform it. m"That — if any " Archbishop or Bishop — do not — consecrate with all due cir- " cumstancc — every such person as shall be so elected — within "twenty days next after the King's Letters Patents — shall " come into their hands, — (he) shall run in the dangers, pains " and penalties of the Estatute of Provision and Praemunire." Is it likely then that Barlow should exercise the office of a Bishop, during the remainder of that Prince's life, which was more than ten years, without any trouble given either to himself, or to the Bishops to whom the Mandate had been directed on the twenty-second of February 153^,, as appears by the Record of it which is found in Rymer's Collection n ? Investi- 2. 0 1 here omit the proof produced by some people in what he has already written; for I have our dispassionate author. D. W. ocular demonstration that his very nu- k Rymer, vol. 14. p. 558. merous escapes would make a competent 1 Memorials of Cranmer, p. 37. volume. Would he take leave of the m Statutes at large, vol. 1. p. 426. world with his retractations, how hene- This Statute is among the Proofs, ficcnt, how praiseworthy an attempt » Vol. 14. p. 55!). would that he! I can promise him large ° Here tlie learned author has thought collections on this subject. Here is a fit to cancel somewhat more than two complication of mistakes detected by pages, beginning at 2° in p. 51. of the OF BARLOW S CONSECRATION. 63 favour of Barlow's Ordination, taken from the restitution which was granted him to his temporalities; which restitution is not ordinarily granted till after the Consecration is certified by the Metropolitan to the King ; but since the Kings of Eng- land often dispensed with this usage, the argument is too weak not to be contested by those who are interested to con- fute the most solid arguments. But as for that drawn from the custom of the Bishops not sitting in Parliament until Seat in after their Consecration, this is what I must not omit ; since, ment" if it is not absolutely demonstrative, it is at least solid enough to form the strongest presumption in favour of Barlow's Con- secration. 3. In short, it is an indisputable fact, that although before BeforeEc1 Edward the Third, there are some examples of Bishops sitting Third?16 in Parliament before their Consecration, there is not one to be met with of their sitting there since his time, that is to say, for nearly 400 years ; and that all the English writers regard the usage to the contrary as having, in some measure, the force of a law. The author of the Polity of the Church of England sets down this order in express words : p Confirmati consecrantur ; et cum consccrati homagii juramentum Regi prce- stiterint, et Rex Mis vicissim suorum Episcopatuurn possessiones restituerit .... his honoribus potiuntur. Titidum habent Do- minorum ratione Baroniarum suis Episcopatibus annexarum, et prcecedentiam prcB aliis Regni Baronibus non modo in privatis congrcssibus, sed in supremo Regni Concilio, Parliamento. First the Consecration, next the homage, after this the investiture of their possessions ; and lastly, the enjoyment of the honours and prerogatives annexed to this dignity. Archbishop Bramhall explains all this to us more at large. Bramhaii. "The Chapter," says heq, "cannot elect without the King's Conge oVEslire. The King never grants Letters Patents for Confirmation and Consecration, until he have a certificate of the Dean and Chapter's Election. The Dean of the Arches never confirms until he have the King's Commission. The Archbishop never consecrates until the Election be confirmed. And lastly, the King never rcceiveth homage for the Bishopric, French Edition, and substituted this short paragraph [and the first two words of the next] in their stead. [D. W.] p Polit. Eccl. Angl. e. 5. p. 30, 40. q Bramhall's Works, vol. 1. p. 482. 64 SEAT IN PARLIAMENT. CHAP, or giveth the temporalities, nor the Dean and Chapter en- '■ — throne, until after the Consecration." And the Bishop cannot perform his ordinary jurisdiction, but as he is a consecrated Bishop, and after being invested. Burnet. Bishop Burnet, who must have been very well acquainted with the custom in this respect, attests the same thing in his History1. The rule is, according to him, that to have a seat in the House of Lords, it is necessary to present the King's War- rant by virtue of which one was put into possession of the temporalities ; and this Instrument, as we have seen, is not Private given but upon the certificate of Consecration. I have the same thing further confirmed to me quite lately by a letter from Daniel Pulteney, Esq. to one of my friends, of the twenty- seventh of March 1721. It says that, though there is no ex- press law on the subject, it is the established usage of England not to admit the Bishops to Parliament until after their Consecration. The same thing appears also from a letter s of an English scholar, who adds further, that according to the custom of that kingdom, when the new Bishop is not yet confirmed in his See, it is not he that is summoned to Par- liament, but the Ecclesiastic appointed by the Archbishop to exercise spiritual jurisdiction during the vacancy of the See ; who, in England, is styled Guardian of the Spiritualities4. Barlow But both in the Writs and in the Sessions of Parliament held edTth"" under Henry the Eighth, from the year 1536, Barlow was the rest, summoned with the rest, and was present there, not as Guardian of the Spiritualities, nor yet as Bishop "elect and confirmed", but purely and simply as Bishop, and even took precedence therein of other Bishops, who certainly had been consecrated. In Rymer's Collection" we have two Writs for calling Parliaments, one in 1536, the other in 1541. In both these the Bishop of St. David's, who then was Barlow, is summoned to it like the rest. He was consecrated then, at the latest, in the month of April 1536; for the Parlia- ment of this year was summoned the twenty-seventh of April". r History of the Reformation, vol. * N.B. The author ordered tw o lines 2. p. 404. to he omitted here which are in the 1 Some extracts from this letter will Original ; and some other little altera- be found among the Proofs. tions were also made at the close of * Cimtos spiritualitatis. this paragraph : this was thought too u Vol. 14. p. 563. and 737. inconsiderable to be inserted, as the PLACE IN CONVOCATION, 63 Mason7 adds, that in the Parliament of 1539, Barlow, then Sits. Bishop of St. David's, made his appearance in person twenty- seven times in the first Session, and fifteen times in the second. He was therefore consecrated before, and this fact is not to be doubted ofz. 4. At the same time with the Parliament of 1536 assembled in Convo- the Convocation of the Clergy, where several propositions were catlon' presented in order to be condemned, and where some articles were drawn up, which the King caused to be published in his name. This list was subscribed by eighteen Bishops, amongst whom Barlow's name appears as Bishop of St. David's3. His name is even placed before that of Robert Warton Bishop of St. Asaph, who was consecrated the second of July 1536. Barlow was therefore consecrated before him ; for under Henry the Eighth, in whose time the Eccle- siastical rules of this kind were observed with sufficient ex- actness, he never would have taken his place in the Convoca- tion, nor signed before a consecrated Bishop, if he had not himself been consecrated before. Moreover, he was present at the several Synods of 1537 '', of 1540, and 1552, and sub- scribed there as Bishop of St. David's and of Bath, without our finding that any difficulty was raised on the subject of his Consecration. But would he have been allowed to take place and subscribe before consecrated Bishops, if he had not been consecrated himself? And that the more, because the con- stant usage of England is1', that unconsecrated Bishops are not present at its Synods ; or if they are present, that they sit below the consecrated Bishops ; and that they do not take the name of Bishops without restriction, but simply that of Bishops elect and confirmed, both when they subscribe them- selves, and in the citations sent them. 5. But there is something stronger yet than this. There Conse- crates other alterations are, in the Appendix ; Mr. Williams's last note, however, he- others, nor was there so much as a hint given fore me, I have felt hound to print the of this in the first Edition, which was sentence as he gives it. Ed.] occasioned by some mistake or another. 3 Collier's Eccl. History of Great I). W. [The clause omitted is the Britain, vol. 2. p. 126, 127. following: "and moreover, as we have b [f Seethe [Preface to the] Institu- seen, the Act of Investiture bears date tion of a Christen Man.] [Reprinted April 2(i, 1 .330." Ed.] in " Formularies of Faith put forth by y Vindicue Eccl. Angl. p. 368. authority during the reign of Henry * [Instead of " consecrated — is not VIII: Oxford 1825." p. 21 — : seep, to be doubted of" the French has " cer- 27. Ed.] tainly consecrated — proves it." AVith c See the Proofs : [Art. IX.] F G6 FURTHER PROOFS chap, is a Record in Cranmer's Register of the Consecration of : — Arthur Bulkelcy as Bishop of Bangor. This ceremony was performed the nineteenth of February 154jd, namely, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, under whom the ancient Eccle- siastical rules for the Consecration of Bishops were still ex- actly observed, and after the law renewed by this same Prince in the twenty-fifth year of his reign, ordering that Bishops should he consecrated at the least by three Bishops. " e He ordained," says Sanders, " that no one elected a Bishop should seek Pontifical bulls, or the Apostolic Mandate con- cerning Consecration, but only exhibit the King's Diploma ; in pursuance of which being ordained by three Bishops, with the consent of the Metropolitan, he was ordered by an Act of Parliament, made in imitation of the ancient Canons, to be a true Bishop; nor was any one otherwise ordained to be acknowledged as such." It was undoubtedly well understood that the three consecrating Bishops must themselves have been consecrated; since, as Sanders remarks, Henry the Eighth in this onhy renewed the ancient Canons of the Church : ad imitationcm antiquorum canonum. But by the Canterbury Register, it is certain that in 15-H, Barlow was one of the Consecrators of Bulkeley, who, according to Cranmer's Commission f, was consecrated by John Bishop of Salisbury, William Barlow Bishop of St. David's, and John Bishop of Gloucester g. Would a Bishop not consecrated have been suffered in those times to officiate at such a solemnitv, and even to take precedence of the Bishop of Gloucester, who had been consecrated four months before h? 6. It is further proved by Parker's Register, that at the very first Ordination performed by that Prelate, viz. on the twenty-first of December 1,359, Barlow was one of the Con- secrators. But if he had not been consecrated, wiry was he not consecrated together with the rest? And can there be any 11 Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 27. esse verus Episcopus ; nec alio mods e Decrevit ne quisquam electus in ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci opor- Episcopum Bullas Pontificias sen man- tere. Sanderus de Schismate Anglicano, datum Apostolieum de consecratione lib. 3. p. 348. rcquireret, sed Regium tantum diploma ' This Commission [f or Mandate] aclfenet, secundum quod a tribus Epi- will be found in a letter of which some scopis cum consensu Metropolitae ordi- extracts are given among the Proofs, natus, jubebatur lege comitiorum, facta s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 95. ad imitationcm antiquorum canonum, '> Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 101. of barlow's consecration. 67 other reason assigned for this difference, but that given by the author of Parker's Life ? " Scory and Barlow," says he', "being Bishops before, needed no Consecration, but were confirmed in their new Bishoprics the day before, being St. Thomas' Eve." 7. A fresh proof of Barlow's Consecration may be drawn Ground of from an Instrument which is found in the Canterbury Registers. vacancy- In 1554, when Queen Mary had ascended the Throne, some Protestant Bishops, apprehensive of persecution, left England, and went over into foreign countries. If Barlow had not been consecrated, doubtless the See would have been declared vacant, ob nullitatem Consecr atiouis ejus, [by reason of the nullity of his Consecration,] as is said of Taylor Bishop of Lincoln k. Nevertheless, in the Commission drawn up by the Chapter of Canterbury for the government of the Church of Bath, during the vacancy of the See, it is said to be vacant, per liberam et spontaneam rcsignationem Domini Willielmi Barloxce, ultimi Episcopi ct Pastoris ejusdejn1; [t by the free and volun- tary resignation of W. Barlow, the last Bishop and Pastor of that Church.] This same clause is found in the conge oVelire directed to the Chapter of Bath by Queen Mary, dated the thirteenth of March 1554 : Per liberam et spontaneam res'ujna- tionem in manus nostras ultimi Episcopi ibidem"1; and in the Act of Investiture granted his successor. But this has never been said of any but consecrated Bishops. It is true that in the Mandate to confirm and consecrate his successor Bourne, it is stated that the See was vacant, Difficulty per deprivationcm etamotionem ultimi Episcopi ibidctn", [thy the an;,"Lret,• deprivation and removal of the last Bishop of that See.] But it is evident that these terms are here used 0 only, because, in order to take from him all hopes of being restored, he was condemned by a sentence to lose this Bishopric, which he had at first resigned, and of which it would have been useless to deprive him by a sentence, had it been known that he had not been consecrated. In fact, what proves that the See was really vacant by resignation, and not for want of Consecra- tion, is, that in the Instrument of Investiture given to his " The Life of M. Parker, p. 65. " [Ibid. p. 376.] k Ant. Harmer, p. 133. ° See the letters printed among the 1 Ibid. p. 185. Proofs. "' Hvmer, vol. 15. p. 369. F 2 68 NEGATIVE PROOT. chap, successor, and subsequent by more than a month to the — — — sentence supposed to have been passed, it is again said that the See was vacant by Barlow's resignation, per lilcram rcsig- nationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem?. Also that in the Register of the Chapter of Canterbury, the See is declared vacant by the resignation thereof which Barlow was obliged to make, on account of his being married : Bathon. et Well, vacavit per resignationem Wmi Barlowe conjugati, cui succcssit Gilbertus Bourne. All these facts are given among the Proofs, and from them arises an argument which may be regarded as a demonstration. For since the vacancy by resignation supposes the resigning Bishop consecrated, and since the deposition is attributed to his marriage, and not to want of Consecration, it follows evidently that the Records which prove the resigna- tion or deposition of Barlow, prove evidently his Consecration. But such are the facts given, and the proofs thereof are still in existence. There is, then, no room to doubt of the Conse- cration of Barlow. Negative 8. Finally, a last proof of this Consecration, but which is proof. Qf nQ jcgs force tnan tne rest, though only a negative one, is drawn from the silence which was kept on this subject at the time when Barlow was accused of heresy, for having denied the necessity of Ordination. And in fact, is there one author found who, during more than seventy years, accused him of usurping the Episcopate without Consecration ? Was it ever objected to him during an Episcopate of more than thirty years, that he had exercised the functions of a Bishop without possessing the sacramental stamp of Consecration? Have not both Catholics and Protestants acknowledged him a true Bishop? and is he not supposed really consecrated in the sentence for depriving him ? In a word, is there the least admission, or the least authentic testimony of those times, to support an accusation which is founded only on the want of a Record, whose loss may be ascribed to an infinity of causes, and is no prejudice to any other Consecration than Barlow's, although common to many other Bishops together with him? Let who will believe it, but the omission of re- proaches and accusations in such a case, is infinitely more in favour of Barlow's Consecration than the loss of such a p [Rymer, vol. 15. p. 3S4.] THi: WANT OF THE RECORD SUPPLIED. 69 Record can be hurtful. I3ut even though all these proofs taken separately should not appear so convincing as they really are, the putting them together forms a presumption so strong in favour of the Consecration of Barlow, that they ought to pass for a demonstration, and the loss of the Record not be allowed in any manner to prejudice it. CHAP. IV. ANSWER TO THE REASONS ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS [Seep.58.] PROVE NOTHING AGAINST BARLOw's CONSECRATION. The first reason insisted upon is drawn from the impossi- First ob- bility of finding the Record of his Consecration. This has Jection- already been answered beforehand, by producing several Instruments which abundantly supply the loss of that one. For a negative argument has weight only so far as nothing is brought to supply the want of the testimonials judged neces- sary. But the Record in question is here supplied in different Record ways. 1. By the positive testimonies of Godwin, Wharton, suPPhed- and some others. 2. By acts which, according to the usage and government of the Church of England, all suppose Consecration ; such is the Investiture, the seat in Parliament, the Consecration of other Bishops, and different Episcopal functions, of which we have given the proofs. 3. By a silence on the other side, which tells more in favour of the Consecration than the other does against it; and this silence is proved by Barlow's having never been reproached with this want of Consecration either on the part of the Prince, or on that of his own Church, or even on that of the Catholics; and because when the old Bishops refused to acknowledge the new ones, they did not allege the want of Consecration in Barlow, but only the defectiveness of the new Form, and the non-observation of the laws of the Realm in these first Ordinations. Barlow's Consecration, then, passed for certain, and was contested by no one at the time, however decisive this argument against the new Bishops would have been, had it been supported by the least shadow of truth. 4. By the acknowledgment even of his enemies, who owned him a Bishop, who treated him as a brother, who accepted 70 ANSWER TO CHAMPXEY. CHAP. his resignation, and who in the sentences of deprivation gave ' — him the title of ultimus illius sedis Episcopus, the last Bishop of that See ; which they would never have done if he had not been consecrated. 5. Lastly, by examples of similar omissions which have never thrown doubt on the Ordination of those whose Record of Consecration either has not been entered in the Register, or has not been found. Why then doubt any more of Barlow's Ordination than of that of the others ? From all this I conclude, that the loss of the Record of Barlow's Consecration cannot in the least prejudice it, because silence has weight only where no opposite Record is produced to destroy it. But in the present case, the silence is destroyed, or, to speak more properly, is supplied, by a number of Records that attest the Ordination. No conclu- sion, then, can be drawn against Barlow's Consecration from the want of its being registered. G'hampney But, says Champneya, all he did was without power, and answered. sjmp]y as an Usufructuary, and all his functions prove nothing, because he might have performed the same without being a Bishop. To answer such reasons as these is almost useless. Even though I should produce the Record which is judged necessary, what would hinder such adversaries from accusing it of being supposititious? from maintaining that it has been forged since the time? from saying that the Registers have been falsified, and that nothing which comes from a suspected hand ought to be trusted ? There is no demonstration in the case of historical facts which is proof against such obstinacy. When the genuineness of Instruments is denied, merely because it is one's interest that they should be false, there is an end of all disputation. This is the last resource of those who have no reasons to produce. They will have the Record of Parker's Consecration to be false, because it is necessary that it should be so to maintain their cause: even should we produce that of Barlow's, since they have the same interest, there is ground to believe it would meet with no better reception. But let the instrument be wanting or found, it is sufficient to prove his Consecration certain, that he could not have concealed or omitted it without exposing himself to the reproaches of the ■ De VocaSone Minist. p. 191. SECOND OBJECTION. 71 public ; and that, nevertheless, he always performed the functions of a Bishop without any one's having ever accused him of it, at the very time when they were most interested to dispute his Episcopate. Besides, how reconcile with the quality of a simple Usufructuary the conge d'clirc, the Letters Patent for his Confirmation, the order to consecrate him, the Acts of Investiture, the leasings and alienations, all functions annexed by the laws of the kingdom to the Episcopal char- acter? Believe it who can; but, for myself, I do not see the least shadow of probability in it. The second reason appears stronger: because the silence is Second supported by some documents, which seem to decide that Bar- ' jec 10 low had never been consecrated. The first is the Commission addressed to Matthew Parker in 1559, to install Barlow in the See of Chichester, in which Commission Queen Elizabeth orders him to be consecrated. hRegina, fyc. . . . Rogantes . . . et mandantes quatenus eundem Magistrum Willielmum Barloo Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesice prcedictce consecrare, cceteraque omnia et singula peragere . . . velitis. The entire Instrument will be found in the Appendix, among the Proofs. Whence it is concluded, that if Barlow had been already consecrated in 1536, the Queen would not have given a Commission to Parker in 1559 to perform this Consecration. This proof of Barlow's want of Consecration becomes so much the more pressing, because when the business was merely to translate Bishops already consecrated, Rymer's Collection furnishes us with a number of Instruments in which the Mandate empowers the Metropolitan, simply to confirm and invest, and not to consecrate. This appears by the Instruments of translation0 of Thirlby to the Bishopric of Ely, of Grindal to the Archbishopric of York, of Sandys to the Bishopric of London, of Barnes to the Bishopric of Carlisle, of Guest to the Bishopric of Salisbury, of Freake to the Bishopric of Norwich, and of many others, which give merely a power to confirm, authorize, install, invest, coiifir- mare, auctorisare, intronizare, investire, and reserve the term consecrare for those who were not as yet Bishops, as ap- pears by the Mandates3 drawn up for Richard Davys, " Rymer, vol. 15. p. 550. 0!)0. 7-19. 1 Ibid. vol. 15. p. 404. 681. 6&3, 684. J Ibid. p. 551, 552. 555. 561. 569. 72 consecrare" often inserted chap. Rowland Meyrick, Richard Cox, John Jewel, Henry Morgan e, : — Nicholas Bullingham, William Alley, and a hundred more, whose Instruments are found in Rymer's copious Collec- tion. This second reason appears alone decisive to Monsieur L'Abbe Renaudot, because he believes falsely that the facts on which it is founded are incontestable, and supposes without reason, that Barlow's Consecration really followed the Mandate directed to Parker, dated the eighteenth of December 1559, to consecrate him. This reason would, in reality, overwhelm the maintainers of Barlow's Consecration, if the exactness of this Instrument could be warranted ; and if, too, the same Collection, which furnishes us with it, did not at the same time supply us wherewith to destroy it, and to demonstrate that the terms which cause the difficulty are but a matter of style, to which the secretaries have often paid no attention, without To prove this, there arc two convincing means. The first, foice. fjjgj. jn scvcnu Mandates directed to the Metropolitans, to confirm the translation of Bishops already consecrated, and to install them, the term consecrare is found, as if they had not been already consecrated. The second, that in other Man- dates, drawn up for the Confirmation and Consecration of new Bishops, the term consecrare has been omitted, as if they had been consecrated already. This reason, therefore, which at first appeared decisive, falls of itself ; and to destroy it utterly, we need only collect the facts dispersed through Rymer's Collection. Consecmrc In 1534, John Capon, or Salcot, was consecrated Bishop "essiy"eed" °f Bangor, April the nineteenth, which is proved by Cranmer's Register^ We even find there the names of the assistant Bishops, who were the Bishops of Lincoln and of Sidon. In 1539, this same Bishop was translated to Salisbiuy. All this was under Henry the Eighth, when they were in no mind to disallow the Ordinations performed by Cranmer since the Schism. Nevertheless, in the Mandate addressed to this Prelate, to confirm the translation of the Bishop of Bangor to Salisbury, it is directed that he should consecrate him, &Fir- miter vobis mandantes quatenus prmfatum Johamiem Capon ' [Read, Thomas Yonge. Henry p. 561. Ed.] Morgan was his predecessor, deprived f Memorials of Cranmer, p. 30. by Elizabeth. See Rymer, vol. 15. 5 Rymer, vol. 14. p. 641. WITHOUT OCCASION. 73 Sarum electum, ct electioncm pradictam confirmare, ct eundem Johanncm Capon in Episcopum Sarum consecrare, prout moris est, cater aque perayere Sfc. In 1544, Nicholas He the Bishop of Rochester was re- moved to Worcester by Henry the Eighth. He had been consecrated the fourth of April 1540, by the Bishops of Win- chester, Chichester, St. Asaph, and Hereford, by a Commission from Cranmer'1. Yet in the Letters addressed to that Pre- late to confirm this Bishop in his new See, it is said that he is to be consecrated. ' Quocirca vobis mandamus quod ccetera omnia qua: per vos ad Confirmationem et Consecrationem ejusdem in dicto Episcopatu fieri consueverunt .... facere velitis. Henry Holbeche Bishop of Rochester ,; had been consecrated the eighteenth of June 1544. He was translated to Lincoln in 1547. And yet, as if he had not been already consecrated, the mandate to Cranmer directs that he should perform all things requisite for the new Elect's Confirmation and Conse- cration. xAd Confirmationem et Consecrationem. In 1584, William Wickham was made Bishop of Lincoln™, and consecrated the sixth of December the same year. He was translated to the See of Winchester in 1595. It was not now necessary to consecrate him, for that had been done already. Yet the mandate to Whitgift directs that Prelate to invest and consecrate him. " Quatenus vos pj-cedictum .... electum, investire et consecrare . . . velitis. In 1595, Matthew Hutton Bishop of Durham was trans- lated to the See of York. He had been consecrated Bishop of Durham on the twenty-seventh of July 1589°. Never- theless, in the mandate to Whitgift for his inthronization, he is ordered to confirm, invest, and consecrate him. p Electioncm prcedictam coiifirmare, ac eundem Arckiepiscopum et Pastorem Ecclesice prcedictai investire ct consecrare. Hugh Bellot, or Billett, was consecrated Bishop of Bangor on the thirtieth of January 1585 q. He was translated to Chester in 1595. The Letters Patent for installing him are directed to the Archbishop of York, and, as if he had never h Memorials of Cranmer, p. 90. Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 142. 1 Rymer, vol. 15. p. 12. " Rymer, vol. 10'. p. 2«9. k Reg. Cranmer. and Fasti Eccl. ° Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 350. Angl. p. 251. p Rymer, vol. 16. p. 270. i Rymer, vol. 15. p. 153. " The Life of Whitgift, p. 245. m The Life of Whitgift, p. 215. and 71 "consecrare" often omitted CHAP, had Consecration, they order that he should be consecrated. — — 1 Et eundem Hugonem Episcopum et Pustorem sedis pradictat consecrare. This Bishop held the Sec only two years. Richard Yaughan, who had succeeded him in the See of Bangor, succeeded him again in that of Chester in 1597. lie had been consecrated Bishop of Bangor the twenty-fifth of January 1.596 s, and yet the Mandate to the Archbishop of York to confirm his trans- lation, and to install him in this new See, directs him to be consecrated ; * Eundem Rickardum Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesia? Ccstricn. pradicta; consecrare. Lastly, not to multiply here a greater number of examples, John Thornborough was translated from Limerick to Bristol. He had been already consecrated. Yet the Commission to Whitgift directs, that he shall confirm and consecrate him; uCoirfirmare et . . . consecrare. But this Consecration was not performed, because, as the author of Whitgift's Life observes x, he was already consecrated. Omitted But if in the Mandates addressed by the Prince to the wanted Metropolitans, the term consecrare is often found when un- necessary, often also has it been omitted when necessary, that is, when new Bishops who had never been consecrated were concerned. This same Collection of Rymer's furnishes us with many equally authentic proofs of this also. In 1571, Thomas Cowper Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, was nominated to the Bishopric of Lincoln by Queen Eliza- beth. He had not been consecrated before, and underwent the ceremony on the twenty-fourth of February of the same year>:. \et in the Mandate to Parker, to confirm and conse- crate the new Bishop, there is no mention of the Consecra- tion. z Mandantes quatcnus vos — clectionem Mam coiifirmare, et eundem Episcopum et Pastorem Eccles'm pradicta auctorizare, et investire, cceteraque omnia et singula perarjere — velitis. William Bradbrige Dean of Salisbury, was the same year elected Bishop of Exeter, and according to Parker's Register11, was consecrated on the eighteenth of March 157". ' Rymer, vol. 16. p. 281. 5 The Life of Whitgift, p. 487. 1 Rymer, vol. 16. p. 317. u Ibid. p. 519. 1 The Life of Whitgift, p. 584. * The Life of Parker, p. 316. z Rymer, vol. 15. p. 690. ' The Life of Tarker, p. 316. WHERE REALLY NEEDED. 75 The Mandate for this Consecration is dated the twenty-sixth of the preceding February, and there is no more mention made in it of Consecration than if it had been already per- formed. There is mention, as in the preceding case, only of authorizing and investing : b Auctorizare et investire. In 1573, William Hughes, Doctor in Divinity, was nomi- nated to the Bishopric of St. Asaph, and was consecrated the thirteenth of December the same year c. Yet in the Mandate of the eleventh of December, directed to Parker for this Con- secration, mention is made, as in the former cases, only of authorizing and investing, d auctorisare et investire. In 1577, John May, Doctor in Divinity, was elected Bishop of Carlisle, and was consecrated the twenty-ninth of Sep- tember6. Nevertheless, in the Mandate, dated the ninth of August preceding, and directed to Sandys Archbishop of York, the Consecration is not mentioned, or at least it can be so only very implicitly. ' Electionem prcedictam coirfirmare, cceteraque omnia et singula peragere et per implore &c. Toby Matthews was nominated to the Bishopric of Durham in 1595 g. He had not been consecrated before, being only, when he was appointed, simple Doctor of Divinity : yet, in the Mandate directed to Hutton Archbishop of York to consecrate him, there is no mention made of Consecration, but simply of Confirmation and Institution. h Electionem prcedictam corifirmare, et cundem — Episcopum et Pastorcm Ecc/e- sicB pradictce institucre, cceteraque omnia et singula facer e Sfc. More examples would be needless; and supposing the Instruments published by Rymer to be faithfully transcribed, these would be sufficient of themselves to shew that the term consecrate, found in the Mandate to install Barlow in the See of Chichester, would not prove that he had not been consecrated before. For, in short, the use or omission of this expression, can prove nothing against Barlow, if it has been used where it was needless, and omitted where it was wanted. But it is evident from the facts related, and all established by the most authentic Registers and Instruments, that this ^ Rymer, vol. 15. p. 090. ' Rymer, vol. 15. p. 780. c The Life of Parker, p. «!). B Fasti Ecel. Angl. p. 350. d Rymer, vol. 15. p 729. " Rymer, vol. 1G. p. 272. c Fasti Ecel. Angl. p. 335. 70 THE OBJECTION ITSELF ch^ap. expression has been thus used and omitted. This pretended 1 — demonstration, then, of M. L'Abbe Renaudot fails altogether, and cannot so much as give solidity to a conjecture, much less form a convincing proof. The Com- But without stopping to ward off the force of this Instru- miseopied. ment, — to make it favourable to me, I have only to restore it to its primitive purity; then, far from being obliged to defend Barlow's Ordination against it, the document itself will become a proof against those who would draw advantage from it against the Consecration of Barlow. For a recent author, who has lately consulted both Parker's Register and the Archives of the Tower', whence Rymer copied this Instrument, assures us, that he has made a mistake in tran- scribing it ; that the term consecrare is not to be found either in the Register or in the Archives of the Tower, and that the error proceeds solely from Rymer, who has copied this Instru- ment incorrectly. I cannot forbear giving his own words, though a little long, because they are too important to be omitted. "kBut to dwell no longer upon conjectures," says this author, "I positively affirm, that in this case there was no error in the Royal Mandate : whatever fault there was, was all Rymer's ; who inspecting at the same time seven mandates of altogether the same tenor, did not accurately enough observe that five of them required both ; namely, that the Bishops nominated in them should be both confirmed and consecrated; that two (namely, those which related to Barlow and Scory) required only that they should be confirmed." The difference this author notices between these Instru- ments, evidently confirms the opinion generally received of Barlow's Consecration ; and to establish the proof of this difference, - he proceeds in these words: "'I here appeal to 1 [So the French. Mr. Williams Barlovium atque Seonrum pertinebant) has " the Records in the Chapel at the id solum requisivisse ut conrirmarentur. Rolls." Ed.] — De Vera et von Jnterrupta Episc. k Sed ne ex conjecturis diutius agam, Angl. Success. Epist. p. 17. fidentcr asscro nullum in Mandate Re- 1 Testes hie appello Actapublica, non gio, hoc in casu, errorem fuisse: culpa solum Registrum Parkeri. in quo utrum- quaecunque fuerit, tota fuit Rymeri, qui que instrumcntum fideliter inseritur, sed septem ejusdem prorsus tenoris Man- ipsum Rotulum, unde utrumque (licet data simul inspiciens, non satis accurate erronee) exscripsit Rymerus. In utro- observavit, eorum quinque utrumque que corum quicquid de consecratione exegisse, scilicet ut Episcopi in illis sive Barlovii sive Seoraei in Rymero nominati et confirmarentur et conse- legitur, omnino omittitur; nec aliud crarentur; duo (ea scilicet qua? ad quidquam Archiepiscopo demandatur, FOUNDED ON A MISTAKE IN COPYING. 77 the public Records as witnesses; not only to Parker's Register, in which both Instruments are faithfully inserted, but to the very Roll itself, whence Rymer (though erroneously) trans- cribed it. In both these, whatever is found in Rymer of the Consecration either of Barlow or of Scory, is altogether omitted ; nor is there any thing further required of the Archbishop, but that he should confirm them Bishops of Chichester and Hereford. For the sake of critics, I will faithfully transcribe the very words of the Royal Commission as inserted in the Roll and the Register. Rorjantcs ac— mandantes, quatenus eumdem May. Guil. Barlo in Episccpum et Pastorcm Ecclesia Cathedralis Cicestrensis prccdictm (sicut preefertur) Election, electionemque prcedictam coiifirmare, ccete- raque omnia peragerc — velitis. What the Queen commanded, the Archbishop performed: he confirmed both Barlow and Scory, but consecrated neither." It is therefore building in the air, to rest the defect of Consecration in Barlow upon what is an error of the transcriber, disproved by an inspection of the Instrument itself, and by all the facts relating to it. For, to make this Mandate, such as it is given by Rymer"1, at least raise a suspicion that Barlow had not as yet been consecrated, it would be necessary to produce some proof of the Consecration of this Prelate by Parker, drawn either from Parker's own Register, or from some Instruments of equal authority. How- ever, neither Parker's Register, nor the writer of his life, nor the author of the Fasti Ecclcsice Anglicana, nor any one else that I know of, makes the least mention of it, while several declare positively the contrary. Amongst others, a contemporary author, who has written Testi- on the Antiquities" of the British Church, whom some believe mome to have been Parker himself, and whose work was published first at London in the year 1572, during Parker's life, speaks nisi ut eos in Episcopos Cicestrensem Regina mandavit, prsestitit Archiepi- atque Herefordenscm confirmaret. Ver- scopus: confirmavit utrumque, Barlo- ba ipsa Brcvium Regiorum, prout in vium atque Scorauun ; ncutrum conse- Rotulo atqne Registro ponuntur, in cravit. + Ibid. p. IS. Aristarehi gratiam fideliter apponam. ,n Vol. lo. p. 5.30. Rogantes ac—mandantes, quatenus turn- n [Read, Antiquity. The title of the dem Mag. Will Barlo in Episcopum el work is : " De Antiquitate Rritannicae Paslorcm Eccle>irr Cathedralis Ciecstren- Ecclesia? et Privileges Ecclesia? Can- sis prtrdicta; (sicut prafertur) Elcctum, tuaiiensis, cum Archiepiscopis cjusdem electionemque prtrdictam conftrmare, ett- LXX. Historia." Ed.] ttraque omnia pcragere — velitis. Quod 78 CORROBORATIVE TESTIMONY. positively only of Barlow's Confirmation, and says nothing of - his Consecration. " °In the first year of his Consecration," says he, " he (Parker) consecrated eleven and confirmed two " Bishops of his Province at Lambeth. The Bishops that " were consecrated are these ; Grindal, Cox, Sandys, Jewel, " Barkley, Bentham, Meyrick, Yong, Davis, Bullingham, " Guest. In the same year were confirmed, William Barlow, " who in the reign of Edward the Sixth was Bishop of Bath " and Wells, requested for Chichester, and John Scory " translated from Chichester, which he had held in the reign " of the said King Edward, to the See of Hereford." This Life of Parker, which was annexed to several copies of the edition of 1572, of the Antiquities of the British Church, and which Mr. Strype has had reprinted in the Appendix to his Life of this Prelate, is not found in the Hanau edition of 1605; but this cannot concern this fact, since there is pre- served in this last Edition p a Table of the Ordinations performed by Parker up to the year 1571, wherein it is set down, that he only confirmed Barlow and Scory. Camden, a well-informed and almost contemporary writer, whom I have already quoted on the subject, says also, in positive terms, that Parker only confirmed Barlow. " <> He " afterwards," says he, " consecrated Edmund Grindal. . . . " He also confirmed William Barlow, who in the reign " of Henry the Eighth had been Bishop of St. David's and " afterwards of Bath, in the Bishopric of Chichester, and " John Scory, a learned and judicious man, who had formerly "been Bishop of Chichester, in the See of Hereford." Godwin, the author of the Fasti Ecclesiat Anglicana,* and all the rest who have made mention of this translation, speak in ° Primo Consecrationis suae anno, 153, 154. (Parkerus) Lamethi saeravit untie- p Ed. Hanovia?, p. 39. [Ed. Lond. cim et eonfirmavit duos in sua Provin- 1729, p. 55.] cia Episcopos. Episeopi qui consecrati q Ille postea consecravit Edmundum fuerunt sunt hi: Grindal, Cox, Sands, Grindallum, — Confinnavit autem Gui- Juell, Barcley, Bentham, Mericke, lielmum Barlovum (qui regnante Hen- Yong, David, Bullingham, Ghest. rico VIII. fuerat Mcnevcnsis, et postea Eodem anno confirmati sunt Gulielnms Bathoniensis) in Cieestrensem, et Jo- Barloe, regnante Edwardo Rege Ba- annem Scorium, virum erudito judicio, thoniensis et Wellensis Episcopus, ad qui prius fuerat Cicestrensis, in Here- Episcopatum Cieestrensem postulatus, fordensem. Camden. Annul. Eliz. p. el Johannes Scorye a Cicestrensi Epi- 38. [p. 49. Ed. Heurn.~\ scopatu, quern codem Edwardo Rege ' Godwin de Praesulibui Anglia?, p. gesserat, ad sedem Herefordensem. 562. and Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 58. Appendix In Strype' i Life of Parker, p. 11ESULT. . ANOTHER OBJECTION". 7'.) like manner only of Confirmation, and not at all of Conse- cration, any more than the late author of Parker's Life, who has faithfully followed testimonies so worthy of belief; and who assures us, as we have seen, that s"Scory and Barlow being Bishops before, needed no Consecration, but were con- firmed in their new Bishoprics the day before, being St. Thomas' Eve." And from all these testimonies united, I Result, form this argument, to which Monsieur Renaudot could not have made any solid answer, since it is drawn from his own principles. That Consecration is chimerical of which no proof is found, of which no Record can be discovered, of which no mention is made, either in the public Registers, or in any Instruments equivalent to them, and which on the contrary is destroyed by opposite Instruments and testimonies. But such is the pretended Consecration of Barlow by Parker. The only difference between. M. L'Abbe Renaudot's argument and mine is, that the silence has here so much the more weight, because there is nothing to supply its place, but, on the contrary, every thing to strengthen it : whereas the want of the Record of Barlow's Consecration by Cranmer is sup- plied by a number of Instruments and equivalent proofs. Thus all the monuments and testimonies of all the contem- porary and following writers agree in certifying or supposing Barlow's Consecration in the year 153g, that is to say, when he was Bishop of St. Asaph ; and we see scarcely any thing to raise in our minds a suspicion of the contrary; unless they will oppose to us two Instruments given by Rymer, which might perhaps be insisted on, in default of more satisfactory proofs, objection. If Barlow, say they, was consecrated, it must have been in the month of April 1536, since, if there be any weight in the proofs alleged, we find facts which suppose his Consecration at that time ; and if he was not then consecrated, there is no likelihood that he ever was. But by two Instruments found in Rymer's Collection4, it plainly appears that Barlow ■was not as yet consecrated. These two Instruments are the conge d'elirc of Robert Warton to the Bishopric of St. Asaph, dated the twenty-ninth of May 1536, and the Mandate directed to Cranmer to consecrate him, dated the ■ Life of Parker, p. C3. 1 Vol. 14. p. 570. These two Instruments are given among the Proofs.' ANSWER : CONSECRATED BISHOPS chap, twenty-fourth of June in the same year. In these two — — — Instruments the See is declared vacant, by the translation of William Barlow, ultimi Episcopi ibidem Electi: these are the words of the Instruments. But if Barlow, say they, had been consecrated in April 1536, it is certain they would not have given him the title of Episcopi ibidem Electi, it being without precedent in Instruments of this kind, that Bishops already consecrated should be called simply Elect. And in fact, among all the great number of Instruments of the transla- tions of Bishops already consecrated which Rymcr's Collection contains, no one is found conformable to these ; and in vain, according to all appearances, should we seek one elsewhere. Answer. I cannot but acknowledge, that the two Records which, speaking of the See of St. Asaph, style Barlow Episcopi ibidem Electi, are very singular ; but we must not be astonished at it, since it is very rare to see a Bishop translated to another See, before he has been installed in the former, and in the space of 200 years England scarcely furnishes two or three examples of this kind. But be the case as it ma}', it is certain, nevertheless, that the term Bishop Elect docs not necessarily imply the want of Consecration. In fact, Champney himself owns, that a Bishop, though consecrated, may yet retain the name of a Bishop Elect, until such time as he is installed, that is to say, until he has been put into full possession of all rights, spiritual and temporal, belonging to his Bishopric. "uIt cannot," says he, "be concluded from Parker's being called Archbishop Elect, that he was not then consecrated at all, but only that he was not inthroned in his See, as it is necessary to think of Barlow and Scory, who are only called Bishops Elect." Thomas Wardx, although as much opposed as Champney, to the validity of the English Ordinations, makes the same acknowledgment. But it is certain that Barlow was never installed in the Bishopric of St. Asaph, but having been translated to the See of St. David's, before he was installed in the former, was never able to bear any other title than that of Bishop Elect of his first See. The true u Non potest ex eo, quod Pavkerus qui Episcopi tantum electi dicuntur, dicatur Archiepiscopus electus, col'.igi, necesse est sentire. De J'ocatione ilium non fuisse tunc oninino sacratum, Minist. cap. 14-. p. .506. sed tantum non fuisse in sua Cathedra * The Controv. of Ordination, p. 64. inthronizatum, ut de Scoreo et Barloo, SOMETIMES CALLED BISHOPS ELECT. 8 1 reason, then, why in the two Instruments objected to us, he does not bear the title of Bishop of St. David's, but that of Bishop Elect of St. Asaph, although he had certainly been con- secrated, is that the business being to give him a successor in this last See, and not in that of St. David's, and he having never been installed, he was obliged to take the name of Bishop of St. Asaph, where they were giving him a successor, and of that to bear the title of Bishop Elect, according to the usage of the kingdom, because he had not been installed in that See. To put this reply out of doubt, it needs only to be con- A parallel firmed by an example which is so much the more convincing, ca>,e' because it is drawn from a case altogether parallel with that of Barlow. In the year 1633, after the death of Godwin Bishop of Hereford, William Juxon had been chosen to succeed him in that See. Before he was consecrated and installed, he was translated to London. He was confirmed in this new See the twenty-third of October 1633, and conse- crated the twenty-seventh. Augustine Lyndsell, Bishop of Peterborough, succeeded him in the See of Hereford the seventh of March following. The King consented to his Election the twenty-first of March 163J, and on the twenty- fourth he was confirmed by Archbishop Laud. Now in the Act as well of the Election as of the Confirmation of Lyndsell, Juxon, although consecrated and confirmed in the See of London, is all along styled Bishop Elect of Hereford, as persons may satisfy themselves by inspecting the Regis- ter of Laud ; as well as by several Instruments of the same tenor with this: vCiim scdes Episcopalis Herefordensis, tarn per mortem naturalem Francisci Godwin nuper Episcopi ibidem, ac per promotionem Reverendi in Christo Patris Willmi Juxon in Episcopum ibidem Electi ad Episcopatum Londonicnscm, nuper vac.averit, Sfc. Should we have any right to conclude from these words that Juxon was not at that time consecrated, when we have the Record of his Consecration, prior by four months? And if Juxon could be called Bishop Elect of Hereford four months after he had been consecrated and installed Bishop of London, how can the title of Bishop Elect of St. Asaph, given to Barlow, who, besides, in the Act of his translation to St. David's is always called absolutely z y Regist. Laud. f. 28. (i. • Reg. Cranmer. f. 205. G 82 SUPPOSED COLLUSION chap. Episcopus Assavensis, without the addition of the word — Electus, how, I say, can the title of Bishop Elect of St. Asaph, given to Barlow, prove that he was not consecrated two months befoi-e ? Further It is therefore false that it is unprecedented for Bishops mati'on. already consecrated to be styled Bishops Elect ; and if there be no Instrument of this kind found in Rymer's great Collec- tion, it is because such translations as these are very uncommon, because his Collection does not reach so far as the time of Juxon, and because notwithstanding its extensiveness, many Instruments have not failed to escape his researches. More- over, although we do not find there any Instrument of this kind, it is nevertheless untrue that Bishops consecrated are never called there simply Bishops Elect, since in almost all the Acts of Investiture published by this author3, the new Bishop after his Consecration is styled only clecti ct coiifirmati, and not consecrati ; which proves to a demonstration, that the term Electus does not always imply a want of Consecration. We conclude then from all this, that the public Instruments prove nothing against Barlow's Consecration; and that the obscurity of a single Instrument, which moreover might rather make one doubt concerning his Election to a subsequent Bishopric, than of his Consecration, cannot prejudice so many others, which carry their own conviction with them, and are incapable of any different interpretation. Objection. Before I finish this chapter, I must not omit an objection which is brought from the possibility of a collusion, which they suppose there was between Cranmer and Barlow, to conspire together to omit this ceremony. As these two Prelates were of very Presbyterian sentiments, and did not acknowledge the necessity of Consecration, nor the efficacy of the Sacrament of Orders, it is very possible, they say, on this supposition, that Cranmer, who knew Barlow's sentiments with respect to the inutility and inefficacy of Ordination, and his aversion to the ceremonies of the Pontifical, and who, moreover, was of the same opinion himself, — it is very possible that, in concert with Barlow, Cranmer may have omitted this a Rymer, vol. 14. p. 487. 527. 550. [651. 65G.] 71C, &c. See the extracts [552.553 (twice). 561.] 573 [twice]. of letters given among the Proofs. 580. [583. 601.] 642. [643. 644.] 650. BETWEEN CRANMER AND BARLOW. 83 ceremony as superstitious, and have given him letters of insti- tution and installation, hy means of which he was put in possession, and in consequence of this, enjoyed the title, held the rank, received the investiture and the honours, and performed the functions of a Bishop, and was translated from one Bishopric to another, without any one's taking exception against him, before the reign of Queen Mary, when he was obliged to retire. This supposition, which at first was but possible, becomes in the eyes of some very probable, by reason of the impossibility there has been of finding the Record of his Consecration ; and this probability, say they, at once renders useless all the facts alleged, since without being consecrated he might have done all it is supposed he did do. This conjecture is very ingenious, and has, in truth, all the Answer, force a conjecture can have; but after all it is but a conjecture against facts ; and how favourable soever be the supposition which is made to support it, I do not find that the omission of Consecration is very possible. For, in short, if the affair in question was to have been acted between Cranmer and Barlow alone, the conjecture might have some appearance of probability; but ceremonies of this kind cannot take place in a clandestine manner. There were required at least three Bishops by the Statute of 1533. There were required certifi- cates of Consecration, in order to obtain the Investiture. If the thing was unknown, would no one have protested? And if it was known, were they not bound to protest still more strongly? In a thing impossible to be concealed, would Cranmer and Barlow have exposed themselves for their entertainment to the penalties of a Praemunire ? It was not above three years before, that the Bishops had been obliged, under the penalties annexed to that law, to be consecrated by three Bishops. Henry the Eighth was the more strict in having the new laws observed, because, notwithstanding his schism, he was an enemy to innovators. Was it an easy thing to impose upon him in a matter which is always very public, and which other Bishops were interested to detect? Besides, supposing it could be concealed from the King, was it possible it could be concealed from his Church? And, is it possible that no one should have urged against him even g 2 S4 SUPPOSED COLLUSION CHAP, the least suspicions, or at least that they should have been so — — — stifled, that none should have reached our time. Further This consideration also supplies us with a strong argument proo . favour Qf Bai-low's Consecration, which I have already touched upon in the preceding chapter. For, in the year 1537, he found in his own Church accusers who taxed him with heresy, and he was charged with having advanced, among other propositions, this following: '"'If the King's Grace, being Supreme Head of the Church of England, did choose, denominate and elect any Layman, being learned, to be a Bishop, That he, so chose?i, icitliout mention made of any Orders, should he as good a Bishop as he is, or the best in England.'" Now does not this proposition, be it never so heretical, prove evidently that he had been consecrated himself? Besides, if he had not been consecrated, would those same persons who accused him of advaucing heresy for maintaining that Ordination was unnecessary, have omitted to reproach him with making himself pass for a Bishop, with- out ever having been consecrated? Yet we see no trace of any such reproach; and Gardiner, who afterwards caused him to be deposed, treats him without scruple as Bishop of St. David's, and calls him Brother, in a letter which he wrote to the Duke of Somerset c, which he certainly would not have done, if he had not known that he had been consecrated. Barlow's I readily concede then, that Cranmer and Barlow were of practice. ^e Presbyterian sentiments with respect to Episcopacy. Who can deny it, after having read their answers to the questions proposed to them on this subject. These opinions, however, did not hinder Cranmer from being consecrated himself and consecrating many others. They did not prevent Barlow from consecrating Parker, and assisting at the Consecration of Bulkeley, Grindal, Cox, Sandys, and some others. Why should they hinder him from being consecrated himself? He had an aversion, they say, to the ceremonies of the Ponti- fical. But a man who employs his ministry in performing a function contrary to his conscience, and which he might have avoided, would such a man have omitted one which he thought necessary to give him a rank in the Church, although he did not >> Strypc's Memorials, vol. 1. Appen- Collier's Eccles. Hist. vol. 2. p. 135. dix, p. 287. [p. 18+. Ed. 1721.] and * Fox's Martyrs, vol. 2. p. 715. BETWEEN CRANMEH AND BARLOW. 85 think it free from superstition ? This is making Barlow at once a man of tender conscience, and a man destitute of all religion : it is running at once into two extremes. He had one, — which, however, he accommodated to the times, to the King, to his interests, — and all this by such views as we call prudence, economy, and management : let us say rather, weakness and art. I know it is surprising, that we nowhere find the Record of other do- this Consecration, while we meet with other Instruments of {"o""1'"4* little consequence relating to Barlow, and some even which seem to contain matter contrary to his Consecration. But how many documents of consequence have been thus lost, whilst an infinity of others of no use are preserved? Rymer's Col- lection alone furnishes us with a very great number of examples; we might even adduce a variety of fit reasons to lessen the surprise produced by an accident which is neither rare nor singular. These, however, are things with respect to which one can only guess ; for when one sees divers omissions of the same nature, it is very probable that one need not look for other reasons besides the negligence of the Secretary, or rather the loss of a part of the Registers. For, as a learned Englishman remarks to me in a letter, of which some extracts will be found in the Appendix, all the Commissions granted by the Chapter of Canterbury to empower the Bishops of that Province to be consecrated elsewhere than in the Metropolitan Church of Canterbury are lost from the year 1531 to the year 1541, — whether this happened by some accident, or whether it was that the Registers were involved in the destruction made by the orders of Edward and Mary, of all documents of which those Princes thought it right to destroy the memory. Be the matter as it may, to give some colour to this pre- Inconsis- tended collusion, it would be necessary that the thing should ency" be very secret ; and this too is what they pretend, saying that the whole affair was managed between Cranmcr and Barlow, who, by concert, took pains to conceal it. Yet the Instru- ments quoted above to support the conjecture by facts, would prove on the contrary, that the omission of Consecration was very public. Since therefore the conjecture is contrary to the facts, and that one set destroys what the other establishes, as has already been shewn, it does not appear that any foundation 86 BONNER S THREAT. CHAP, can be laid upon such a conjecture, and it ought to be regarded — — — as demonstrated, that Barlow's Consecration is indisputable. Third ob- I proceed now to the last difficulty which M. L'Abbe jec ion. Rcnau(]0t has raised against Barlow's Ordination, and which he draws from Bonner's threat of excommunication against the Bishop of Landaff. But as it is necessary to consider this at some length, it shall be the sole subject of the following chapter. CHAP. V. bonner's threat of excommunication is chimerical ; and were it real, it would prove nothing against barlow's consecration. onner's It is not easy to see at first sight, what connection there can rea' be between Barlow's Consecration, and a menace of excom- munication sent by Bonner Bishop of London to Anthony Bishop of Landaff ; and no small ingenuity can be needed, to conclude from the one to the other. This however is what M. L'Abbe Renaudot does, saying that Bonner having threatened Anthony Bishop of Landaff with excommunication, if he took part in the Ordination of Parker, he would not have failed to send the same menace to Barlow, as soon as he learnt that it was he who had undertaken to perform that function, if he had believed him to be a Bishop. Neal's To understand this menace fully, it is necessary to remem- *toiy' her what we have related in the second chapter, concerning Parker's Ordination, on the testimony of Champney. It has been seen there, that, according to his account, the Bishops nominated by Elizabeth met at a tavern in one of the streets of London, where the Bishop of Landaff was present ac- cording to invitation ; that the new Bishops reckoned upon his ordaining them ; that Bonner Bishop of London having learnt what was going on, sent and threatened the Bishop of Landaff with excommunication, if he proceeded to do it ; and that he, terrified by this menace, retired, and refused to lay his hands upon them. ""Thither likewise, upon invitation, a Illuc etiam invitatus venit Landa- Londinensis, in carcere religionis ergo vensis Episcopus, niulta senectute jam constitutus, subolfaciens, minatus est deerepitus, vir simplex et meticulosus. Landavensi excomnumicationem, si eos Ab ipso expectabant ordinationein novi ordinarct : cjuo nuncio territus, et taetus candidati. Quod Bonerus Episcopus etiam fortassis intrinsecus conscicntite NEAL S WHOLE STORY A FABLE. 87 came the Bishop of Landaff, grown decrepid by reason of great age, a simple and timorous man. From him the new candidates expected Ordination. Which Bonner Bishop of London, then in prison on account of religion, getting scent of, threatened him of Landaff with excommunication if he ordained them ; with which message being terrified, and perhaps also being inwardly touched with the stings of con- science, he drew back, and excusing himself on account of the infirmity of his eyes, refused to lay hands upon them." It is this account which furnishes the ground of this objection, for, as it has been observed, if Barlow had been a Bishop and acknowledged as such, why should not Bonner have threatened him with excommunication as well as the Bishop of Landaff? But to give some weight to this reasoning, it would be Answer, necessary first to establish the truth of the fact itself, and afterwards to draw from it a necessary conclusion ; whereas we see neither the one nor the other, since the fact is opposed by every principle of criticism which can destroy its proba- bility, arid even though it were certain, nothing could be con- cluded from it contrary to Barlow's Consecration. I say, 1. that the fact, when judged of by all the laws of criti- The story cism, is false, which is a thing not difficult to be proved. For it has been sufficiently shewn at large in the second chapter, that the wdiole relation of Ncal, upon which this fact rests, is a tissue of fables each more chimerical than that which went before it; that it is contradicted by all the public Instruments there are, and in particular by all the Royal Commissions issued for the Ordinations of the new Bishops; by the Record of Parker's Consecration; by the Registers of Canterbury and other Churches ; and in short, by all the most authentic Registers and Instruments lodged in the Tower of London. Moreover, this relation appeared in so bad a light to M. Renaudot, that much as it was to his purpose to give it weight, in order to destroy Parker's Ordination, he did not think proper to insist upon it, contenting himself with saying that the Protestants defended themselves but poorly from the re- proaches made to them at the time, or a few years afterwards; as if it had been true, that this reproach had in reality been stimulis, ille pedem retulit, et oculorum nete recusavit. Champney de vocat. in&mitatein causatus, nianus eis imno- Miuht. cap. 1 t. p. 1!)7. MS THE THREAT ITSELP CHAP, made to them at the very time of the Ordination, or that it '- was defending themselves but poorly, to employ for its refuta- tion the very Instruments of the Ordination, drawn from the public Registers. The threat But not to repeat here all that I have already urged to hii'pfoba" destroy the truth of this relation, it is certain that the parti- ble> cular fact of the menace of excommunication has itself no appearance of truth; nor is there any probability that it should hinder the Bishop of Landaff from engaging in this affair. For, in fact, who was it that is made to have threatened this excommunication? It was a Bishop whom the Bishop of Landaff himself, as well as the other Bishops, must have looked upon as deposed, and consequently as one that had no longer any jurisdiction : a Bishop, who, inde- pendently of his deposition, which, irregular as it was, was yet very real, had in fact no jurisdiction over the person to whom he makes this pretended menace : a Bishop, who at most had only the right to prevent the performance of such an Office against his will in a church within his own jurisdiction, while at the same time there are many churches in London belonging immediately to the Metropolitan, Archiepiscopo soli subjiciuntur b, as is observed by the author of the Antiqui- ties of the British Church, who sets down a list of them, and mentions in particular, that the church of St. Mary le Bow, where Parker was confirmed, and the neighbourhood of Cheap- side, are in the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Besides, this threat of excommunication cannot subsist with the Record of Parker's Consecration : for, according to this Record, his Ordination was performed in the Palace of Lambeth. Now the Palace of Lambeth is in the sole jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the same author observes: "cThe manner and custom of the Archbishops of Canterbury has been from ancient times, and is still, that in their own estates, in whatever part of England they may be, no Bishop besides themselves has any right, but all jurisdiction b De Antiq. Britan. Eccl. p. 33. [Ed. Angliam Bint, nullus Episcoporum Han. (v. p. 78.): in Ed. Lond. 1729, prater se jus aliquod habeat, sed hu- p. 49.] raana simul et divina omnia, velut in c Mos et consuetudo Archiepiscopo- propria dicecesi, in sua dispositione rum Cantuaiiensium ah antiquo fuit consultant. Hid. ct est, ut in terris suis, ubicunque per ALTOGETHER IMPROBABLE. 89 drrine and human is in their hands, as if in their own diocese." There was nothing then to be feared from Bonner Bishop of London, in whose diocese Lambeth is not even placed. For, as an Englishman of distinction wrote not long since to one of my friends, d"the palace of Lambeth is situated in the county of Surry, and consequently in the diocese of Winches- ter, and not in that of London ; but it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Winchester. Every Palace wherein a Bishop resides out of his diocese, in what place soever situated, is of foreign jurisdiction, and is what we style in our law, A Peculiar: the Bishop of Ely has a Palace at London exempt from all jurisdiction of the Bishop of London, and he acts within the limits of that Palace as in his own diocese." The Archbishop of Canterbury does the same at Lambeth, where almost all the Bishops of England are consecrated, and that without ever thinking of asking leave of the Bishop of Winchester, from whose jurisdic- tion it is exempt. Of what use then would Bonner's threat have been? He had power neither over the Bishop of Landaff, nor over the place where the Ordination was to be performed. That censure therefore could not have hindered the performance of the Office : it would have been hurling a bolt utterly in vain, and without the least prospect of pre- venting the enterprise which Bonner is made to oppose. This pretended menace agrees still less with itself. For, according to Champney, the new Bishops had not taken on themselves to choose a tavern to be ordained in, except be- cause they did not fear there the excommunication wherewith they were threatened if the thing were performed in a church. "eWhen they had," says he, "no hope of bringing the Bishop of Landaff, from whom they both desired and expected to re- ceive Consecration, to their churches, they chose such a place to perform it in, as he himself did not scruple to come to, and thence it came to pass that they met by appointment at the Nag's-head." To no purpose then do they make the message of excommunication to be sent to this tavern, when d Letter from Daniel Pulteney, Esq. talcm locum ad id efficiendum elege- dated the 27th of March 1721. runt, ad quern ipse accedere lion hse- e Cum nulla esset iffis spes Epi- sitaret, indeque factum est ut ad scopum Landavenscm (a quo conse- Caput Manni ex coudicto convenirent. crationem recipere et cupiebant et ex- Champ, de Focal. Minist. p. 500, 501. pectabant) ad Ecclesias suas adducendi, 90 WERE THE THREAT TRUE, C H A P. they believed themselves sufficiently protected by avoiding to : — perform their ceremony in a church. If it be answered, that if those who were to be consecrated little feared the excommunication, the Bishop of Landaff might be afraid of it for himself; this is assuredly what it is impossible to prove. For though at the bottom, the Bishop of Landaff always remained inwardly attached to the Catholic Doctrine, (Pontificice doctrines addictissimns, says Godwin f), would he much trouble himself about an excommu- nication which he must naturally expect when he took the Oath of Supremacy, and recognised, as he did, the Queen as the Head of the Church of England ? Kitchin. In fine, I agree that though the Bishop of Landaff had been nominated in both the Queen's Commissions for one of Parker's Consecrators, he still refused, or rather endea- voured to elude, the performance of an office he did not like, especially because he saw that all the Catholic Bishops were resolved not to meddle with the business; but we do not see that the fear of excommunication was the cause of that refusal. Perhaps it would not be a groundless belief that this Prelate, who, according to Godwin was at bottom a Catholic, notwithstanding the contradictory parts he acted in the com- motions that disturbed that Church, and who expected every day some new return, had no inclination to be concerned in an Ordination, wherein he believed all the ancient rules were violated, and wherein they would revive the Ordinal of Edward the Sixth, which was thrown aside in the reign of Queen Mary. Thus without refusing directly to assist at these Ordinations, he took advantage of the slightest pretences in order to excuse himself, and left to be performed by others what he thought hateful and unpleasant in such an office. This apparently is the whole mystery of the Bishop of Landaff's non-compliance ; and his past as well as subsequent conduct furnishes abundant ground to adhere to this conjecture, since we see that he fluctuates without ceasing, now on this side, now on that, and the fear of excommunication never hindered him from attaching himself to the stronger party. Reasoning But, 2. let us suppose this menace of excommunication unsound. * De Praesulibus Anglic, ». ti ll. IT WOULD PROVE NOTHING. 91 against the Bishop of Landaff as true as we have shewn it to be imaginary ; it could only be by a very false consequence I hat we could conclude thence, that because Bonner did not threaten Barlow as he did the other, therefore Barlow was never consecrated ; for, in short, their cases were quite different. gAn- thony Bishop of Landaff, by his reconciliation with Rome in the reign of Queen Mary, had re-entered the Catholic Com- munion, and did not again openly separate himself from it. Bonner might therefore threaten him with excommunication if he took part in an Ordination which he regarded as sacri- legious. There might be some room for such a menace in the circumstances which we suppose. For whether Bonner acted in the name of the Pope, or whether as Bishop of London he was able to forbid, under pain of Ecclesiastical censures, the performance of Ordination in a place within his jurisdiction ; in both these cases there was some ground to believe, that the Bishop of Landaff, who had not again openly turned schismatic, might yield to the menaces he sent him, and regard the censures of the Church. But to what purpose had such threatenings been against Barlow, who had so long since separated himself from the Church of Rome, who had never reconciled himself to her, whom she had excommunicated along with all the other adherents to the Schism, and whom, consequently, it was to no purpose to threaten anew with an excommunication for which he would scarcely have had a moment's regard, and Avhich would not have hindered him from proceeding further? This difference between Barlow and the Bishop of Landaff is very evident ; and it is surprising that M. L'Abbe Renaudot either did not perceive it, or having done so, did not at the same time see that all his reasoning was built on a false foun- dation. Besides, it does not appear that Bonner threatened with excommunication any of the other Bishops who were Parker's Consecrators together with Barlow. Neither Scory, nor Coverdale, nor Ilodgskins, received any message of this kind from Bonner, who ought not to have spared them any more than the Bishop of Landaff, since it was the same thing to 6 Sanderus dc Schism. Angl lib. 2. p. 307. 92 THE ARGUMENT INCONSISTENT CHAP, assist as to be the principal Consecrator. Since however : Bonner did not threaten the other three, should we conclude rightly from this silence, that these three consecrating Bishops were never consecrated themselves, because the menace did not extend itself to them ? Even supposing it could be said of Scory and Coverdale, because their Ordination was per- formed according to King Edward's Ordinal, the same reason would not hold good as to Ilodgskins, who was consecrated in 1537, in the reign of Henry the Eighth, and consequently with all the requisite formalities, and all the ceremonies pre- scribed by the Roman Pontifical. inconsis- But what is more decisive in this matter is, that the ex- tency. , . . communication is of no force except on the supposition of the truth of Champney's relation. But on this supposition the menace could not apply to Barlow. For according to that account, it was not Barlow, but Scory alone who per- formed this office. " h Being disappointed of a Consecrator," says Champney, " they were forced to take new measures, and had recourse to Scory an apostate Monk, who, in the time of Edward the Sixth, had intruded himself into the Episcopate, in order to be ordained by him. He, who together with his religious habit had put off all conscience, soon performed the business, using this ceremony. They all kneeling before him, putting the Bible on the head of each of them, he said, Receive power to preach the icord of God sbiccreli/ ; and thus they all rose up Bishops." We find here no other Bishop but Scory, nor is there any mention made of Barlow. The menace therefore which Bonner might have made to him would have been altogether useless, since ac- cording to the account, he had nothing to do with this Ordi- nation, and consequently nothing can be concluded contrary to the Consecration of Barlow from a threat which, according to all the rules of judging, could not have been made. Dilemma. Thus of two things we must choose one. Either Champ- h Consecratore tamen frustrati, no- rem cito peregit, hac usus ca?remonia. vum coguntur quffirere consilium, et ad Illis omnibus ante ipsum genua fleeten- Scoreum apostatnm monachum, (qui tibus, unicuique iilorum Biblia super sub Edvaido sexto absque ulla con- caput imponens, dixit, Aecipite potes- secratione, at Btftritn videbimus, Epi- talem verbum Dei sincere prrrtlicandi. scopatum invaserat), at ab co ordina- Et sic surrexerunt omnes Episcopi. rentur, recumw t. Iste, qui cum hab i ; u Champney de racalione Minist. c. 14. religioso conseientiam omncm exuerat, p. 498. WITH ITS OWN FOUNDATION'. 93 ncy's account is true, or it is false. If it is true, it does not follow thence, that because the Bishop of Landaff was threatened with excommunication, Barlow would have been threatened if he had been a true Bishop; for it was not he who was to act on the refusal of the Bishop of Landaff, but Scory alone, as the account sets forth. If on the contrary the relation is false and not to be maintained, as I have proved it is, what use can be made of a threat which has no reality, and which can have no more authority than the fabulous relation on which it rests ? Nothing then is more false, or of less force for destroying Bar- Conclu- low's Consecration, than the argument drawn from this threat of excommunication. Nothing is more false, because it rests on a fabulous relation which contradicts itself, and is destroyed by all the public and authentic Instruments we have. But at the same time nothing is more weak, since even if we suppose the threat against the Bishop of Landaff to be true, it is impossible to conclude any thing from it against the Consecration of Barlow, whether we agree with the relation, or hold to the Record of Parker's Ordination. CHAP. VI. THERE WAS NOTHING ESSENTIAL WANTING EITHER AS TO THE MATTER OR AS TO THE FORM IN THE CONSECRATION OF PARKER. I have already in the second chapter given an historical account of Parker's Ordination, and the Record itself shall be inserted among the documents which arc to follow this treatise. I shall annex likewise the Form of Ordination taken from the Ritual of Edward the Sixth, in order that persons may be in a position to judge from the documents themselves of the truth of all that we shall advance in this chapter. But before I enter on the subject, it will be necessary first General ... .... maxims. to lay down certain maxims, which may serve as principles in the determination of this question. To judge with certainty, then, whether there was any essential defect in Parker's Consecration, it is absolutely necessary to enquire what is essential in Ordination, with regard both to the matter and the form ; which we shall now do in a few words. 94 Will I! KIN CONSISTS chap. To begin with what relates to the matter of Ordination; Matter of tn*s *s a Pomt which does not require any long discussion, since Ordina- the learned work of Morinus on the Sacrament of Orders. For on the strength of the proofs he has produced, all learned divines agree with him, that imposition of hands is the only essential matter of this Sacrament. "a So at length, being forced to it," says this learned writer, speaking of the School-divines, " they have betaken themselves to imposition of hands, which alone all the Fathers, and all the ancient Rituals, both Greek and Latin, acknowledge.'* And in fact, though the School-men of the late time have wished to have either the unction or the imposition of the book of the Gospels, or even the delivery, as they call it, of instruments suitable to the dignity conferred, (as Durandus b Bishop of Mende thought,) to be looked upon as essential parts of the matter of this Sacrament, yet all these are opinions which are now regarded as unable to be main- tained, as well because it is easy to shew that the use of these things has not been either perpetual or universal, as because the Scripture speaks of nothing but the imposition of hands alone. Unction But besides this silence of the Holy Scripture as to all and book. tnese points, it is well known that the unction neither is nor ever was in use among the Greeks; that before the ninth century, we see scarcely any trace of the delivery of instru- ments in the Rituals published by Fathers Morinus, Mabillon, and Martene c ; and that with regard to the imposition of the book of the Gospels, though the use of it is both more ancient and more universal than that of the unction, or of the instru- ments, yet there is no mention made of it in the Rites of the Ordinations of the Syrians and Maronites, published by Morinusd, nor in the eighth and ninth Ordo Romanns given us by Father Mabillon c; and it appears from Alcuin and Amalarius, that the Church of Rome has not in fact always made use of this ceremony. "It is not found in any authority * Itaque tandem coaeti ad manus billon, Museum Italicum, torn. 2. Mar- impositionem confugerunt, quam solam tene de Antiquis Ecclesia1 Ritibus, agnoscunt Patres omnes, Ritnalesque torn. 2. omnes antiqui, tain Graeci quam Latini. d Morin. part. 2. Morin.de Sacris Ecclesut Ordmatbmibus, * Mus. Ital. torn. 2. part. 3. Exereit. 2. cap. 1. § 2. p. 19. ' Non ceperitui in auctoritatc vetcri, b Rationale, lib. 2. cap. alt ncque nova, sed ncque in Romana tra- * Morin. de Sacr. Ordin. part 2. Ma- ditione. Alcuin. de Dirinis OJfiriis. [In THE MATTER OF ORDINATION. 9.5 cither ancient or modern, nor even in the tradition of the Church of Rome." I do not stop here to enlarge on all these facts; I take them for granted ; and if any one should be disposed to dis- pute them, I need only refer him to the Proofs produced in the learned work of Morinus, and the Collections of Mabillon and Martene. But supposing them true, it follows thence What is necessarily that imposition of hands is the only essential matter of Episcopal Ordination ; that all the other usages are merely ceremonies, proper either to represent the effects of this Sacrament, or to point out its obligations more distinctly ; that consequently they may be omitted without affecting the substance of the Sacrament; that every Church may add to them, or retrench from them, according as she may think best for public instruction and edification, without any one's having cause to be scandalized thereby : "g Nor are we scandalized," says Fulbert, " when we hear that different usages, but one and the same faith, has ever existed in the Churches of Christ;" and that it is not by the use or omission of these ceremonies that we must judge of the vali- dity or invalidity of Ordinations. Whether the facts resulting from the testimonies produced Renaudot. by the authors above quoted, or any other reasons still more forcible, have made an impression on Monsieur L'Abbe Renaudot, he seems to agree with us in this point, since he does not think there was any essential defect in Parker's Ordination with regard to the matter, and confines himself altogether to the defects of the form, which he calls "unknown to the whole Church, and of which no trace is to be found in all the Pontificals of the Christian world." But to determine this question on solid grounds, we must Form of examine wherein exactly consists the essence of this form, u0n!"a whether in a certain formula of words, as this : Receive the Holy Ghost, §c. or in some fixed and uniform prayers for all Churches; or, lastly, in prayers in general, such as every Church thinks fit to make choice of, and use together with Bibliotheea Patrum &c. De-la-Bigni- dimus diversam observationem, sed non ana, torn. 10. col. 271 B. Ed. Paris. diversam fidem in Christi semper Ec- 1654. sub tit. QualiUr Episcnpus ordi- clesiis extitisse. Fulbertus Carnotensis, neiur in Romana Ecclesia.] Epist. 2. [In e.idem Bibliotheea, torn. s Netjue in hoc scandalizamur, si au- 3. col. 439 C. ] 96 WHEREIN CONSISTS chap, imposition of hands, which all agree is the matter of Ordi- : — nation. The words How prevalent soever may have been the opinion of the Accipe §-c. gc}j00]men) w}j0 ]iave maintained that these words, Receive the Holy Ghost, §-c. are the form of Ordination, it is difficult not to yield to the reasons which Morinus and Martene bring to refute it, and of which the most convincing are, that these words have never been in use among the Eastern Christians, and that the use of them in the Latin Church is of very recent date. "hNo ancient Latin Rituals (says Morinus) have these words in them ; they appear nowhere : even in many of the more modern ones no mention is made of them. . . . Among the Latins it is scarce four hundred years since they began to be used; as for the Greeks and Syrians, they neither use them now nor ever did use them. By no means then can they be said to belong to the substance of Ordination." Mar- tene is of no different opinion on this subject from the learned Morinus. Those words," says he, " Receive the Holy Ghost, which before the aforesaid Preface are uttered with imposition of hands by the Consecrator himself, in which the Schoolmen of later times place the form of Episcopal Ordina- tion, were unknown to all antiquity ; so much so, indeed, that they are scarcely found in any Pontifical that is four hundred years old." These assertions are supported by all the proofs that can be desired in a case of this nature, since of all the Oriental and Latin Rituals published by Morinus, Mabillon, and Martene, there are not above two or three, and those modern enough, in which these words are contained. It is not then by the change made in this form of words that we must determine the validity or invalidity of the English Ordi- nations, the form itself never having been a part of Ordination for more than a thousand years. Uniform It is equally easy to shew that the essence of the form of prayers. h Nulli Rituales Latini antiqui haec 1 Verba ilia, Accipe Spirilum Sutic- habent verba, nusquam comparent ; Aim, qure ante prsdictam Pra?fationem etiam in recentioribus multis nulla eo- cum nianus impositione ab ipso conse- rummentio. . . Apud Latinos ccepta sunt cratore proferuntur, in quibus formam iisurpari vix ab annis quadringentis. Episcopatus reponunt Scbolastici recen- Apud Gnecos autem et Syros, nec est tiores, toti antiquitati ignota fuerunt ; nec unquam fuit illorum usus. Itaque adco ut vix in ullo Pontificali annos nulla ratione dici possunt ad Ordinis quadringentos attingente reperhntur. substantia™ pertinere. Morin. de Sacr. I)e Ant.' Eccl. Ritifnts, lib. I. cap. 8. art. Ordin. part. 3. Exercit. 2. cap. 2. §2. p. 22. 10. p. 330. [torn. 2. p. 2". Ed. 1788.] THE FORM OF ORDINATION. 97 Ordination is not annexed to any fixed and uniform prayers for all Churches. The mere inspection of the ancient Ponti- ficals, or of the Rituals of different Churches, demonstrates itk. The prayers found in the Greek Rituals, are different from those which are seen in the Oriental and Latin ones. Even among the Latin ones, though there is more uniformity in them, we do not fail to observe differences enough to war- rant the conclusion, that though all have aimed at the same end, yet every Church has had the liberty of deciding on the particular form of words she would use 4n preference to the rest; and we may say of Ordination in particular, what Fulbert of Chartres says of all the parts of the Liturgy in general. '"In many particulars," says he, "Greece from Spain, and from them the Churches of Rome and France differ: but neither at this are we scandalized." There is, then, no proof to warrant an inference, that the prayer used in the Roman Pontifical is more essential than any other, pro- vided it be the same in substance, that is to say, that it contain an invocation of the Holy Ghost to obtain for the Bishop Elect all the graces of which he has need in order to discharge worthily the duties of his Office, whatever other difference there be either in the choice or arrangement of the words, or in the words themselves. It is, then, the invocation of the Holy Ghost in gene- Prayer in ral upon the Bishop Elect which makes the form of Ordi- generaK nation, and which, together with the imposition of hands, which morally accompanies it, constitutes properly what we call the Sacrament of Ordination. This is a natural consequence from the foregoing propositions ; for if the form of Ordination consists neither in these words, Receive the Holy Ghost, Sfc. nor in any fixed and uniform prayers for all Churches, (for they have varied with times and places,) nor in those forms of words which accompany either the unction or the other ceremonies, (for these, by reason of their novelty, cannot be looked upon as the matter,) there remains only prayer in general to which we can attach the notion of form ; and this indeed is the opinion * Morin. de Sacr. Ordin. part 2. clcsia: sed neque in hoc scandalizamur. l In multis Gr.-ecia ab Hispania, ab Fulbert. Carnot. Ep. 2. [In Biblioth. illis Romana et Gallicana discrepat Ec- Pair. &c. torn. 3. col. 439 C. (v. p. 95.)] II 98 GENERAL STATEMENT. CHAP, which all our most able modern divines adopt, maintaining : — positively that, excluding every thing else, the imposition of hands and prayer, make up the matter and "form of Or- dination, and that consequently nothing else belongs to the substance of this Sacrament. Council of But it is now generally agreed, and the Council of Trent declares expressly, That the Church may alter what does not concern the substance of the Sacraments. "m[The holy Synod] declares that the Church has always had the power of making such constitutions and alterations in the dispensation of the Sacraments, provided their substance was preserved, as she should judge, respect being had to the variety of circum- stances, times, and places, to be most expedient for the ad- vantage of the receivers, or for the reverence due to the Sacra- ments themselves." It is moreover a received principle among Divines, that in cases where the Faith itself, or the substance of the Sacraments, is not concerned, every particular Church may draw up its own Rites, Liturgy, and Prayers, as we shall shew in another chapter. General To prove, then, the Ordinations of the English Bishops statement va]£^ we have only to shew that there was no essential defect in Parker's Consecration, and that the alterations made in the Formulary of Ordination, do not affect its substance. This it is easy to shew by a line of argument which will demonstrate the truth of the proposition I have advanced, and is a necessary consequence of the observations which have just been made. Matter and Imposition of hands and prayer in general, that is to say, fonn" the invocation of the Holy Ghost to obtain for the Bishop Elect the graces necessary for the worthy discharge of the functions of his Ministry, make up of themselves the matter and essential form of the Sacrament of Orders. This is proved by both the Greek and Latin Rituals and Pontifi- cals which antiquity has preserved to us, and from the testi- monies of the ancients, who further confirm what we find in the Liturgical remains which have been published. I shall not stop to transcribe these proofs here, because they are in every Declarat [sancta synodus] hanc sen ipsonim Sacramentorum venera- potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, tioni, pro rerum, temporum, et locorum ut in Sacramentoruni dispensatione, varietate, ma<;is expedire judicaverit. salva illorum substantia, ea statueret Sess. 21. De Commun. c. 2. vel mutaret, qua? suscipient:um utilitati, ENGLISH ORDINAL. 99 one's hands, and would serve only to swell this Treatise to no purpose. But the English, in their new Form of Ordination, have retained both imposition of hands and prayer. Nothing essential, then, either as to the matter or the form, was wanting in the Ordination of Parker. As there is no difficulty with respect to the first proposition, Enc'.ish and all learned Divines now agree unanimously on this point, all that remains to be done, is satisfactorily to prove the second, and this proof must be taken from the new Ritual, and from the Laws which enjoin its use. This is the Ritual which was published in the reign of Edward the Sixth, and having been resumed under Queen Elizabeth, continued in use until Cromwell's time. Nor was it long before it was again resumed, for when King Charles the Second was restored it was re-established, with some alterations, of which Ave shall speak hereafter, and with these alterations was published in 1662. But in this Ritual, whether as it was published at first under Edward the Sixth, or as it was altered afterwards under Charles the Second, we find both imposition of hands and prayer, or the invocation of the Holy Ghost to gain for the Bishop Elect all the graces needful for him. This may be proved by reading the Ritual itself, which will be found among the Proofs added at the end of this Treatise, and of which I shall here produce only some extracts. As to imposition of hands, it is evidently prescribed by King Edward's Ritual; for the Rubric says expressly: "Then the Archbishop and Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected Bishop, the Archbishop saying, Take the Hoi;/ Ghost, Sfc The Rubric of King Charles the Second's Ritual is almost the same, for it runs in these terms: " Then the Archbishop and Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected Bishop kneeling before them upon his knees, the Archbishop saying, Receive the Holy Ghost, §'c." These terms are distinct, and out of the reach of any cavil. The Records that arc preserved of the Records. English Consecrations, arc a further confirmation of this proof, as we see therein the exact observance of this ceremony. Thus in the second volume of the History of the Reforma- tion we find in the Record of Parker's Consecration these Parker. " Appendix, p. 864. ii 2 100 OMITTED CEREMONIES. CHAP, decisive words: "Post orationcs et stiff ragia qucedam, juxta for- : — mam libri author itate0 Parliamenti editi, apud Deum habita, Cicestriensis, Herefordiensis, Suffraganeus Bedfordiensis, et Milo Coverdallus, manibus Archiepiscopo impositis : accipe, in- quiuntAnglice, spiritum sanctum, &c." [" After certain prayers and suffrages to God, according to the form prescribed in the book established by the authority of Parliament, the Bishops of Chichester and Hereford, the Suffragan Bishop of Bedford, and Miles Coverdale, laying their hands upon the Archbishop, say in English, Take the Holy Ghost, $fc."~\ Omitted It is true indeed that in this Becord there is no mention niel™10" made, either of unction, or of the delivery of the instruments, or of the laying the book of the Gospels? on the head or shoulders of the person consecrated ; but as we have seen already, and learned men have fully proved, these things do not belong to the essence of Ordination, and have not been observed either in all times, or in all places. The simple im- position of the book of the Gospels, which is the most uni- versal and the most ancient of the ceremonies which have been omitted, has even been retained in a manner at least equivalent in the new Ordinal; in which, after the impo- sition of hands, we find this Bubric, " Then the Arch- bishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying, Give heed unto reading, fyc." And since this ceremony is no part of the matter, and belongs not to the essence, of the Sacrament, it seems very indifferent whether it is on the head or the shoulders, or into the hands, that the book of the Gospels is put, especially since the ceremony is merely figurative, and has been dif- ferently practised in different Churches, as Morinus has ob- served, who concludes that it cannot be a part of the matter of Ordination. "qThis variety," says that learned writer, " shews us as in a glass, how weak and frail are those argu- ments on the strength of which the generality assert or deny the imposition of the book of the Gospels to belong to the mat- ter of Episcopal Ordination." This he had already proved by ° [See the Editor's notes.] monstrat quam caduca sint et fragilia p In the first Ordinal of Edward VI. argumenta quihus plerique freti asse- " Then the Archebisliop shall laye the runt vel negant, eodieis Evangelici im- Bible upon his Necke, saiyng, Geve positionem ad Episcopatus materiam lirde unto rcadyng, fyc." [N.B. this pertinere. De Sacr. Ordin. part 3. note is not in the French Edition. Ed.] exercit. 2. cap. 1. § 9. p. 21, 22. q Ha?c varietas velut in speculo de- RENAUDOT S OBJECTION. LO] reasons drawn from tradition. "r Relying however on other reasons, reasons derived from Ecclesiastical tradition, I con- clude that this imposition of the Gospels on the neck and shoulders of the person to be ordained, does not belong to the substance of Episcopal Ordination." These reasons indeed have appeared so convincing to the learned world, that there has scarce been any dispute in the Schools upon this subject, since the publishing of his work. This appears so certain and clear, that it is not at this point Renau- that M. L'Abbe Renaudot attacks the validity of the English f°^\^' Ordinations; he rests entirely on the alteration made in the form. This then must be examined, and I think I shall be able to prove clearly, that the changes therein made do not alter its substance. M. L'Abbe Renaudot teaches us positively the contrary, and maintains that "a form unknown to the whole Latin -Church, ancient and modern, (and) of which no vestige is found in the Pontificals of all Christian nations, cannot be looked upon as valid"; and that the more because "this form suits as well the Ordination of Priests as that of Bishops". But I would willingly ask of that writer, what he means by "a Answer, form unknown to the whole Church"? For if by 'an unknown form', he means a Formulary of Ordination in which neither prayer nor invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the Bishop Elect is found, I agree with him that such a form is invalid, because the substance of such a form is quite altered and cor- rupted : but in this sense it is not true that the form of the English Ordinations is unknown to the whole Church, since both the one and the other are contained in it. If, on the contrary, by "an unknown form", he means only a form of prayer differing from the Roman Pontifical, but which yet contains the same substance ; it is true, in this case, that the form of the English Ordinations is unknown to the Latin Church ; but withal there is nothing more false than that a form unknown in this sense, is on that account invalid. For, to support such an assertion, it would be necessary to take for granted what has already been refuted, namely, that the form of Ordination is annexed to certain fixed and uniform ' Aliis tamen rationibus fretus, cx et scapulas Ordinandi impositionem ad traditionc scilicet Ecclesiaatica petitis, Episcopatus sulfetantiam non pertiutrc. colligo illam Evaagelii super cervices) lb. § 5. p, 20. 102 EASTERN ORDINATIONS. chap, prayers for all Churches. But this is evidently false, and is : — refuted hy the hare reading of the ancient Pontificals of dif- ferent Churches, and hy comparing (which is easily done) the Eastern Greek and Oriental Rituals with those of the Latins. In fact, on this supposition, how can we mantain the validity of the Greek and Oriental Ordinations, their formulae heing quite different from ours ? Or if those of the Greeks are good, how can we maintain the validity of those of the Latins ? For if it be true that the validity of Ordination is annexed to a fixed form and an uniform prayer, either the Greeks or the Latins must necessarily want a true and valid Ordination. But in this case, by what right shall we assign the preference to one Church before the other, and what proofs have we that the prayers of the Latin Church, for instance, are the true form of Ordination, rather than those which the Greeks and Eastern Christians use ? This reason is so decisive, that nobody now disputes the English validity of the Ordinations of the Greeks. And yet, if their same. Ordinations are valid, though the prayer they use is quite different from that of the Latins, how can we deny the Church of England the power to make for herself a particular Form of Prayers of her own, when we allow this right to the Churches of the East ? Is it on account of the independence which the East affects with regard to the Church of Rome ? But this independence, which Rome regards as criminal, cannot give right to that to which there is no other title. Can it be because the Church of England long since adopted the usage and Form of Service made use of by the Church of seriPtion ^ome' 5ut if the English submitted freely to the use of the Roman Pontifical, there is no prescription against the liberty they retain of making therein the alterations they think necessary for the discipline of their Church ; and if they had once the liberty of receiving it, they have still that of reject- ing or reforming it. But we shall see below that it was with entire liberty that England submitted to the particular Ritual of the Church of Rome, and that Rome has no right to oblige other Churches to submit to her particular discipline, as St. Gregory the Great acknowledges with regard to the English Church of England in particular. Can it be, lastly, that the Order of Service which the English have substituted for that ENGLISH PRAYERS. 103 of the Roman Pontifical, does not contain what is essential to the form of Ordination ? But by comparing the prayers and formula? of the Roman Pontifical and King Edward's Ritual, one may easily satisfy one's self that the Ordinal of the Church of England does not at all alter the substance of the true form of Ordination. The essence of this prayer, as we have already observed, Prayers, consists in the invocation of the Holy Ghost, to obtain for the Bishop Elect all the graces of which he has need for the due discharge of his Ministry. But the full meaning of this prayer is preserved in the English Ritual ; for it begins as follows : Almighty God, giver of all good tilings, which hij Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed diverse Orders of Ministers i?i Thy Church ; Mercifully behold this Thy servant, now called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop ; and replenish him so with the truth of Thy doctrine, and innocency of life, that both by ivord and deed he may faithfully serve Thee in this Office, Sfc. What more is asked in the prayers of the Pontifical? They enlarge indeed a little more on the duties of the Bishop; they mention the power of the Keys, and the authority committed to him, and speak of the unction and of the ornaments with which he is invested, in order to draw thence instructions suitable for him. But as the unction, and the greater part of the Episcopal ornaments have been laid aside, because in reality they are not essential to Ordination, it is not surprising that they should have omitted this latter part of the great prayer which is said as the Preface in the Pontifical: but as for what relates to the power of the Keys, and the authority committed to the Bishop, they have been far from forgetting it in the English Ritual. So in the prayer immediately preceding the imposition of hands, we read these words, Grant, we beseech Thee, to this Thy servant such grace, that he may evermore be ready to spread abroad Thy Gospel and glad tidings of reconcilement to God, and to use the authority given unto him, not to destroy, but to save; not to hurt, but to help: §r. These words are plainly agreeable to those of the Pontifical, where we read : Da ei, [in the Domine, claves regni ccelorum, ut utatur, non glorictur, potestate gfteMhe quam tribuis in cedijicationcm, non in destructionem. [" Give Unction.] him, O Lord, the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he may make use of, not glory in, the power which Thou givest 104 ACCIPE. CONCLUSION. CH^AP- for edification, not for destruction."]; and to the question ■ — which is put to the Bishop Elect, in the new Ritual, whether he will suppress disorders, and exert the authority given him by the Word of God : Will you— such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within your Diocese, correct and punish, accord- ing to such authority as ye have by God's Word, and as to you shall be committed by the Ordinance of this Realm ? which must necessarily be understood of the power of the Keys, which comprehends all the authority which the Church intrusts in the hands of the Bishop for the edification of the faithful. Second in- So far it will be difficult to point out any defect in the •vocation. form Qf tuc Ordination prescribed by King Edward's Formu- lary. But there is more. After singing the Litany, in the Roman Pontifical, the consecrating Bishops lay their hands on the head of the Bishop Elect, saying these words, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. This very formula, which may be con- sidered as a second invocation of the Holy Ghost, although pronounced in an imperative manner, is used in King Edward's Ritual, as in the Roman Pontifical: for after the hymn Veni Creator, and the prayer which follows it, the consecrating Bishops lay their hands on the head of the new Bishop, and the Archbishop says these words, Take the Holy Ghost, and remember §-c. The thing done is exactly the same on both sides ; and if it be granted that the omission of the prayers appointed to be used at the unction, or at the delivery of the instruments, does not affect the substance of the Ordina- tion, as it appears proved, I see no longer any defect that can be found in the formula prescribed by King Edward's Ritual. Conciu- For of these three things one must be true. The essence slon- Gf Ordination is annexed either to the substance of the prayers which accompany the imposition of hands, or to the iden- tical words of the Roman Pontifical, or lastly, to the other prayers that are used with the ceremonies of unction and of the instruments. It cannot be annexed to these last, because the ceremonies not being essential, the prayers which accompany them cannot be of a different nature. No more can it be annexed to the identical words of the Roman Pon- tifical, which are not followed in the East, and have varied even at Rome. More could not be said, if these words had been determined by Scripture ; whereas not only is the Scrip- SUMMING UP. RENAUDOT S OBJECTION. 105 ture entirely silent on this head, but further we have for it neither Canons of (Ecumenical Councils, nor the perpetual and invariable practice of Churches. It is then only the sub- stance of the form that we are to seek in this, as in the other Sacraments, where this has not been determined; and it cannot be denied that King Edward's Ritual has retained this substance, as may be seen by the quotations made from the prayers prescribed thereby. CHAP. VII. CONTINUATION OF THE 6AME SUBJECT. ANSWER TO THE DIFFICULTIES. THE ALTERATIONS MADE BY CHARLES THE SECOND IN THE RITUAL OF EDWARD THE SIXTH DO NOT PROVE THERE WAS ANY ESSENTIAL DEFECT IN THE ORDINATION OF PARKER. I think I have proved very evidently in the foregoing Summing chapter, that there was no essential defect in Parker's Ordina- up' tion. The whole point indeed turns upon the plainest argu- ment in nature. Imposition of hands and the prayer which accompanies it are the only matter and form of Ordination : this Morinus has demonstrated. But the Ritual of Edward, which was used at Parker's Consecration, has retained both the imposition of hands, and the substance of the prayers used with it in the Roman Pontifical. This is proved by the Record of Parker's Ordination, and by reading the prayers prescribed in that Ritual. His Ordination then must be accounted valid, and we see no way by which to destroy it. But as there is nothing so clear in matter of fact, but that it may be made obscure by different circumstances, which serve to vary, or even alter things entirely, it will not be improper to examine carefully what can be urged in opposition to the simplest and most natural proof in the world ; and this we shall do in the present and the following chapters. One of the first difficulties, and that not the least considera- Renau- ble, is the one M. L'Abbe Renaudot proposes, namely, that j^ti0n^~ the Form made use of for Parker's Ordination is a very equivo- cal one, suiting as well the Ordination of Priests as that of Bishops, since the words, Take the Holy Ghost, arc equally suitable to both. That form, in fact, if we may believe this author, appeared so defective to the Bishops who had the care of revising the Ritual in King Charles the Second's time, 106 BOTH THE FACT AND CHAP, that, in order to determine it to the Priesthood or to the '- — Episcopate, they thought it absolutely necessary to add some new words to the old, and that after these, " Receive a the Holy Ghost," they added for the Priests, " for the Office and Work "of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee "by the Imposition of our hands"; and for the Bishops, "for " the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God, now "committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands; In the " Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " Amen." This addition is not to be disputed; and though it be not sufficient to establish the validity of the English Ordi- nations, it is, say they, more than sufficient to attest the inva- lidity of the form that was used in the Consecration of Parker, a form being reckoned invalid when it cannot determine the matter. But an indeterminate form is incapable of determining the matter, and such was the form made use of in Parker's Ordination. His Ordination therefore cannot be defended, and is faulty in one of its most essential parts. Such is the substance of M. L'Abbe Renaudot's argument, which I have a little ex- panded, in order to give it all the force of which it is capable. Answer. But whatever force be given it, it cannot be made a solid argument, because it is false in fact, and supposes a principle The fact which is still more false. I say, 1. That it is false in fact; for false. jn Kjjjg Edward the Sixths Ritual, which was used till King Charles the Second's time, the formula Receive (or Take) the Holy Ghost, is determined otherwise for the Ordination of Priests, than for that of Bishops. For, besides that the prayers for the two Ordinations are different, the very formula in question is not alike. That for the Ordination of Bishops runs in these words: Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by Imposition of hands: for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and of soberness. That for Priests is as follows : Receive the Holy Ghost: wliosc sins thou dost forgive, they arc forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they arc retained. And be thou a faithful Dis- jjenscr of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. » [So the Ritual of Charles the Se- In our author's own' work (the reader oond: that of Edward the Sixth had will hear in mind) these quotations an; Recti ve for Priests, but TV.efor Bishops. given in the Latin translation. Ed.] THE PRINCIPLE FALSE. K>7 It is clear that these two forms of words are quite different, and relate to different functions. It is true there is nothing in them to mark that the one is for the Episcopate, and the other for the Priesthood, — and that in the revision of the Ordinal which took place under Charles the Second, they made therein the additions which have heen mentioned : but it is evident that these additions were not made from neces- Real case, sity, but only for a fuller explanation ; and that the formulae in question, were sufficiently determined by the preceding prayers. This is fully proved by two reasons ; the first of which is, that they could not look upon this addition as necessary, with- out declaring null all the Ordinations made antecedently to the addition of this clause, and without the Bishops, who caused it to be inserted in the Ordinal, regarding them- selves as wrongly ordained. But this was never thought of by any one, much less by the Bishops who were the authors of this addition : a proof that they considered it as a mere explanation. The second reason is, that the addition in question is unprecedented, and that no trace of it is found in the ancient Pontificals, or even in those which are now in use in the Church of Rome. How then can the validity of Ordination be made to depend on a clause which never was in use in any Church; which was neither prescribed nor even recommended by the English Ritual before King Charles the Second ; and without which the formula is suffi- ciently determined ? But besides this falsity in point of fact, which overthrows The pon- tile objection at once, it is also founded on the supposition false, of a principle whose falseness would of itself destroy all its force, even though the fact were true. This principle is, that the validity of Ordination depends on the particular formula Receive the Holy Ghost, and that even the validity of this for- mula depends on other words added to determine it ; both of which are equally false and indefensible in sound divinity. The first, because, as has been observed in the preceding chap- First part, ter, the validity of Ordination cannot be made to depend on a formula which has never been used in the Eastern Churches, and of which no mention was made in the Latin Church for more than a thousand years. But such is the formula, Receive the los ONE PARTICULAR FORMULA ch ap. Holy Ghost. Morinus acknowledges it expressly. "bAmongst — the Latins," says he, " these words began to be used scarcely four hundred years ago: among the Greeks and Syrians they neither are nor ever have been in use. They cannot therefore with any reason, be said to belong to the substance of Ordination." So that if we may regard it as form, it can be only as making part of the prayers to which it is morally joined, and which are more than sufficient to determine it, even in the English Ritual, as we shall see. Particular 2. Even were this form of words as ancient and universal as it is the contrary, the supposition would be equally far from the truth. For, as the learned Morinus has very judiciously ob- served, it is ridiculous to imagine that in a body of ceremonies and prayers, it is some certain words rather than others which cause the validity of a Sacrament, especially when these words have not been determined by Jesus Christ. "cIt is necessary to observe," says this author, " what I suppose no one will deny, that it is certain as a matter of faith that a Sacrament administered according to the form prescribed in the Roman Pontifical or Ritual, is duly administered, and that on its own part nothing is therein wanting for producing its proper effects in the receiver : but it is no necessary point of faith to believe, what the Scholastic Doctors are divided about, that the form and matter of the Sacrament is contained in this part, or in these words, of the Ritual, unless the Church has expressly declared that such is the case, or in public prac- tice, in cases of danger, the other parts besides these are accustomed to be omitted. For those assertions, that these b Apud Latinos (haec verba) ccepta sunt usurpari vix ab annis quadringen- tis. Apud Graecos autem et Syros nec est nec unquam fuit illorum usus. Ita- que nulla ratione did possimt ad Ordinis substantiam pertinere. De Sarr. Ord. part. 3. exerc. 2. cap. 2. § 2. p. 22. c Adnotare nccesse est, quod nemo mihi videtur negaturus, certum esse de fide, Sacramentumadminibtratum juxta ritum in Pontificali scu Kituali Romano praescriptum esse legitimum, nihilque ex parte sui illi deesse ad etlectum in suscipiente prQducendum : verum nou esse necessario de fide, quod Doctores Scholastici disputant, In hac parte, in his verbis Ritualis, forraa vel materia continetur, nisi hoc cxpresse dictaverit Ecclesia, aut publica praxi, cum ingruit periculum, bis exceptis, cretera praeter- mitti soleant. Ilia? enim assertiones, Ista Ritualis verba sunt Sacramenti forma, In his vero materia continetur, non autem in illis, ScholasticorumDoctorum sunt velitationes, quas concedet qui voluerit, et de quibus inter se soepe dis- sentiunt. Contingit autem aliquando eoriun aliquos a vero tarn immaniter aberrare, ut in Ritu Romano ea pro solis materiis et fonnis adnotent, quae ad Sacramenti tantum solemnitateni et significationis ampliatiouem spectant. De Pocnit. lib. 8. c. 18. § 2. p. 568. NOT ESSENTIAL TO ORDINATION. 109 words are the form of the Sacrament, that its matter is contained in these, and not in those others, are the dispu- tations of the Schoolmen, which he who pleases may allow, and about which they themselves often differ. And it hap- pens sometimes, that some of them are so prodigiously in the wrong, as to set down those things in the Roman Ritual as the sole matter and form of a Sacrament, which regard only its solemnity, and the fuller setting forth of its signification." It is not then on such or such opinions of Theologians, that the validity of the Sacrament depends, but on the exact observ- ance of all that the Ritual enjoins; and this Ritual, as we shall see, every Church has, and is truly possessed of, the power of drawing up for herself, provided she always retains what is es- sential, which should be uniform every where. "dFor the vari- ous sentiments of the Schoolmen in relation to the particular words of the Ritual, whether the form of the Sacrament be in these or in those, are no obstruction to the efficacy of the Sacraments, when what is prescribed in the Ritual is duly observed." It is then a chimerical pretence to make the validity of Ordination depend on a particular formula, and it would not be proving any thing against Parker's Ordina- tion, to confine one's self to such an objection. 3. But let us even suppose for a moment that this form of Second words, Receive the Holy Ghost, is essential to the validity 1,art' of Ordination ; how will it be proved that the validity even of this very formula depends on the words added to it in the time of Charles the Second to determine it, that is to say, on these : for the Office and Work of a Bishop ox of a Priest. M. L'Abbe Renaudot's argument supposes it, and this is the second mistake he is guilty of in his supposition ; a mistake which is refuted not only by comparing the modern Roman Pontifical with the English Ritual, but by this consideration likewise, that up to this time there is no example of a similar addition. For as to the Ordination of Priests, the formula used in Edward the Sixth's Ritual is exactly the same with that in the Roman Pontifical, where we read these words: Accipe Spiritual Sanctum. Quorum remiseris peccata, remit- tuntur eis ; et quorum retinueris, rctenta sunt. \" Receive the [John 20. 23.] * Nihil enim varise Scholasticorum mentorum virtuti, cum omnia in Ritu- opinationes ile Ritualis verbis, an hie all pnescripta rite administrantur, oiH- vel illic sit Sacramenti forma, Sacra- ciunt. Morin. ibid. 110 THE FORM ACCIPE ABUNDANTLY chap. Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins thou dost remit, they are re- — mitted unto them ; and whose soever thou dost retain, they are retained."] And as to the Ordination of Bishops, there are no other Avords joined to the imposition of hands in the Roman Pontifical, but these only, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. Now I ask, whether in the case of either Ordination, these words arc more determinate in the Roman Pontifical, than they are in the English Ritual ? and why, with regard to this latter, a clause is thought essential, of which the addition has not been judged necessary any where else ? Objection. It will be said perhaps, that in the Roman Pontifical these words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, are sufficiently deter- mined by the prayers which are added at every Ordination, and which clearly distinguish that of Bishops from that of Priests ; but that this is not the case with the English Ritual. Answer. This is the only reason that could give any weight to the objec- tion, were it true; but unluckily for M. L'Abbe Renaudot, we shall shew at once that the two Ordinations are fully distinguished in this Ritual, and that the form of words in question is therein very accurately determined to the Epi- scopate or Priesthood, by the prayers and ceremonies which distinguish these two Ordinations. Ordina- e For, first, as to what concerns the Ordination of Priests, Priests. t'ie Archdeacon presents them to the Bishop, as in the Roman Pontifical, saying, Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these Pei-sons present, to be admitted to the Order of Priest- hood. Then the Bishop declares to the people the Ordina- tion he is about to perform, that, if any one knows any canonical impediment against it, he may discover it. Good people, these be they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this day unto the holy Office of Priesthood. Then follows the Litany, in which is inserted this prayer: {That it may phase Thee to bless these Thy servarits, note to be admitted to the Order of Priests, — . And this Litany is followed by a prayer in behalf of those who are being ordained, which marks expressly that they are set apart for the Priesthood: Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed diverse Orders of Ministers in Thy Church ,- Mercifully behold these Thy servants, now called to the Office of Priesthood, Sfc c The Forms of both these Ordi- the Proofs, nations are printed at length, among 1 [See the Editor's notes.] DETERMINED IN THE ENGLISH ORDINAL. Ill We see next the exhortation made by the Bishop to the Priests, to lay before them the obligations of their Office, and the duties of their Ministry ; and immediately afterwards the questions which the Bishop puts to them, and the promises he requires of them. The first of these questions re- lates to their calling: Do you think in your heart that you be truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Order of this Church of England, to the Ministry of Priesthood ? At length comes the prayer which serves instead of the Preface found in the Roman Pontifical, and thanks are there given to God for the favour He shews His Church in supplying it with these new Priests: For these so great bciufits of Thy eternal goodness, and for that Thou hast vouch- safed to call these Thy servants here present to the same Office and Ministry of the salvation of mankind, we render unto Thee most hearty thanks. And after this prayer follows the imposi- tion of hands, accompanied by these words: Receive the Holy Ghost: Wliose sins thou dost forgive, Sfc. After which the Bishop delivers the Holy Bible into the Priests' hands, giving them authority to preach the word of God : Take thou autho- rity to preach the ivord of God, 8fc. Is there any thing more in the Roman Pontifical to determine the formula Accipe Spiritum Sanctum ? and can it be fair to maintain that this formula, after all, still continues equivocal ? The Ordination of Bishops is as distinctly characterized as Ordina- the other. For first of all, two Bishops present the Bishop Bishops. Elect to the Archbishop, saying, Most reverend Father in God, we present unto you this godly and ivell learned man to be conse- crated Bishop. Then the Litany is said, in which these words are used: That it may please Thee to bless tins our Brother elected, and to send Thy grace upon him, — . And this Litany concludes with the following prayer: Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed diverse Orders of Ministers in Thy Church ; Mercifully behold this Thy servant noiv called to the Work and Ministry of a Bishop; — . The same question is likewise put to the Bishops, that was put to the Priests, whether they are persuaded that they arc called by God to the Ministry for which they are presented ? Also, gwhether they will be faithful in ordaining E [See the Editor's notes.] 112 THE ROMAN PONTIFICAL. ch ap, worthy Ministers, and laying hands upon them? whether they — will make use of the authority which God puts into their hands for restraining the wicked, for banishing all erroneous doctrines, and for maintaining peace, quietness, and love in the Church? all questions of such a nature, as manifestly characterize the Bishop, and are of themselves sufficient to determine the form in question, even though there were nothing else to do it. These questions are followed by a prayer, in which God is asked to give the person ordained grace to fulfil all the duties of a Bishop ; and this prayer is followed by the imposition of hands, accompanied with these words : Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the grace of God 8fc. and by the delivery of the Book of the Gospels, which is put into the new Bishop's hands with an exhortation to acquit himself faithfully of all the duties of a good Pastor. If these words are not sufficiently determined by what precedes and accompanies them, I know not what would be required to determine them. The Ro- And, in fact, what is there more in the Roman Pontifical, tificaL°" to determine this form of words ? All the world may compare them together, and be easily convinced of this fact, that, excepting the prayers annexed to certain ceremonies that are laid aside in the English Ritual, there is nothing more expressive or stronger to determine the formula Aceipc Spirit urn Sanctum on one side than on the other. The presenting of tho person, as well as the Litany, is the same in both. The ques- tions in the English Ritual seem to suit Bishops much better than those of the Pontifical. The prayers are equally signifi- cative on both sides, and the advice, or particular representa- tion of the Episcopal duties, is at least as distinctly character- ized in the Ritual as in the Pontifical. Why then should the want of the clause added by King Charles the Second to the formula Receive the Holy Ghost be judged essential, and sufficient to annul the Ordinations of the English, when the omission of that very addition is no prejudice at all to the Ordination of the Catholic Bishops ? The aikiu 4. If the use of this formula is as recent as the inspection of mn"gupm"tne Rituals and Pontificals proves; if the addition made to the formula itself is hitherto without example, and was never thought necessary to fix the sense of the words Aceipc — ; we ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS. 1 13 cannot but say, with a great number of Divines, even Jesuits, h Vasques, Ilurtado, Maerat, de Rhodes, and many others, that the omission of this addition cannot alter the validity of the Sacrament; and that these words Accipe — are otherwise suf- ficiently determined. "'But you will object — ," says Masrat, " that these words, Accipe Sfc. — seem too general. — I answer, that they are so if considered individually by themselves ; but not if considered together with the matter for which they are used ; for by this their general signification is restrained and determined to express the Episcopal degree, and consequently the peculiar Office of Bishops." The same thing is asserted by Father de Rhodes; and Vasques adds a further reason, viz. that this very indeterminateness marks a more abundant effu- sion of grace ; "kfor", says he, "it seems to be more for the Holy Spirit to be given absolutely, than to be given for this or that particular effect." We may conclude therefore with Mo- rinus, that this addition is of the number of those things which are inserted for the solemnity, or for a fuller explanation of the rite ; 1 ad sacramenti tantam solemnitatem, et significatioids am- pliationcm spectant; and that M. L'Abbe Renaudot has fallen Error of into the gross error of those who take for the matter and form, RuidUtlot- that is to say, for the essential parts of Ordination, things that serve only to render it more solemn, or help to explain it. " 1 It happens sometimes," says he, " that some of them are so prodigiously in the wrong, as to set down those things in the Roman Ritual as the sole matter and form of a Sacrament, which regard only its solemnity, and the fuller setting forth of its meaning." 5. It will perhaps be said, that to make M. L'Abbe Renau- Objection, dot place the essence of Ordination in this form of words, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, or in the addition made to it by King i> Vasques [al.Vasquez, vel Vazquez], stringitur et determihatur ad Episeopa- in 3. part. [S. Thoniae,] disp. 210. t. 'A. lem gtadum significanduni, etper conse- p. 740. [col. 1.] Ilurtado [de Sacra- quens, propriuni Episcoporum officium. mentis et Censuris], de Online, p. * Plus eiiim videtur esse, dati Spiri- 394. Maerat, [Disputationum] t. 3. de turn Sanctum absolute, quam dari ad Online, p. 692. [col. 2.] De Rhodes, hunc vel alium eft'ectum peculiarem. Theol. Scholast. t. 2. p. 662. ' ' Contingit autem aliqnando eorum 1 At objicies — , verba haec, Accipe S,c. aliquos a vero tarn immaniter aberrare, — nimis gencralia videri. — Respondeo, ut in Ritu Romano ea pro solis materiis ita quidem esse, si precise secundum se et formis adnotent, qua; ad Sacramenti eonsiderentur : secus autem si cum ma- tantum solemnitatem et significationis teria supra quam proferuntur : per banc ampliationem spectant Morin. de Pocn. enim eorum generalis significatio re- lib. 8. cap. 18. § 2. p. 568. 114 RENAUDOT. MERE chap. Charles the Second, is to attribute to him a ridiculous notion — merely to make a merit of refuting it; that he never enter- tained such a sentiment, but was of opinion that it consisted in all that is prescribed by the Roman Pontifical; from which it followed that every change that could be made therein, whether by addition or by suppression, was sufficient to annul the English Ordinations. Answer. But it is easy to shew, that nothing is attributed to M. L'Abbe Renaudot, which does not belong to him. For he says expressly in his Memoirc, that the form prescribed by King Edward's Ritual cannot be valid, the more because " this form is as well adapted to the Ordination of Priests as to that of Bishops; which was the reason why, at the Resto- ration of King Charles the Second, some words were added to it, to determine its sense either to the Priesthood or to the Episcopate." But it is certain it was to the formula, Take (or Receive) the Hohj Ghost, that the addition was made in King Charles the Second's time. It was this form of words then which M. L'Abbe Renaudot looked upon as the form of Ordination ; and one of his reasons for condemning it was, that it suited as well the Ordination of Priests as that of Bishops. But even though M. L'Abbe Renaudot had not said this in such express terms as he has done, yet his reason- ing plainly supposes it. For an alteration made in a form of words cannot be deemed essential, unless that form itself be regarded as such. But the author regards as essential the omission of the clause added by King Charles the Second: he was of opinion then, that this formula was the form of Ordination ; which is all that is attributed to him in the objection drawn from his Memoire. This other 6. I wish, however, that M. L'Abbe Renaudot had main- untenable! tained only that the essence of Ordination consisted really in all that is prescribed in the Pontifical, and that no alteration could be made in it, without rendering the Ordination null. Even this hypothesis, though more rational and better founded than the other, cannot be supported. For although it is not always evident, and we do not know with an entire certainty, wherein exactly the matter and form of a Sacrament consist, Some it is none the less certain and clear that there are many things merlee- which can never be regarded as more than mere ceremonies. remonies. CEREMONIES. SUMMING UP. lis Thus, for example, no one doubts that in the administration of Baptism a number of things, which have been added only to render the Office more solemn, as the Unctions and the Exorcisms, may be omitted without affecting the substance of that Sacrament. So, without leaving the subject we are upon, no Divine doubts that in the ceremony of Ordination, there are many things which may be cither omitted or practised without affecting it, and that a man would be effectually made a Bishop, for example, though the ceremony of the Ring, the Mitre, the Gloves, &c. with all the prayers annexed to them, should be left out. What M. L'Abbe Renaudot lays down, then, can no more be maintained at this point than at the other ; and in order to judge of the validity of an Ordination, we must necessarily return to the usual distinction of what is essential, and what is not so. And though we cannot tell exactly what particular words rather than others constitute the form, we may mark clearly that many con- tribute nothing at all to it, and that provided we preserve the sense of the rest, we have all that is wanting to make the Sacrament valid. And now to sum up this whole answer in a few words. Summing Either M. L'Abbe Renaudot places the form of Ordination UP: in these words alone, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, or in this form of words used jointly with the clause added under King Charles the Second, or lastly in the prayers dispersed through- out the whole ceremony ; for we see nothing besides these three things to which we can attach the idea and notion of form in the Sacrament of Ordination. If it is in these words alone, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, it cannot be said that the English Ordinations are less valid than those of the Catholics, since it has been clearly proved that they are as much determined in King Edward's Ritual by the prayers and ceremonies used with them, as they are in the Roman Pontifical. If he places it in that formula used jointly with the addition of King Charles the Second, the author must either condemn all the Catholic Ordinations, or honestly own that he is mistaken in making the validity of Ordi- nal ion depend on a clause added without any example, au- thority, or necessity. If, in fine, it is in the prayers dispersed through the ceremony of Ordination, that M. L'Abbe Renau- i 2 116 renaudot's objection from the result chap, clot makes the essence of the form consist; how dares he : — assert that this form suits as well the Ordination of a Priest as that of a Bishop, when these prayers are as different the one from the other in King Edward's Ritual as in the Roman Pontifical ? Besides, since in this Ritual they have retained all the substance of the prayers of the Pontifical, and the precise words have never been determined, either it must be allowed that there was no defect in Parker's Ordination with regard to the form, or it must be proved that either the Scrip- ture, or some decree of an (Ecumenical Council, or the perpetual and universal practice of the whole Church, has annexed the validity of Ordination to one exclusive Formulary of prayers and ceremonies; for otherwise, what is contended for is absurd, and the objection without force or foundation. chap. vm. [See p. 105] ANSWER to the second difficulty, the form of ordination pre- scribed BY EDWARD THE SIXTH WAS NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW WHEN PARKER WAS CONSECRATED. It may perhaps be readily conceded that there was no essential defect in the form prescribed by King Edward's objection. Ritual, but it may be said, that this Ritual itself being without authority, and prohibited by Law, we cannot regard as valid an Ordination which was made by a new Ritual, neither re- ceived nor authorized by any Church. But as they have fore- seen that this fact would certainly be contested, M. L'Abbe Renaudot brings forward a piece of history which happened in Elizabeth's reign, whereby he pretends to demonstrate, that the English themselves owned the invalidity of the Ordina- tions made under that Queen, according to King Edward's Ritual. The fact, as M. Renaudot relates it, is as follows. Honner Bonner, in 1564, was proceeded against by Horn Bishop of indicted. Winchester, on account of his refusal to take the Oath of Supremacy. He returned no other answer to the indictment but that it was the business of Horn and the other Bishops nomi- nated by Queen Elizabeth, to prove that they were Bishops. The Judges not choosing to decide any thing, the matter OF THE INDICTMENT OF BONNER. 117 was brought before Parliament, who declared, that the persons ordained according to King Edward's Form of Ordination, were true Bishops ; but the prosecution against Bonner was dropped. Now, according to our author, this account proves that the Form of Ordination prescribed by Edward the Sixth was without authority. For, as Bonner had refused to acknow- ledge Horn as a Bishop, because he had been ordained by King Edward's Ritual, and the Judges did not venture to decide against Bonner, they determined thereby that they really did not look upon Horn as a true Bishop. Besides, the Parliament, before whom the affair was brought, let Bonner alone, and even excused him from taking the Oath of Supremacy; which was a convincing proof of Bonner's being in the right, and an admission of the ground he had alleged. It ought then to be taken for granted, that King Edward's Formulary was even then unauthorized, and that consequently Parker's Ordination should be deemed null and invalid. That the Ordinations made according to King Edward's Answer. Ritual have been looked upon as null by the greater part of Catholics, is a fact which is not contested ; but this is not the point in question. So, too, that Bonner thought the Bishop of Winchester's Ordination null, is what may be granted, without its bringing the dispute to a decision: but it is a false consequence to infer thence, that King Edward's Ritual was prohibited by Law, and that the English Judges approved Bonner's refusal on this plea. And the better to clear up this matter, which may be of some importance, we must have recourse to original documents, and not confine ourselves to what some interested writers have advanced, who strain every thing to suit their prejudices, and without dis- tinction confound truth and falsehood as their caprice leads them. It is unanimously agreed, then, that the Bishop of Win- What is Chester having had the Oath of Supremacy tendered to Bon- a°'oet- ner, he refused it, for two reasons. 1. Because he believed it unlawful. And, 2. Because Horn had no right to require it of him. aUpon this refusal, Horn had him indicted in the King's-Bench, whereupon they assigned him, according to ' Hcylin, Hist. Re£ p. 315. [vol. 2. p. 173.] Collier, Eccl. Hist. vol. 2. p. '1-92,493. 1 18 bonner's pleas, fact. chap, custom, Counsel to plead for him. These Counsel were : — Ployden, Wray, and Lovelace. It is not necessary here to quote all that they alleged to justify Bonner's refusal ; it is enough to insist on the reasons which relate to the validity of Horn's Ordination, and are taken from Bonner's own draught of them, of which some writers have given us the summary. Two ylca?. -Among the rest I find two. The first, which is given us hy the author of the Annals of the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth1', is that this Doctor had not been con- secrated according to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, which required that a Bishop should be ordained by his Metropolitan and two other Bishops, or else by four Bishops, which had not been done in his case. The other, which Heylin and Collier take notice of in their Histories0, is that the form of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, which had been approved in the Parliament held under Edward the Sixth, had been repealed in the first year of Queen Mary, and had not been re-established at the time when Horn was consecrated Bishop of Winchester ; whence Bonner's Counsel argued, that this Ordination, being conformable neither to the Roman Pontifical, which had been revived on Queen Mary's coining to the Crown, nor to the Laws, which had not as yet re-established Edward the Sixth's Ritual, — that this Ordina- tion, I say, was absolutely null, and consequently Horn was not really a Bishop. what is Thus far all writers are sufficiently agreed ; but I am far uotagreec. from gTantjng tjiat these reasons were allowed by the Judges, much less that they were of Bonner's opinion, that Horn was not really a Bishop. This is so much the less probable, because these two reasons are inconclusive, being founded on facts that are false. The fust First, it is false in fact, that they did not observe in Horn's fad false. cage tjje Laws of the Kingdom, made the twenty-fifth year of Henry the Eighth, concerning the Consecration of Bishops, since it is evident from Parker's Register"1, that Horn and Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough, were consecrated Feb. 16, b Strype's Annals, vol. 3. c. 34. p. p. 173.] Collier, EccL Hist. vol. 2. p. 342. [vol. 1. p. 381. Ed. 3. (1735.)] 493. e Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 345. [vol. 2. 4 Reg. Parker, fol. 88. STAPLETON S REASONING. 11!) 156f, by Parker himself, assisted by the Bishops of St. David's, of London, and of Coventry. If Bonner, and after him Stapleton, reproached Horn with not being consecrated, it was not because they were ignorant of this Consecration, but because they maintained that the Consecrators themselves were not Bishops. "eWho knows not" [| says Stapleton,] " that you and your Colleagues were ordained, I will not say differently from what the Canons of the Church require, but not even according to the direction of your own Statutes ? With what front then, with what face, do you dare to arrogate to yourself the title of 'Lord Bishop of Winchester', which all Laws, aswcll Municipal as Ecclesiastical, deny you?" It is not, we see, Ordination absolutely, but a Canonical Ordination, and one made according to Law and ancient usage, which Stapleton denies Horn. "fFor this reason," says he, "you are no Bishop, because — neither will you ever be able to shew an approved and accustomed calling or Consecration." And he was of opinion, that this want of a canonical and regular Consecration, was a sufficient reason for his not acknowledging Horn for a Bishop. "g For although he — has styled 'Bishop of Winchester', one whom he knew suffici- ently to be destitute alike of a lawful call and a Canonical Con- secration,— I nevertheless — declare truly, that you are neither a Bishop, nor 'Lord Bishop of Winchester'." All Stapleton 's reasoning, then, proves no more than this, that Horn was not consecrated after a canonical and lawful manner. But does it follow from a Bishop's not having been consecrated canonically, and from his having intruded into a See from which his prede- cessor has been unlawfully deposed, — does it follow thence, that his Ordination is invalid? Stapleton proves no such thing, and the contrary is now regarded as an established principle. o Quis nescit te tuosque collegas, non dico alitex quam requirunt Cano- nes Ecclesias, sed nec secundum pra;- scriptum statutorum vestorum ordina- te! esse ? Qua ergo fronte, qua facie, rtomen Dotti'mi Episcnpi ]Vinionicmis\\h\ arrogare amies, quo leges omnes, tam Municipalcs quam Ecclesiastica;,merito te privant ? Stapletmi opera, torn. 2. p. 839, 810. ' Propterea non Kpiscopus, quia — nec approbatam et assuetam vocationem aut consecrationem ostendcre unquam poteris. Ib. p. 839, A. g Nam licet — Episcopum Wintonien- sem appellaverit, quem satis novit et legitima vocatione et canouica conse- cratione destitutum, — ego tamen — vere denuncio te nec Episcopum esse, nec Dominion Episcopum H'iiitoniensem. Ibid. p. 838, D. L20 ACTS UNDER EDWARD THE SIXTH. Cvm.I> Nodnng therefore can be more false, than the first cause of refusal alleged by Bonner, it being founded on the want of a Consecration by the Metropolitan assisted by two Bishops, whereas Horn was actually so consecrated, as is proved by the public Records and Registers. Plea 2. Accordingly it was not this first reason that was most insisted on, but the second, viz. That King Edward's Ritual, which was used in Horn's Consecration, had not yet been re- established by Law, at the time of his Ordination, much less therefore at the time of the Ordination of Parker, who Second was ordained fourteen months sooner. But this second fact fact false is no truer than the former ; and if the Judges felt a difficulty in the matter, and it was referred to Parliament, it was only on account of an ambiguity which it is necessary to explain here, in order to throw some light on this transaction. Statutes. In the year 1548, King Edward had had drawn up a new 6. c. l. ' Directory for Divine Service and the Administration of the Sacraments, called The Book of Common Prayer ; and Par- liament had ordered it to be used11. In 1549, there was 3 and 4 Ed. drawn up also, with the authority of Parliament', a Form for the Consecration of Bishops, and the Ordination of Priests and Deacons, whose dignity and functions were still pre- served, notwithstanding the alterations introduced into that Church ; and in 1552, this Form was annexed to The Book of Common Prayer, which had been revised. This Book, thus revised and augmented, was again authorized by Act of Parliament, and this addition became part of that new Ritual. As this Statute is important for the clearing up of the difficulty before us, I shall give it almost entire, as preserved to us by the compiler of the Statutes of the Realm. It speaks SandGEd. as follows : k"V. And because there hath risen in the ' c' ' " use and exercise of the aforesaid Common Service in the "Church, heretofore set forth, divers. doubts for the fashion and "manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the "curiosity of the Minister and mistakcrs, then of any other "worthy cause; (2.) therefore, as well for the more plain and h Statutes at Large, vol. L p. Git. 1 Ibid. p. 674. and Ileylin, Hist Ref. p. 82, 83. * Statutes at Large, vol. L p (370. This and the following Statutes are given in their original language among the Proofs. [See the Editor's notes.] ACTS UNDER EDWARD THE SIXTH AND MARY. 121 " manifest explanation thereof, as for the more perfection of the " said order or Common Service, in some places where it is "necessary to make the same Prayer and fashion of Service " more earnest and fit to stir Christian people to the true "honouring of Almighty God, (3.) The King's most excellent " Majesty, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this " present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the " same, hath caused the aforesaid order of Common Service, "entituled, The Book of Common-Prayer, to be faithfully " and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect, and by " the aforesaid authority hath annexed and joined it, so ex- " plained and perfected, to this present Statute ; (4.) adding "also a form and manner of making and consecrating of "Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to be of like "force, authority and value, as the same like foresaid Book, "entituled, The Book of Common-Prayer, was before, and to "be accepted, received, used, and esteemed in like sort and " manner, and with the same clauses of provisions and excep- " tions, to all intents, constructions and purposes, as by "the Act of Parliament made in the Second year of the "King's Majesty's Reign, was ordained, limited, expressed " and appointed for the uniformity of Service and Adminis- " tration of the Sacraments throughout the Realm, upon such " several pains as in the said Act of Parliament is expressed : " (5.) And the said former Act to stand in full force and " strength, to all intents and constructions, and to be applied, "practised, and put in ure, to and for the establishing of the "Book of Common-prayer, now explained, and hereunto " annexed, and also the said form of making of Archbishops, "Bishops, or Priests and Deacons, hereunto annexed, as " it was for the former Book." These words, "and also the said form of making of Archbishops, — hereunto annexed, as it was for the former Book," are particularly remarkable, and must not be lost sight of in the examination of the difficulty before us. This Statute was repealed in 1553, the first year of i Mar. Queen Mary The Book of Common-Prayer was abolished, Sess-2-c- and the use of the Roman Pontifical resumed in the Ordination l Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 709. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 298. [vol. 2. p. 28-] 122 ACTS OF THE FIRST CvmV' of bishops C&c-] But one of the first cares of Elizabeth, as soon '■ — as she had ascended the throne, was to restore things to the footing on which they stood in King Edward's time ; and for this end, in her first Parliament, held in 1559, the Book of Common-Prayer was re-established, and recovered all the authority it had had before. This Statute was prior to all the Ordinations made in Elizabeth's reign ; and as it is on it that the determination of our question depends, it is im- portant to adduce it here, as preserved to us by the compiler 1 E)iz.c.2. of the Acts of Parliament. It is as follows: m" Where at the " death of — King Edward the Sixth, there remained one uni- "form order of Common Service and Prayer, and of the " Administration of the Sacraments, — set forth in one Book, intituled, The Book of Common-Prayer, and Administration " of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies in the " Church of England, authorized by Act of Parliament, holden "in the fifth and sixth years of — King Edward the Sixth, — ; the " which was repealed and taken away by Act of Parliament " in the first year of — Queen Mary, to the great decay of the " due honour of God, and discomfort to the professors of the " truth of Christ's Religion : II. Be it therefore enacted by the " authority of this present Parliament, That the said Estatute "of Repeal, and every thing therein contained, only con- " cerning the said Book, and the Service, Administration " of the Sacraments, Rites and Ceremonies, contained or " appointed in or by the said Book, shall be void and of none " effect, from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John "Baptist next coming; (2.) And that the said Book — , with " the Alterations and Additions therein added and appointed "by this Estatute, shall stand and be — in full force and "effect, — ; any thing in the aforesaid Estatute of Repeal to the " contrary notwithstanding. III. And further be it enacted — " That all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral or Parish " Church — shall from and after the Feast of the Nativity of " St. John Baptist next coming, be bounden to say and use " the Mattcns, Even-song, Celebration of the Lord's Supper, " and administration of each of the Sacraments, and all the " Common and open prayer, in such order and form as is "» Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 763. AND EIGHTH OF ELIZABETH. 123 " mentioned in the said Book so authorized by Parliament, in " the said fifth and sixth years of the Reign of King Edward " the Sixth," with the alterations and additions enumerated, " and none other or otherwise." Such is the famous Statute of the Parliament of 1559, made before the consecration of Parker, and consequently before that of Horn; conformably to which the Parliament of 1566 declared valid all the Ordinations made under Queen Eliza- beth according to the Ritual of Edward the Sixth, as appears by this new Statute given in the same Collection. " "(2.) Be 8Eliz. c " it now declared and enacted by the Authority of this present " Parliament, that the said Act and Statute made in the first " year of the Reign of our said Sovereign Lady the Queen's " Majesty, whereby the said Book of Common-Prayer — is " authorized and allowed to be used, shall stand and remain " good and perfect to all respects and purposes : (3.) And " that such order and form for the consecrating of Arch- " bishops and Bishops, and for the making of Priests, Deacons " and Ministers, as was set forth in the time of the said " late King Edward the Sixth, and added to the said Book " of Common-Prayer, and authorized by Parliament in the " fifth and sixth years of the said late King, shall stand and " be in full force and effect, — : IV. — : V. And that all " persons that have been, or shall be made, ordered or con- '"'sccrate Archbishops, Bishops, Sfc. after the form and order " prescribed in the said order and form how Archbishops, 8fc. " should be consecrated, made and ordered, be in very deed, " and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to " be, and shall be Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers "and Deacons, and rightly made, ordered and conse- " crated ; $c." It seems plain from the bare reading of these two last Result Statutes, that the Ritual of Edward the Sixth had been re- established in the first year of Elizabeth's reign, i. c. in 1559 How then could Bonner and Stapleton say that Horn, who was ordained according to that Ritual in 1561, had not been consecrated according to the laws of the Realm ? And how could the Judges be under any difficulty in determining on this head? This is what I must now explain. x Ibid. p. 816. Sect. III. and V. 124 THE ORDINAL RE-ESTABLISHED CHAP. By the Statute of 1552, Edward the Sixth had added to — the Book of Common-Prayer, a Form for consecrating Cause of . the dim- Bishops, Priests and Deacons, which was thenceforth to make culty- a part of that Book. In 1553 this Book was abolished, and with it the Form for the Ordination of Bishops [&c.]. In 1559, when Queen Elizabeth caused the Statute of 1553 to be repealed, there was express mention made of the Book of Common-Prayer, but not of the addition that had been made to it, i. e. of the Form of Ordination, because it was regarded as making a part of the said Book. It was this omission which occasioned all the difficulty: for this Form having been expressly abolished in Queen Mary's reign, and not expressly re-established under Queen Elizabeth, Bonner's Counsel contended that the Ordination was null, and that Horn was no Bishop. This seemed a point of sufficient con- sequence to be brought before Parliament in 1566 ; and it was this that occasioned the last Statute I have adduced, by which the Ordinations made in Queen Elizabeth's time are declared good and valid, notwithstanding any thing that might be objected to the contrary. The Parliament, in pronouncing on the validity of the English Ordinations, determined clearly, that the Form of Ordination had been re-established in the year 1559; and considering the case attentively, they certainly could not have The Ordi- determined otherwise. For by the Statute of 1552 the Form the Prayer- of Ordination was made a part of the Book of Common- book, Prayer. The Statute is express; and Heylin, one of the Historians of the Reformation, takes particular notice of it. ""And they", says he, i. e. the Bishops and Divines ap- pointed to draw up the Form of Ordination which the Parlia- ment had ordered, "applied themselves unto the work, follow- ing therein the rules of the primitive Church, as they are rather recapitulated than ordained, in the fourth Council of Carthage, Anno 401. Which, though but national in itself, was generally both approved and received (as to the Form of consecrating Bishops and inferior Ministers) in all the Churches of the West. Which book, being finished, was made use of, without further authority, till the year 1552. At what time, being added to the second Liturgy, it was approved of, and 0 Heylin's History of the Reformation, p. 83. WITH THE PRAYER-BOOK. 125 confirmed, as a part thereof, by Act of Parliament, An. 5. Edw. VI. cap. 1." It was this Book, thus revised and augmented, which after and as having been suppressed in 1553, the first year of Queen Mary, stored™" was re-established by Queen Elizabeth in 1559. The Statute withit we have given of this last year mentions in two places the re-establishment of the Book, such as it had been approved and confirmed, not by the Act of 1548, but by that of 1552. But in the Book of Common-Prayer approved by Parliament in 1552, the Form of Ordination had been attached to and made part of it, as appears, 1. From the Edition itself of this Book in 1552, which is found in the library of M. le Comte de Seignelay, wherein, in the table of the contents, which Table <»f are undoubtedly so many parts of the Book itself, we find con,en s- as the 21st article this title, "The form and manner of making and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons" ; and wherein the date of the impression of the whole book is not till the end of this part of the whole work. 2. It appears with equal certainty from the words themselves Words of of the Statute of 1552, which is conceived in these terms, 011552"'' p"(3.) The King's most excellent Majesty, — , hath caused " the aforesaid — Book of Common-Prayer to be faithfully and " godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect, and by the " aforesaid authority hath annexed and joined it, so explained " and perfected, to this present Statute; (4.) adding also a form " and manner of making and consecrating of Archbishops, " Bishops, Priests and Deacons, to be of like force, authority " and value, as the same like foresaid Book — was before, and " to be accepted, received, used, and esteemed in like sort and " manner, and with the same clauses — , as by the Act of Parlia- " mcnt made in the second year of the King's Majesty's Reign, " was ordained, — for the Uniformity of Service — throughout "the Realm, $*c." This expression, adding also, is remark- able, because it proves clearly that the Parliament regarded the Form of Ordination only as an addition made to the Book of Common-Prayer. So at least it was understood by all the Kingdom ; for they made no scruple of using the Ritual of King Edward for the Ordination of the Bishops nominated v Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. (376. Sect. V. 126 THE ORDINAL RE-ESTABLISHED chap, by Queen Elizabeth, thinking it re-established by the Act of '- — Parliament which had been made for the re-establishment of the Book of Common-Prayer. Heyiin. This is very judiciously represented by Dr. Heyiin in his History of the Reformation n. This business, he says, was brought before the Parliament which began the thirtieth of September 1566, "where all particulars being full}* and con- siderately discoursed upon," it was declared that the Form of Ordinations having been added in 1552 to the Book of Com- mon-Prayer, "as a member of it," [says Heyiin,] "or at least an appendant to it," their having forgotten to mention it expressly when they re-established the Book of Common-Prayer, was an omission of no consequence, and that it had been re-esta- blished, if not in terminis [in express terms], at least in the intention of the Parliament. That, however, the words of the said Statute having given rise to some doubt, they re-enacted it anew, and declared accordingly that all those who had been or should be ordained according to that Form, were and should be held to be rightly ordained, and to be true Bishops, Sec. This, as we have seen above, is the exact purport of the Statute of 1566. The 36th But before the Parliament had declared their sense on this 1 ' difficulty, it was not doubted that the Form of Ordination was included in the re-establishment of the Book of Common- Prayer. This is seen clearly from the 36th article of the Convocation held at London in 1562. r"The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament," says this Convocation, " doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: .... And therefore whosoever are consecrated and ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites ; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered." But how could the Convocation have judged valid the 'i rage 346. [vol. 2. p. 174.] &c. [in Eng. p. 105: in Lat.] p. 221. 1 [Sparrow's] Collection of Articles [Prayer-book, Articles of Religion.] WITH THE PRAYER-BOOK. 127 Ordinations made since the year 1559, unless the Parlia- ment had then already given the Form of Ordination the same authority it had under Edward the Sixth ? And how did the Parliament give it this authority unless by re-establishing the Book of Common-Prayer, of which the Form of Ordina- tion had been a part since 1552. This is very well observed by Burnet, the learned Burnet Bishop of Salisbury, in his Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. s" When Queen Elizabeth", says he, " came to the Crown, King- Edward's Common-Prayer-Book was of new enacted, and Queen Mary's Act was repealed. But the Book of Ordina- tion was not expressly named, it being considered as a part of the Common-Prayer-Book, as it had been made in King Edward's time ; so it was thought no more necessary to mention that Office by name, than to mention all the other Offices that are in the Book. Bishop Bonner set on foot a nicety, That since the Book of Ordinations was by name condemned in Queen Mary's time, and was not by name re- vived in Queen Elizabeth's time, that therefore it was still condemned by Law, and that by consequence Ordinations per- formed according to this Book were not legal. But it is visible, that whatsoever might be made out of this according to the niceties of our Law, it has no relation to the validity of Ordinations, as they are sacred performances, but only as they are legal actions with relation to our Constitution. There- fore a declaration was made in a subsequent Parliament, That the Book of Ordination was considered as a part of the Book of Common-Prayer." The terms themselves of the Statute of 1559, would alone statute suffice to prove the re-establishment of the -Form of Ordina- of ,j59' tion : for though this Form is not distinctly mentioned therein, yet the Statute says expressly, that they re-established the Book of Common-Prayer, and every thing therein con- tained, relating to divine service, the administration of the Sa- craments, and the rites and ceremonies of the Church. But is it not certain that the Form of Ordination must be regarded as making part of the administration of the Sacraments', or at least, if that be preferred, of the rites and ceremonies of the Church « ? « Art. 30. p. 377. 1 ' Bramhall, p. 452, 45.3. 128 ITS RE-ESTABLISHMENT ACKNOWLEDGED chap. Moreover, the same Statute contains a repeal of the one which V11L — had been made in 1553, in the beginning of Queen Mary's reign, and of all it had enacted relating to divine service, the administration of the Sacraments, and the rites and cere- monies of the Church. But this Statute u had before expressly repealed all that Edward the Sixth had ordered in relation to the Book of Common-Prayer, the Form of Ordinations, the Heylin. Communion in both kinds, &c, and of this Dr. Heylin takes particular notice. x " By this Act," says he, speaking of the Statute of Queen Mary, " they took away all former Statutes for administering the Communion in both kinds ; for establishing the first and second Liturgy; for confirming the new Ordinal, or Form of consecrating Archbishops and Bishops, &c. ; for ab- rogating certain Fasts and Festivals which had formerly been observed; for authorizing the marriage of Priests, and legitima- tion of their children; not to say any thing of that Statute (as not worth the naming) for making Bishops by the King's Let- ters Patents, and exercising their Episcopal jurisdiction in the King's name only." But since the Statute of 1559 re-established all that had been repealed by the other in relation to divine service, the administration of the Sacraments, and the rites of the Church, and that repeal expressly comprehended the Form of Ordination; is it not evident that this Form of Ordi- nation, which is one of the most essential parts of the admi- nistration of the Sacraments and of the rites of the Church, was re-established like the Book to which it had been Sanders, annexed by a formal decree ? Sanders makes no difficulty to acknowledge it, when, speaking expressly of the Form of Ordination established by Edward the Sixth, he says that Queen Mary repealed it, and Queen Elizabeth re-established it. "y These new Laws," says he, "Queen Mary repealed; Bossuet. Elizabeth restored and renewed." The late M. Bossuet Bishop of Meaux, whose testimony cannot be suspected in this dispute, was also so convinced of the evidence of this fact, that in his History of Variations, he recognises expressly that the Parliament of 1559 re-established the Form of Ordi- nation appointed in King Edward's time. "Weak Bishops," » Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 709. Maria ; Elizabetha in integrum resliluit * Hist. Kef. p. 198. [vol. 2. p. 28.] ac renovavit. De Schi.m. AngU lib. 3. y Has leges novas sustulit ltegina p. 318. BY ROMAN CATHOLICS. 129 says hez, "wretched Clergy! who choose rather to take their form of Consecration from ' the Booh lately ( it was only ten years before) set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed by authority of Parliament,'' than from the Sacra- mentary of St. Gregory, the author of their conversion, . . . Upon this it was that these Bishops rested the validity of their own Consecration, and that of the Ordination of their Priests and Deacons ; and they did so in conformity with an Ordinance of the Parliament of 1559, in which the doubt as to Ordination was resolved by a decree which authorized the Ceremonial of Ordinations annexed to King Edward's Liturgy ; so that if the Parliament had not made those Acts, the Ordination of all the Clergy would have remained doubtful." Thus did that learned Bishop make no scruple to allow that from the year 1559, i. e. before any Bishop was ordained, King Edward's Ordinal was re-esta- blished ; and his testimony is fully equivalent to that of many others. But what will appear more surprising is that, according to Jesuits. BramhalK even the Jesuits against whom he wrote, de- sirous to establish the truth of the Nag's-hcad Fable, did not at all contend that the Book of Ordination was un- authorized, but owned on the contrary, that the Parliament of 1559 had re-established it in full force. This has appeared so certain, that even since the year 1566, the re-establishment of this Form and of all that relates to Divine Service, has been expressed in no other way than by that of the Book of Common-Prayer, it being judged rightly that the title of that Book alone comprehended all the branches of the Service of the Church. This appears by the Statute of 1662, passed at the commencement of the reign of 13 and 14 Charles the Second, where it is said, bthat Queen Elizabeth Car,2-C-4- having re-established in the first year of her reign, an unifor- mity in public worship and prayer, in the administration of the Sacraments, and the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England, by the re-establishment of the Book of Common- Prayer, it was a great misfortune for Religion, that in the * Hist, des Variations [des Eglises a page 465. Protestantes], liv. 10. torn. 2. p. 14. b Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 1198. K 130 WHY BONNER WAS DISCHARGED ° vin P t™es °^ trouble and rebellion, this order and uniformity had '■ — been laid aside ; and therefore, to remedy it, that the King, with the consent of the Parliament, enacted that they should resume the use of "the Book of Common-Prayer . . . together with the Psalter . . . and the form and manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, fyc." It is clear that by this mode of expression Charles the Second professes only to re-establish what Queen Elizabeth herself had re-established by the Statute enjoining the use of the Common-Prayer. But Charles the Second re-established the Form of Ordination as forming a part of the Book of Common-Prayer, for he joins to this Book the Psalter with the Form of Ordination, and undoubtedly the Psalter was a part of it. There is then no room to doubt that from the first year of Queen Elizabeth, i. e. from 1559, before the Ordina- tion of any Bishop, the Formulary of Edward the Sixth was re-established, and consequently was not prohibited by Law, when Parker was consecrated. Objection. But it is objected, if Horn's Ordination according to King Edward's Ordinal was judged valid, why discharge Bonner from the prosecution commenced against him by the Bishop of Winchester, and approve thereby the reasons he alleged for refusing the Oath ? For by thus discharging the indict- ment, they appear to have allowed clearly that Horn was not truly a Bishop. Answer. This conclusion is neither just nor true. In 1562 the Bishops of the Convocation held at London had declared that the Bishops ordained by King Edward's Ritual, were rightly and duly consecrated; and in consequence they went on ordaining all the new Bishops according to the same Rite, without the intervention of any new declaration on the part of Parliament ; a proof that what Bonner maintained was regarded as groundless. When in 1566 this affair was brought before Parliament, a solemn declaration was there made, agreeably to the determination of the Convocation at London, that Horn and his colleagues were truly Bishops, and had been validly ordained. There was never any doubt on this head, and if Bonner's Counsel gave weight to this groimd of refusal, it was because they could find nothing more plausible to allege FROM TIIE INDICTMENT. 131 against the Bishop of Winchester. However, though they why Bon- had no douht as to the validity of the Ordination, yet as the JjjjJcSr- Law was not so clear as it might have been, it was a sort of eetl- justice to acquit the accused, whose cause is always entitled to favour, when the Law seems to need explanation. Besides, as Dr. Heylin remarks0, they considered " Bonner and the rest of the Bishops as men that had sufficiently suffered upon that account by the loss of their Bishoprics;" and were not sorry to treat them with some indulgence ; the more because, as the author of Parker's Life and Heylin d say, they made it & rule to observe great caution and moderation in regard of the Oath of Supremacy, in order not to exasperate the Catholics, but bring them gradually by gentle measures to come into what was required of them, without raising any disturbance : e " Which favour was indulged ... in hope of gaining them by fair means to a sense of their duty". In fact, it appears from a letter of Parker's to Sir William Cecil Secretary of State f, that Queen Elizabeth did not wish that any one should be pushed to extremities on account of the Oath, but in order not to disoblige those of her party who were desirous of the contrary, did not come forward herself in the matter, but left it to Parker and Cecil to manage the whole between them with circumspection. The Queen, as is certain, being in this disposition of mind, and her interest and views being the moving principle of all the resolutions of Parliament, need we be surprised that they should have dis- charged Bonner from the indictment laid against him, and at the same time solemnly recognised Horn as a Bishop? It will perhaps be said, that so little was Bonner discharged Objection from the indictment laid against him from any such motive, decision, that the Boyal Judges declared even in Elizabeth's reign, that the Bishops ordained in King Edward's time were not Bishops. This is pretended to be proved from a work of Lord Chief Justice Sir Bobert Brooke, printed with that Queen's privilege, out of which Champney and Ward have extracted this report f: "Dicitur que Evesqes in tempore E. 6. nc c Hist. Ref. p. 346. [vol. 2. p. 171.] Latin and English printed on the next " Life of Parker, p. 125. Heylin, ib. page. The French is Case 463. (fed. c Heylin, ibid. 101.) of the abstract mentioned in the ' Life of Parker, p. 125, 126. next page but one, and published in 8 [Not the original French, but the 1587. and 1604. Ed.] K 2 132 SIR ROBERT BROOK E'S DECISION c H A P. fueront sacrcs, et ideo nefueront Evesques, ct ideo leas'* pur ans per ' — tiels, et conjirme per le Dcaite ct Chapter, ne licra le successour. Car tiels lie unques fueront Evesques. Contra de Evesque deprive que fiat Evesque in fait tempore dimissionis, et confirmatio facta. B. Leases 68." A report which [omitting the last sentence] Champney" translates thus: Dicitur Episcopos tem- pore Edwardi sexti crcatos rum fuisse consecratos, atque ideo non fuisse Episcopos ; ac proinde locationes tcrrarum pro certo an- norum tcrmino per cos factas, confirmatas etiam per Deca- num §• Capitulum, successorem ejus non obl'ujabunt, quia tales nunquam fuerunt Episcopi. [And Ward J into English thus: " It is said that the Bishops created in the time of King Edward VI. were not consecrated, and therefore were not Bishops ; and for this reason, the locations of lands for certain terms of years hy them made, though confirmed also by Dean and Chapter, did" (read shall) "not oblige the successor, be- cause such had never been Bishops."] Such a decision given in Elizabeth's reign, shews what their idea was even in that Queen's time of the Ordinations made according to the Bite of Edward the Sixth, and how unsound and frivolous, says Champney, those who were best skilled in the Laws judged them to be. "kThe Judges of the Kingdom, under Queen Elizabeth herself, so called in question the Ordinations of Bishops made under Edward, that they seem to have regarded them as null." But the same judgment must be formed of the Ordinations which took place under Queen Elizabeth, since they followed therein King Edward's Ordinal. They were therefore at that time looked upon as invalid, notwithstanding the pretended decisions of Parliament, which had not been able as yet to satisfy the minds of men, and give them a favourable opinion of the new Ordinations. Answer. If what Champney here alleges were true, it would be diffi- cult enough to reconcile what was done in Queen Elizabeth's time with the decision we have just given. But that writer has but endeavoured to impose on mankind, by a great assurance in the falsest things ; and to refute him, little more h [Or, as in the edition of 1(>04, lease.] 1 De Vocat. Minist. c. 13. p. 432. i Controversy of Ordination, p. 28. k Judices Regni,subipsamet Eliza- beths Regina, Ordinationes Episcopo- rum factas sub Edvardo adeo in dubium vocarunt, ut eas nullas fuisse existimasse videantur. De I'oc. M. il>. WITH RESPECT TO EDWARD THE SIXTHS BISHOPS. 133 is necessary than to give a straightforward account of the facts he is desirous to misrepresent and falsify. Several proofs of this have heen already offered : I shall Real case, here produce a new one. Sir Robert Brooke was Lord Chief Justice of England under Queen Mary. An ardent Catholic, he zealously maintained the side of the old Religion. Like most of the Divines of that time, he was possessed with the prejudice that the Ordinations made in King Edward's time were null, because they were not made according to the old Pontifical. Under the influence of this prejudice, when con- sulted as to the validity of the leases and contracts made by the new Bishops, he decided in his work entitled, The Grand Abridgement, &c. that they were null, because the persons who had made them were not Bishops. This decision is indeed Brooke's, and it is not in this point that Champney has been guilty of falsehood. But that in which he has wished to champ- impose on the world is his advancing that this decision was "eptiorT made in Queen Elizabeth's time; Judices regni sub ipsamet Elizabetha Regina ; — whereas in reality it was made under Queen Mary, as is easy to prove: 1. Because Brooke was dead before Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown. 2. Because the anonymous author, who has extracted from Sir Robert Brooke's work the most important cases that happened under Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Queen Mary, sets down expressly to the second year of Mary the case in question : 1 Anno sccundo Maria. This work, which was published with the title of Ascnns Novell ° Cases de les ans §• temps le Roy II. 8. Ed. 6. Sf la Roygne Mary, 8fc. and which may be seen in the Library of St. Genevieve, was not unknown to Champney, for he quotes it™. So that it can only have been from a most remarkable bad faith that, in ascribing to the Judges of Elizabeth's time a decision which was made under Queen Mary, — in order to give some colour to the falsehood he advances, he attributes to Brooke n a work printed under Queen Elizabeth, which is but an abstract from his work, as appears from the title, Ascuns Novell ° Cases de les ans temps 1 Ascuns Novell Cases &c. [Case lateil the passage above given ! Ed.] 463.] fol. 101. [in both Editions.] ■ [" Brokua in oasibus to 403. fol. 101."] o o [Novel, Ed. 1001-.] m [It was from this very work, and with the very words Anno secundo Maria before bis eyes, that he trans- 134 ACT OF PARLIAMENT IN 1597. CHAP. le Roy H. 8. Ed. 6. la Roygne Mary, escrie ex la ground ' — Abridgment, composedv per Sir Robert Brooke Chivalcr, 8fc. la disperse en les titles. Mes icy collected sub ans. And indeed how could Brooke, who died in 1558, publish a work in 1587? There needs then only to refer each thing to its own time, and the difficulty will vanish. Champney's deception is so essential to his objection, that the bare exposure of the one leaves no shadow of reason on which with the least plausibility to found the other; and the distinguishing of the times destroys all the advantage which it is attempted to draw from this decision. Objection. But, it may be said, if Sir Robert Brooke's judgment was given under Mary, it is certain at all events that it was allowed to be printed with privilege under Elizabeth, in the anony- mous abstract from his work; and would this have been allowed if they had not doubted the validity of those Ordi- nations? Besides, it is certain that notwithstanding the Act of Parliament in 1566, a very bad opinion was still enter- tained of those Consecrations; since many years after the printing of the extract in question, the Parliament held in 39Eliz.c 8. the 39th year of Queen Elizabeth, i. e. in 1597, was obliged to pass a new Actr to confirm the Ordination of the new Bishops, and the deposition of the old ones. There was therefore always a doubt about the validity of those Ordina- tions; and the prejudice on this point was so strong, that the new Statutes could not easily remove it. Answer. Mere imagination all this. The subject of this last Statute 1597. is not at all the validity of the Consecration of the new Bishops. It does not say a word about it, nor does the Statute mention any doubt on this head. The fact was this. They learnt that some of the Bishops and other beneficed persons that were deprived, had drawn up appeals and secret protests against their deprivation, in order to use them in due time and place, and get a sentence annulled which they had cause to regard as unjust. Those who were in actual posses- sion of their places, fearing some revolution similar to the preceding ones, thought it best to provide against these ap- peals and protests, and hence came this new Act of Parlia- v 1 [Compose, and collect, Ed. 1G01.] r Statutes at Large, vol. ]. p. 922. REPRINT FROM BROOKE. 135 ment, which is printed at length amongst our Proofs. But this Statute, without speaking either of Consecration, or of any doubt raised on that subject, contents itself with annulling these appeals, and declares that the former Bishops and other beneficed persons had been lawfully deprived, that the new ones had been lawfully substituted in their places, that the vacancy of the Offices was real according to Law, and that the deprivation of the one and possession of the other, should stand good in spite of any appeal or question whatever. What inference can be drawn from this Statute which is not entirely on our side? Ordination was not at all the question in hand : if there was doubt at all, it was only on the part of the deprived ; the business was only to render ineffectual their appeals, and it was declared that all the proceedings in their case were according to Law. How then can it be inferred thence, that in Queen Elizabeth's time the Judges were still in doubt as to the validity of the Ordinations ? As to the permission given in her reign to print the abstract Reprint from Brooke's work with privilege, it is the last thing in the Brooke. world on which any stress can be laid. For it is the custom in England, that when there are found in Law-books any precedents or particular cases decided according to the Laws in force at the time of the decision, they do not suppress such cases when they come to reprint these books, even though the Laws themselves have since been repealed. After such repeal, these books are regarded merely as historical works, which shew the practice and opinion of the times when the case was so decided; and the Judges who allow the printing, knowing besides that the Law is no longer in force, regard less the time when the work is printed, than that in which it was written. Thus there was no cause to hinder the printing of this abstract from Sir Robert Brooke's work ; for the decisions of this author being referred to the time when they were made, there was no danger of mistake ; and after so solemn a declaration as that which had been made in the Parliament of 1566, there was no cause to appre- hend that persons would ascribe to the reign of Elizabeth a decision made in the time of Mary ; so well was the difference understood. This permission then is no proof that in Queen Elizabeth's time a bad opinion was entertained of the new 136 THE CLAUSE SUPPLENTES &C. chap. Ordinations ; and Champney, by starting the point, has but — given a fresh proof of his bad faith, since he hoped thereby to attribute to the time of Elizabeth a decision altogether opposed to the Laws, the practice, and the opinions, which prevailed in her reign. Objection. There is perhaps better faith in the last difficulty that he pensin'l" objects against us. It is that the Queen herself was so much clause. 0f opinion, that the Ordination of the new Bishops was con- trary to the Laws, which had abolished King Edward's Formulary and not re-established it again, that in the second Commission despatched for the Consecration of Parker, to cover this defect, she added a clause which she thought necessary to anticipate whatever might be objected against the validity of these Ordinations. "s Supplying nevertheless," says this Commission, "by our Supreme Royal Authority, of our mere motion and certain knowledge, whatever either in the things to be done by you pursuant to our aforesaid Mandate, or in you, or any of you, your condition, state, or power for the performance of the premisses, may or shall be wanting of those things which either by the Statutes of this Realm, or by the Ecclesiastical Laws, are required or are necessary on this behalf, the state of the times and the exi- gency of affairs rendering it necessary." But it cannot be doubted, they add, that this clause regarded especially the Form The Sta- of Ordination, since the Statute of 1566 takes express notice tute of . I5ti6. of it in these words: '"(10.) And further, for the avoiding of all ambiguities and questions that might be objected against the lawful Confirmations, Investing and Consecrations of the said Archbishops and Bishops, her Highness in her Letters Patents— directed to the Archbishop, Bishop or others, for the confirming, investing, and consecrating of any person elected to the Office or Dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop, hath not only used such words and sentences as were accustomed to be used by — her Majesty's Father and Brother, — but also hath used and put in her Majesty's said Supplentes nichilominus suprema enda desit aut deerit eorum quae per auctoritate nostra Regia, ex mero motu statuta hujus Regni, aut per Leges Ec- et certa seientia nostris, siquid aut in elesiastieas, in hac parte requiruntur hiis quae juxta mandatum nostrum aut necessaria sunt, teniporis ratione et prse dictum per vos fient, aut in vobis, rerum necessitate id postulante. Rtjmcr. aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, torn. 15. p. 550. facilitate vestris ad proemissa perfici- < Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. HI 5. PROVES NOTHING. 137 Letters Patents, divers other general words and sentences, whereby her Highness, by her supreme Power and Authority, hath dispensed with all causes or doubts of any imperfection or disability, that can or may in any wise be objected against the same, — ." We see by this Statute that they suspected there had been some irregularities in the Consecration of the new Bishops. But such irregularity must necessarily arise either from King Edward's Ritual having been unauthorized, or from its not containing what was essential to Ordination ; so that, one or the other, cither the Ordination was faulty by defect in matter or form, or for want of authority ; and be the case as it will, it cannot stand good. But, whatever use people may choose to make of this clause, Answer, it certainly cannot be concluded thence that the Consecration T'itsu!f.U!" of the new Bishops was performed contrary to Law, and that King Edward's Formulary had not been re-established in 1559. For, 1. If they had thought this clause necessary to Various supply the irregularity of the Ordination, they should not argumenti have omitted it in any of the Consecrations that were per- formed before 1566, since King Edward's Form was not re- established by name till that year. Yet of all the Commissions issued for the Consecration of Bishops which Bymer has given us from 1559 to 1566, not one has this clause besides that of Parker. 2. All are agreed, and those of the Church of Eng- land as well as the rest, that the Prince can dispense only with human law, and that the matter and form of the Sacra- ments do not admit of dispensation. Ai'chbishop Bramhall u lays this down in express terms, and declares positively, that if any thing essential to Ordination was wanting, such a clause would not make it valid. 3. By this clause the Queen did not pretend to do more than supply any defect there might happen to be in respect of formalities and ceremonies not essential, as appears sufficiently from the very terms of the clause. Supjde?ites nieldlominiis — siguid aut in Mis quce juxta mandatum nostrum prcedictum per vos Jient, aut in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facultatc vestris ad pramissa perficienda desit out deerit eorum qua> per Statuta hujus Tlegni, aut per leges Ecclcsiasticas, in hoc parte requiruntur aut neces- saj-ia sunt, temporis ratione et rerurn necessitate id postulante. " Page 453. 138 THE CLAUSE SVPPLBXTES &C. chap. For we 6ee that she undertakes to supply only what might be : — wanting with regard to the Laws of the Kingdom, and the Ecclesiastical Laws. But the validity of Ordination does not depend properly on all this, but on the things prescribed by the Holy Scripture and practised by the Apostles, as imposi- tion of hands and prayer, which are preserved in the new Ritual, and this they well knew it was not in Elizabeth's Use made power to supply. 4. We see by the use, or rather the appli- cfause. cation, they made of this clause, that they never thought that it regarded what might relate to the validity of the Consecra- tion. For of all the Instruments relating to Parker's Ordina- tion which remain to us, I know of none wherein this clause is mentioned, except in those of the Confirmation of the Election, which took place on Saturday the ninth of December by the four Bishops who consecrated him on the seventeenth, and of the inthronization, which are acts purely civil: in that of Consecration, which is an act altogether spiritual, it Act of is not mentioned. Bramhall has published the Act of Con- mation. firmation, and it will be printed entire at the end of this Treatise, to save the trouble of searching for it elsewhere : I shall content myself with transcribing here the passage which seems to me most essential. " x We William, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells, now Elect of Chichester, §-c. by virtue of the Royal Commissional Letters Patent of the Most Serene — Queen Defender of the Faith, &c. with this clause — and likewise this addition, Supplying nevertheless &c. her Majesty's Commissioners — , specially and lawfully de- puted, having heard, — . Therefore we, William late fyc. — do, by virtue of our said Most Serene Lady the Queen's supreme authority committed to us in this behalf, confirm the aforesaid Election — , supplying by the supreme Royal authority, dele- * Auditis,— per nos Willielmum quondam Bathon. et Wellen. Episco- pum, nunc Cicestren. Electum, Sfc. Serenissimae — Reginae Fidei Defens. &c, mediantibus Literis suis Regiis Commissionalibus Paten. — Commissa- rios, cum hac clausula — necnon et hac adjectione, Supplentes nihilominus &c. specialiter et legitime deputatos, — . Id- circo nos Willielmus nuper^c. — praedic- tam Electionem — suprema authoritate dictoe Serenissimae D. N. Reginae nobis in hac parte commissa confirmamns, supplentes ex suprema authoritate Re- gia, ex mero Principis motu ac certa scientia nobis delegata, quidquid in hac Electione fuerit defectum, — . Bramhall, p. 453. [The passage is here given more exactly in the words of the Act, and for that purpose rather more fully, from the Register itself, as reprinted at the end of Bramhall1 s Works, p. 1043, 1044. Ed.] PROVES NOT1IING. 139 gated to us of the Queen's mere motion and certain knowledge, whatever may have been defective therein,—." Now by the use here made of the clause, it seems natural enough to conclude, that as in this first Ordination, they departed from the usage established in the preceding reign, they were willing to take precautions against the reproaches of the Catholics, and therefore expressed in the first Instrument, that the Queen, by her Prerogative, dispensed with all defects that might happen in the act through deviation from the Laws, and the incapacity of the persons. 5. I have scarce any manner Probable of doubt, but that in this clause they had principally in view th^clausc the persons of the Consecrators. Barlow, Scory and Cover- dale had been deprived in Queen Mary's reign, and others put in their places. Though they still preserved their character of Bishops, yet it cannot be doubted that they were incapable of lawfully performing any Ecclesiastical Office, without first being canonically restored. But this had not yet been done : here then was a very considerable irregularity ; and it was this they thought to remedy by the clause in question. For it appears that it was the irregularity with respect to the persons which they especially intended to obviate. Siquid . . . aut in vobis, ant vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facultate vestris ad pramissa perjicienda desit. — What confirms me in this opinion is, that in the first Commission drawn up for Parker's Ordination, this clause is not found. But when they saw that the Catholic Bishops would not meddle with the business, and that the whole would devolve on the deprived Bishops, they found themselves obliged to add this clause, as if to obviate the irregularity there was in the choice of the persons appointed for that function. 6. Lastly, the clause in question does not say there was any defect in the Ordination, nor even suppose it ; but only does what is practised at Rome, when they grant absolutions ad cautelam Absolvi- tor precaution], without enquiring whether they are necessary ^^J^ni or no. They are a sort of superabundant precautions, or clauses of form, which are put in to obviate all cavils, and ward off all reproaches there might be any ground for making. — So long as we cannot determine exactly with which of these motives this clause was inserted in the Commission for the Ordination of Parker, it is impossible to conclude thence, that King Edward's 140 THE STATUTE OF 1566. chap. Ordinal was not yet re-established in 1559; because even on : — the supposition of its being so, there was still ground for the insertion of such a clause in the Commission, for the sake of other irregularities there might be therein. What I have to add further to destroy entirely this objec- The sta- tion is, that even the Statute of 1566 proves nothing against i566.°f tne validity of the Consecration. For, as Mason has very well observed y, that Statute does five things. L It censures such as called in question the validity of the English Ordina- tions. 2. It recites the Laws on this subject. 3. It declares that what was necessary to Ordination was never observed with so much exactness as under Queen Elizabeth. 4. It confirms anew the Book of Common Prayer, with the Form of Ordination annexed to it. 5. It declares that all those who had been consecrated or ordained according to that Form, were, and ought to be acknowledged, rightly and duly ordained. But from all this there results nothing prejudicial to the validity of the Consecrations: on the contrary, the Parliament declaring that what was necessary to Ordination was observed more carefully under Queen Elizabeth, than under any other Prince, the presumption is that the clause in question was but a matter of mere precaution. It is true the Statute takes notice, that to obviate the difficulties that might be raised against the Confirmation, In- vestiture, and Consecration of the Bishops, the Queen had inserted in her Letters Patent a dispensing clause : but this Statute does not say that these defects relating to the Consecra- tion affected its validity ; it supposes, much rather, that they did not affect it in the least, since the English Divines agree with us, that the Civil Power cannot make valid an Ordination in which there was any essential defect ; and since the Prince or the Pai-liament are able to declare whether Ordinations are valid or no, but cannot give them a validity which they had not of themselves. y Vind. Eccles. Angl. lib. 3. cap. 7. p. 332. CHAP. IX. ANSWER TO THE THIRD DIFFICULTY. THE HERETICAL OPINIONS OF SOME [Scep.105] OF THOSE EMPLOYED IN DRAWING UP THE FORM OF ORDINATIONS APPOINTED BY EDWARD THE SIXTH, ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO IN- VALIDATE THE ORDINATIONS PERFORMED ACCORDING TO THIS FORM. The interest they have in annihilating Parker's Consecra- Vain ef- tion makes them put every thing in requisition to destroy the objectors, authority of the Form used in that ceremony. At first they denied that it was used ; and this produced the Fable of the Ordination at the tavern in Cheapside. Afterwards it was maintained in opposition to the public notoriety of the thing, and of the express words of the Acts of Parliament, that this Ordinal was at that time prohibited by Law. This second refuge was as easily forced as the first ; and now they are re- duced to maintaining that this Form of Ordination having New ob- been drawn up by Prelates infected with heretical views on jectlon- the very point of Orders, there is room to believe, that the Form they drew up, marking clearly enough their errors, cannot serve to confer Ordination validly. This is a difficulty which, one should think, ought not to weigh with Divines, and which moreover would make us reject their Baptism, and their other Sacraments, as well as their Ordinations. But in order to leave no scruple unsatisfied, I am willing to examine this point with some attention. It appears certain, that Cranmer and Barlow a, two of the Opinions Prelates appointed to reform the public Service and the aS™" Formulary of Ordination, were in notorious error on the luw- subject of Orders. To be convinced of this, we need only read over the questions concerning the Sacraments which Questions, were proposed to several Prelates and certain Divines, whose opinions it was wished to have. The original of these questions has been published by Burnet and Collier in their Histories b; and it is of importance, in order not to weaken the objection put forward, to give some of them. The » Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. 2. p. 61. p. 201—244'. Collier's Eccles. Hist, b Burnet, vol. 1. Records, No. 21. vol. 2. Rec. No. 49. p. 40. 142 HERETICAL OPINIONS OF CRANMER AND BARLOW. chap, twelfth question is, "'Whether in the New Testament be Qu1^: — required any Consecration of a Bishop and Priest, or only appointing to the Office be sufficient?" Cranmer, and Barlow after him, say that Consecration is not necessary, and that Qu. xiii. appointment alone is sufficient. The thirteenth3 and four- an Unde ad hoc respondendum est, hoc, quod istorum materia Sacramen- quod licet utraque Ecclesia non semper torum in aliquo morali consistat quod usa fuerit eadem materia et forma Or- debet proinde subesse voluntati Eccle- dinationis, imo nec Ecclesia Latina sia?, qu;e est omnium fidelium superior, eamdem semper adhibuerit, non minus — Hacc estresponsio Doctorum Hallerii, tamen instituc.-it Christus materiam et Preepositi, Gamachaei, Isamberti, et formam omnium Ordinum ; non quidem aliorum, qui dicunt Ecclesiara Gra- in specie, sed saltern in genere ; praci- cam et Latinam non variare mate- piendo Apostolis ut conferrent Ordines riam Ordinationis in ratione formali, per aliquot verba et signa sensibilia, — sub qua illam instituit Christus, nempe licet reliquerit Ecclesia: facultatem de- in signo sensibili sumpto in communi ; terminandi de talibus verbis ac signis. sed variare tantum materialiter hoc sig- Quod mirum videri non debet, cmn ali- num in particulari. Unde nil mirum quid simile habeatur in Sacramentis Tee- est, si alio ritu sensibili utantur Graci, nitentire et Matrimonii. — Ratio autem et alio Latini, imo si alio ritu alias usa cur talis mutatio m.-.tcria- et tlmiin? Ec- sit Ecch -ia Latina. et alio in hoc saeculo. clesiae concedatur circa ha?c tria Sacra- Theologia Quadripartita, part. 2. [(de menta, etnon circa alia, quo? omnimodam Sacramentis); cap. ll,]rfe Ordine, qu. i. servant immutabilitatem, pendet ex p. 242, 213. HOW PAR A PART OF DISCIPLINE. L63 have not always used the same matter and form of Ordina- tion, and even the Latin Church herself has not kept always to one and the same, yet Christ instituted the matter and form of all Orders, not indeed particularly, but still in general; com- manding His Apostles, that they should confer Orders by cer- tain words and visible signs, . . . although he left the Church power to determine concerning such words and signs. Which ought not to seem wonderful, since somewhat of the same kind is found in the Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony. . . . But the reason why such change of the matter and form is allowed the Church in the case of these three Sacraments, and not of the rest, which remain altogether immutable, turns on this, that the matter of those Sacraments consists in something moral, which ought therefore to be subject to the will of the Church, which is over all the faithful. — This is the answer of Divines the Doctors Hallerius, Praepositus, Gamacha3us, Isambertus, by him. and others, who affirm that the Greek and Latin Churches do not vary the matter of Ordination in the formal aspect, under which Christ instituted it, namely, in a sensible sign taken generally; but only materially vary this sign in particular. Whence it is nothing wonderful, if the Greeks use one sensible sign and the Latins use another, nor yet if the Latin Church herself has used one rite at a former time and another in this century." We might, then, with many Divines, reject without scruple the invariability in question. But I am willing to be more yielding in the matter, provided that on the other side, they will be willing in turn not to dispute facts which are noto- rious and evident. But nothing is so notorious as the variety which is found in Churches with respect to forms. If then there is something in them which is unalterable, and which does not properly belong to discipline, it follows that we must distinguish with Cardinal Bona two things in the forms n: that Cardinal which is common to a Church with all the rest, and that which is peculiar to each. Taking this hypothesis, I grant that no- thing which is common to all the Churches can be altered without destroying the Sacrament : but it must also be con- ceded me, that alterations made in things which have not been practised cither at all times or in all places, cannot alter the substance of the Sacrament. In a word, that which always has » Rerum Liturgicarum liti. 1. cap. 8. M 2 164 EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY chap, been, and that which is every where, is invariable; for tradition — is an infallible rule in this matter : but as to what is neither perpetual nor uniform, each Church may make therein the changes she thinks necessary, and the Sacraments which have been conferred with such changes cannot be reiterated. The prin- The application of this principle is very easy. In Ordina- piFed.ai>" tion we see two things which are of all times and of all places : imposition of hands, and prayer to request of God to pour down his Spirit on the person receiving Ordination, and make him worthy to discharge all its functions. But the disposition of the prayers, their number, their composition, the ceremonies, and the particular rites which have been added thereto, have neither perpetuity, nor universality, nor uniformity, as Cardinal Bona observes with regard to the Eucharist: "°But," says he, "the mode and rite by which all things are performed, the words in which the prayers are conceived, the Order of the ceremonies, and the other things of less moment, are different in different Churches, and pe- culiar to this one or that ; and have not been so instituted by the Apostles or Apostolical men, as to be perpetual and immutable." Variations have taken place both with times and with places; and the same Churches have not always observed the same rites, as has been seen. But the Church of England has made no change in the first point, but only in the second, which belongs to a discipline very mutable, as has heen shewn in the preceding chapters. She has changed nothing, then, but what she had a right to change, and consequently her Ordi- nations cannot be taxed with being invalid. This first argu- ment, therefore, ought to pass for a demonstration in its kind, n. Autho- A second argument proper to prove the authority of a church of national Church to make the alterations she may think ne- Rome. cessary in the forms of the Sacraments, so long as the sub- stance is preserved, is this, that no Church, not even the Church of Rome, has any right to oblige other Churches to submit to her own particular discipline, as has been proved at large by the author of the new Treatise on the Authority 0 Modus autem et ritus quibus haec ab Apostolis et ab Apostolicis viris in- omnia peraguntur, verba quibus preces stituta fuerunt, ut perpetua forent et concipiuntur, Ordo caeremoniarum, et inimutabilia. Ibid. [§ 1. p. 34. Ed. reliqua minoiis moments, diversis Ee- Paris. 1672.] clesiis diversa et peculiaria sunt ; nee ita OF THIS CUURCil OF ROME. 10.5 of the Pope, printed at the Hague in 1720. In fact, jealous as the Popes have been to maintain their authority, the more prudent have been sufficiently moderate to leave particular Churches at liberty to regulate their own discipline, even when they were able to prescribe to them. This appears evidently by a letter of St. Gregory to Augustine the Monk, Letter of who being surprised that the Faith being the same in all the ^rytfie Churches, the practices were so different: asked for nothing Great- better than to make England follow all the customs of the Church of Rome. " p But it pleases me," writes this great Pope to him, " that whatever you have found either in the Church of Rome, or in those of Gaul, or in any Church whatever, which may please Almighty God better, you would carefully select; and into the Church of England, which as yet is new in the faith, introduce by your instruction and care the most excellent things you have been able to collect from many Churches ; for we must love, not things for places, but places for things. Out of each Church, therefore, choose those things which arc pious, religious, right; and these col- lected as it were into a bundle, deposit in the minds of the English for their practice." Thus, whatever presumption there is in favour of the Church of Rome, it has never been thought necessary to make a rule of submitting to her discipline and her laws ; because each Church had both sufficient authority to make them, and sufficient wise and learned men to make such as were good, as is observed by the ancient author of the Book on the Sacraments attributed to St. Ambrose. "qIn all things," says he, "I desire to follow the Church of Rome, but still we too have sense : therefore what is elsewhere more correctly preserved, we too more correctly keep." It is in consequence of this principle, that particular Effects of Churches have each its Liturgy and its Ritual sufficiently p}e.princi p Sed mihi placet, ut sive in Romana, sunt elige, et haec quasi in faseiculum sive in Galliarum, sive in qualibet collects, apud Anglorum mentes in con- Ecclesia, aliquid invenisti, quod plus suetudinem depone, Greg. M. lib. 11. Omnipotenti Deopossit placere, sollicite Ep. 64. [vesp. 3. Opp. torn. 2. col. 1152. eiigas ; et in Anglorum Ecclesia, qua; Ed. Paris. 1705.] adhuc in fide nova est, institutione pras- i In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam cipua quae de multis Ecclesiis colligere Romanam ; sed tamcn et nos homines potuisti, infundas. Non enim pro locis sensum habemus : ideo quod alibi ree- ves, sed pro rebus loca nobis amanda tins servatur, et nos lectins custodimus. sunt. Ex singulis ergo quibusque Ec- Lib. ">■ cti/>. 1. |"§ 5. Opp. torn. 2. p. 3(i.'5. clesiis qua- pia, quae religiosa, quae recta Ed. Paris. lG'jO.] 166 EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY different from its neighbour Churches. " r In many things," says Fulbert of Chartres, " Greece from Spain, and from them the Churches of Rome and France differ : but neither at this are we scandalized." That they have often retained their particular customs, notwithstanding the efforts which have been made to induce them to abandon them ; because, as Gerson observes, every country abounds in its own way of thinking : 6 Qualibet Provincia in sensu suo ahundat. That the Church of Rome herself, in the drawing up of her offices, has profited by those of other Churches, according to Wala- fridus Strabo's account: "'And because the Church of France, being no less furnished with the most skilful men, had no small supply of sacred Offices, some parts of these are said to have been incorporated into the Offices of the Romans." That even since the majority of the Western Churches, in compliance with their Princes, have adopted the Liturgy as well as the Rituals and Pontificals of Rome ; they have not deprived themselves of the authority of making therein the changes they have thought necessary, because this right is without the bounds of prescription, and they have actually exercised itu, as well in refusing to conform to the alterations which Rome had made in her Pontifical in 1645, as in restoring ancient usages which they had abandoned. And that, lastly, according to the maxim of St. Augustine1, in things not determined by the Holy Scripture, the great rule is to follow the practice of each particular Church, with whom the right cannot be contested, of prescribing her own discipline, as far as to the most essential part of the Sacra- ments, as an ancient Author teaches us : " J Hence it seems to be, that He (Christ) says, Do this in remembrance of Ale. ' In multis Giaecia ab Hispania, ab illis Romana et Gallieana discrepat Ecelesia : sed neque in hoc scandali- zamur. Fulbert. Carnot. Ep. 2. [V. ad p. 97.] * Dc Stat. Ecclcs. Edit, novis. p. 533. torn. 2. ' Et quia Gallieana Ecelesia, viris non minus peritissimis instructa, sa- croruni Officiorum instrumenta habebat non minima, ex eis aliqua Romanorum Offieiis immixta dicuntur. De Rebus Ecclesiasticis, cap. 25. [In Specvlo Mis- sa, Yen. 1672. p. 83.] ■ Nouv. Mem. du Clerge, t. 5. p. 472. * August. Ep. 54. r Hinc esse videtur quod ait (Chris- tus) Hoc facite in Meam commemora- tionem. Non ait, hoc modo facite. . . . TJnde nonnulla Christiana? Religionis instituta eum in Eeclesioe nascentis initio sua? modum originis accepere, quern in progressu ejusdem cresceiitis propter quasdam rationabiles causas non diu tcnuere. ErmilphfU Roffi-ns. Ep. 2. torn. 2. Spicil. [In Dacherii (vel D'Acherii) Spicilegio, torn. 2. p. 433.] OF THE CHURCH Ol' ROME. He says not, Do it after this manner. Whence it happens that some institutions of the Christian Religion, were formed on that model in their origin in the first infancy of the Church, which as she advanced in growth they for certain reasonable causes did not long retain." But since no Church has a right to subject other Churches to her discipline ; it follows naturally, that the Church of England, as the rest, had power to compose prayers for herself, to regulate the Liturgy, to order the forms of the Sacraments to her own satisfaction ; in a word, to make what changes she chose, provided they were compatible with those essentials which are common to all Churches, and belong to all ages. This second principle appears as solid as the former, and Dim- it does not seem that difficulties can be raised of sufficient culties- importance to oblige us to abandon it. The only one which merits any attention is this: if the Church of Rome, it is said, has no authority to subject other Churches to her own discipline, we cannot at least contest with her that of obliging the particular Churches to observe the discipline long since established throughout the whole Church ; and that if, for example, a Latin Church wished to celebrate [fthc Eucharist] in fermentato [in leavened bread], she would have a right to stop her. It is agreed moreover that the discipline of Churches is very different : but it cannot be granted, that this variety can extend itself to the forms of the Sacraments, and that they are to be reputed a part of discipline, over which each Church may exercise its right. It is not necessary to dwell long upon the refutation of this Answer last reason, since we have already proved that this variety ^£ st extends itself to all the forms of the Sacraments, at least to those that are not determined by Scripture ; and that the arrangement and composition of the prayers, which constitute the form of the Sacraments, cannot be regarded otherwise than as making a part of discipline. The words of Cardinal Bona are express : Verba quibus preces concipiuntnr [the words in which prayers are conceived]. Father Morin is still more distinct, as he leaves to the power of the Churches the determination of the forms. 2 Quare videtur omnino 1 De adm. Sacram. Poenit. lib. 8. o, 17. [§ 1. p. 566. Ed. Brux. 1685.] 168 EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY CHAP, dicendum istarum rerum deter rrdnationem esse definitioni Eccle- — — siarum permissam. It is true that this same Father maintains afterwards that the matter and form of the Sacraments are unalterable ; but then he speaks only of their substance, and by no means of the terms of the forms, which have varied with times and places. " a I again affirm, that neither so docs the Latin differ as to substance from the Greek, . . . nor does it at all belong to the substance of the Sacrament, whether it be enounced indicatively or in the deprecatory form, if each person only follows the usage of his own Church." But the determi- nation of the words is no less indifferent, so far as the substance of the Sacraments is concerned, than the way of enouncing them, and all this, speaking generally, is comprised under what is accidental to the form ; and moreover, the proofs we have ad- duced of the fact, will convince all reasonable persons, that the manner of drawing up the forms is a matter of mere discipline. Answer to As to what they say that the Church of Rome has a power difficulty. t° oblige particular Churches to comply with the discipline long ago established throughout the whole Church, and to check them if they deviate from it, this is true to a certain degree, but it does not at all make against the maxim we have established. It is very true, that the Church of Rome has a general right of inspection over all particular Churches, and that in this character she is the depositary of the authority of the Church, to cause her laws and usages to be observed ; that she ought to watch over the obedience due to the holy Canons, to prevent their being weakened or forgotten by in- attention or relaxation, and to maintain with care and exact- ness all that may contribute to the preservation of divine worship, of morality, of discipline, of peace. But that it follows from this power, that national Churches cannot make any change in important points of discipline when they think it necessary, and that the Church of Rome may hinder such changes on pain of nullity in the Sacraments in which these changes are made ; this, it seems to me, is a thing impossible to prove. It was only in particular Pastors that the Council of Trent b refused to acknowledge such a power. a Dico iterum, nec sic formani Lati- rive enuntietur, modo Ecclesise suce nam a Gneca substantialitcr difli'rre, — ritum quisque scquatur. Ibid. c. 18. nec alio modo ad Sacramenti substan- [§ 8. p. 570.] tiam pertinere, indicative an depreca- h Sess. 7. dc Sacr. in gen. Can. 13. OF THE CHURCH OF ItOiME. 169 And in fact, not to depart from the example alleged, of the consecration of the Eucharist performed by a Latin in fermen- tato [in leavened bread], and by a Greek in azymo [in un- leavened bread], who will be persuaded that such a consecra- tion is invalid? especially if it be supposed, as it ought, that this Latin or this Greek followed herein an alteration ordained by a whole province or nation of which he was a member? This is no metaphysical question. The Armenians c and the Maronites among the Greeks have forsaken the use of leavened bread to adopt that of unleavened. Has-their con- secration ever been regarded as invalid for this ? Or, if some blind and prejudiced writers among the Greeks have so decided, has not their decision been regarded by wise and enlightened divines as an error ? In vain would it be said that these two nations have herein An objec- only reunited themselves to the Catholic Church : for it is swered." agreed among the Latins, that this usage being indifferent, every one ought to follow the practice of his own Church, and that it is no more lawful for a Greek to conform to the Latins, than for a Latin to conform to the Greeks. Thus the case is quite parallel. I agree in truth that both the one and the other would do wrongly. But to believe that on either side the Sacrament would be null, is what no rational Divines will agree to. They almost all decide the contrary, that a man would certainly sin in not conforming himself to the usage of his own Church, but that the consecration would be none the less valid. On this point may be consulted Estius, Sylvius, Suarez, Vasquez, Maerat, de Rhodes, Father Alexan- der, and many other Divines of different parties, who are agreed in the same opinion. But I say more. Even this, that the Church of Rome has Limits to always the right to oblige particular Churches to observe the * Rome? discipline established in the rest of the Church, — even this is not absolutely true. If these particular Churches forsake the common practice, and the rule, by abuse, by relaxation, by negligence,— then, it is true, the Church of Rome may exercise her right of inspection and vigilance, for the preservation of discipline and of the holy Canons : but if important reasons ' Cardinal Bona, Rer. Lituig lib. 1. cap. 23. [§ 1. p. 198.] 170 EXTENT OF THE AUTHORITY CHAP, obliged these Churches to make alterations in considerable : points of discipline, I do not see how the Church of Koine could oblige them to conform to the rest. Difference I am well aware that such changes as these ought not to be ought and. made without consulting other Churches, and still more the can- first of all Churches : but it is one thing to do what one ought, and another to do what one can. It would be doing wrong, I allow, not to wait for the consent of the Church of Rome, before making an important change : but this would not authorize that Church to annul all that should have been done without her consent, and to abrogate all that should have been enacted without her participation. If, for example, as the late M. Bossuct Bishop of Meaux wished d, the Church of France should think it necessary to re-establish the Com- munion in both kinds, and that she actually did re-establish it without asking the consent of Rome; will any one easily be persuaded that that Church could oblige us to revoke such a re-establishment, and that if she separated from us for this reason, the schism would be more imputed to us than to her? There is certainly no reason for believing it; and every thing persuades us to the contrary, that in the case of such changes of discipline as take place with the consent of a whole Church and nation, the cause having been examined into, and for reasons which she judges grave and necessary, no other Church can oblige her to renounce such an alteration. English But be this as it may, — whether or not the Church of Rome notnilss- has power to make particular Churches submit to the discipline sentials. universally established, it is enough for my present purpose, that this power which it is wished to secure to her, gives her no right to annul those Sacraments in which no alterations have been made except in things undetermined, and in which whatever has always been observed and regarded as essential in the Church has been preserved. But the alterations made in the English Rite of Ordination are precisely of this nature, as has been shewn at great length. So that even granting the right to condemn as unlawful the change which the Church of England made in the form of Ordination, this change would opinion of not for this reason render the Sacrament invalid. For, as Father xanderrAle" Alexander has very well taught us, the Sacrament does not * His letter is printed among the Proofs. OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 171 become invalid but when the sense of the form is destroyed. *Additio verborum quce debitum forma Sacramentalis sensum cor- rumpunt, tollit veritatem Saeramcnti ; ... Si vera ejusmodi additio fiat, quce 7ion auferat debitum sensum, non tollitur Sacramenti Veri- tas. This Doctor goes even farther; for he observes that even though the addition should have been made with the design of favouring error, provided it does not corrupt its essence, the Sa- crament is quite valid. Quarnvis porro aliquid addatur contra fidei veritatem, si tamenformam non afficiat, nec in earn rcfunda- tur, aut ejus sensum variet, non tollit veritatem Sacramenti: . . . Quod cmtem preces hceresim continentes, non reddant irritum Sacramentum, cum formal Sacramentali adjunguntur, nec earn tamen afficiunt et corrumpunt, docet S. Augustinus Lib. 6. De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Cap. 25. And lest it should be thought that he spoke here only of heretical additions inserted by inattention, or by fraud, he adds: "fIf he added these words, not as wishing them to be a part of the Sacramental form, but in order to set forth his own error, or to draw others into the same heresy, the consecration would be true and valid, provided his in- tention was to do what the Church does." But who would dare to maintain that the additions made in the English Rite corrupt the sense of the form, debitum forma Sacramentalis sensum ? He would be convicted of falsehood by the mere reading of the prayers of the Ritual, which perfectly contain the spirit of the Church in the Ordination of her Ministers. A third reason which may be insisted on, is taken from the ill. Varia- variations of the Church of Rome in her own formulae, and k,',1,^-!,' ,'!,',',■_ from the corrections she has thought it right to make in her mulsB- Rituals. As for the corrections, I desire no other authority for them, than the Bishop of Pianza, who in his Epistle ad- dressed to Innocent the Eighth, at the head of his Edition of the Pontifical, printed at Rome in 1485, addresses him as follows : " e The emendation of the Pontifical, most blessed ' Natalis Alexander, Theol. Dogm. e Pontificalis Libri emendationem, et Mor. lib. 2. cap. 3. reg. 6. Beatissime Pater, tuo jussu aggres- ' Si adjungeret formic bave verba, ... . sus sum: opus sane laboriosum, va- non quasi partem forma? Sacramentalis rium, atque ut multis fortasse gratum, esse vellet, sed uterrorem suum indicaret, ita et invidiam plenum: rei enim vetus- aut alios in eandem breresim pertraberet, tate, Ecclesiarum multitudine, tempo- vera esset ac rata consecratio, modo in- rum et Prselatorum varietate effeotum tenderet facere quod facit Ecclcsia. est, ut vix duo aut tres codices invenian- 172 EXTENT OF ROMAN AUTHORITY. CHAP. Father, I have taken in hand according to your order: a work, in — — ' — truth, which is laborious, of a various nature, and though to many perhaps agreeable, yet also abundantly invidious : for through the antiquity of the matter itself, the number of the Churches, the variety of prelates and times, it has come to pass, that hardly two or three books are found, which deliver the same thing. In like manner, the variations are as many as the books : this is deficient, that redundant; another has nothing at all on the subject ; seldom or never do they agree." And as to the variations, they are so obvious, that they have embarrassed Ancient the greater part of our Divines. In the Sacraments of Pen- mentei ance, of Ordination, and of Marriage, the ancient Orders or Orders. Rituals contain nothing approaching to those formulae to which the Divines of this day attach the idea of form. Neither the Ego vos absolvo [I absolve you], nor the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum [Receive the Holy Ghost], nor the Ego vos conjungo [I join you together], appear before the later centuries ; and this is so evident, that some authors have used it as an argument, to prove that our Saviour did not determine in detail the forms of the Sacraments. '"'This is the answer," says Boy vin in his Theology, " of the Doctors Hallerius, Praepositus, Gamachaeus, Isambertus, and others, who say that the Greek and Latin Churches do not vary the matter of Ordi- nation in the formal aspect, under which Christ instituted it, namely, in a sensible sign taken generally, but only materially vary this sign in particular. Whence it is nothing wonderful .... if the Latin Church has used one rite at a former time, and another in this century." Inference. It follows necessarily from these corrections and variations, that particular Churches are not obliged to follow forms which the Church of Rome herself does not regard as essential. But forms which they alter and reform can never pass for essential forms to which they can subject the other Churches. It must quot libri, tot varietates ; ille deficit, hie superabundat ; alius nihil omnino de ea re hahet ; raro aut nunquam conveniunt. I'ontif. Rom. Ed. Rom. 1485. [Et 1 t97.] b Hse est responsio Doctorum Hal- leiii, Praepositi, Gamr.chxi, Isamberti, et alioruiu, qui dicunt Ecclesiam Grae- cam et Latinam non variare mate- rial]] Ordinationis in ratione fonnali, sub qua iUam instituit Christus, nenipe in signo sensibili sumpto in conimuni, sed variare tautum materialiter hoc siguum in particulari. Unde nihil mirum est — si alio ritu alias usa sit Ecclesia Latin.i, ct alio in hoc s;cculo. Tlicol. qundrip. part. 2. de Ordine, qu. 4. p. 213. [See p. 162.] NO WRITTEN FORMULA AT FIRST. CONCLUSION &C. 173 therefore be regarded as certain, that every Church has a right against which there is no prescription, to regulate those forms which have not been determined by our Saviour. A last reason, which gives still greater force to the three iv. No former, is that it appears certain from the ancient monuments, formu?se that there were neither Liturgies nor written formulae for the at first> administration of the Sacraments used in the Churches before the fifth century. This were easy to prove at large, but, in order not to lengthen this chapter needlessly, I had rather refer the reader to the Treatise on Liturgies by David Clarkson a learned Englishman', and the excellent work of Father Le Brun on the Liturgies k. But supposing the truth of this proposition, it necessarily follows thence, that each Church added to or retrenched her formulae and prayers, without being tied to any thing but the substance and spirit of the prayer or formula, in which uni- formity was easily kept by tradition, which preserved its sense, but which could not easily have transmitted its words, espe- cially when these consisted in long prayers or long formulae, which it was difficult to retain. I know not whether a man can refuse to yield to the force Conclu- and evidence of these reasons. Accordingly it is conceded readily enough that a particular Church may make alterations while she continues a part of the Catholic Church: but it is Objection, maintained at the same time that a heretical or schismatical Church loses by her schism or her heresy that power which has descended to all particular Churches which are members of the Church Catholic; because her rebellion against the Church disqualifies her to act in her name, while yet what she does can have no other validity, except as it is done in the name of the Catholic Church. This reason is one of those which St. Cyprian urged most Answer, against Pope Stephen : but it must be allowed also, that if this argument were granted, it would annihilate every thing done out of the Church : and moreover, we may further op- pose to this the possession of the heretical Churches, and their practice in composing their rites and forms, without any objection having been raised against the validity of their Sacraments. M. LAbbe Renaudot is an unexceptionable Sect. 4, .5, 6. * Tom. 2. diss. 1. p. 4 &c. 174 HERETICAL OR SCIIISMATICAL CHURCHES c ha P. evidence of this usage. " 1 That James of Edessa," says he, Syriac Li- speaking of the Syriac Liturgies, .... "and others more turgies&c. modern were the authors of their own, there is no reason to douht ; for it was the discipline of the Jacobite Church, that the Bishops should have supreme authority in arranging the sacred Offices, and appointing the prayers; which authority, too, was much greater among the Syrians than among the Egyptians." And lest it should be imagined that this power extended only to the less essential rites, the same author adds, that they have exercised this right with respect to the forms of Baptism, of Penance, and of Marriage, and even with respect to the Liturgies, which are the most august and sacred things we have in our Religion. "m Iyitur ex Ejnscopali autoritate, qua Orientales Antistites usi sunt, in ordinandi* Eccle- siasticis Officiis, ut Baptismi administrandi formulas, Ritualesque libros, cum adjunctis precibus, Coronationis seu Benedictionis nuptialis, Absolutionis Pcenitentium, et alia non pauca, ita quoque Liturgius scripserunt, — . [In pursuance therefore of that Episcopal authority which the Oriental High Priests have used in ordering Ecclesiastical Offices, as (they have drawn up) Forms for administering Baptism, and Rituals, with prayers annexed, for the nuptial Coronation or Benediction, for the Absolution of Penitents, with many other Offices, so also have they composed Liturgies.] This is also the opinion of Father Le Brun writh regard to the Liturgies, as we shall see hereafter. Armenian The change which has taken place in the Armenian Eucharist, church wjth reSpect to [fthe celebration of the Eucharist with] unleavened bread, which she has adopted in opposition to all the Churches of the East since she suffered herself to be infected with the error of the Eutychians, is a further and an evident proof that heresy or schism does not deprive a Church of the power to make changes in the most important Rites, and that she does not lose by her schism any of her authority in this respect. ' Jacohum Edessenum . . . . et alios ritatem ; qua? etiam inter Syros major recenriores suarum autores fuisse, non omnino quam inter iEfryptios fuit. est eur dubitemus. Jacobitica? quippe Liturg. Orient, torn. 2. Diss, de Syr. Ecclesia? ea disciplina fuit, ut Episcopi [Melrh. et Jae.~\ Liturg. p. xiii. [V. p. summam in sacris Officiis disponendis 155.] precibusque ordinandis haberent auto- m Ibid. ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES. 175 Should any one venture to maintain, that we extend too An objec- far the power herein allowed to heretical Churches, and that swered." it ought to be confined at most to the change of some cere- monies, or of some rites which have been annexed to the administration of the Sacraments, in order to render the service more solemn ; it would be easy to refute this, as well by the mere setting forth of the alterations themselves, as by the impossibility of fixing the power of a heretical more than that of a Catholic Church on the point of the validity or invalidity of a Sacrament. So that we must of Facts, necessity have recourse to facts, to see how far the Oriental Sects have extended their authority on this point, and what has been thought of the validity of their Sacraments. If there was any Sacrament in which there ought to have "^.^u" been little alteration in the form, it is that of the Eucharist ; and yet it is not found to have been exempt from them in the heretical Churches, while notwithstanding the validity of their consecrations has never been contested. I say nothing here of the variety of the Canon, which The Ca- ought nevertheless to be of some weight and consequence "°n' with those who know that the Greeks and Orientals regard the Canon, or at least the invocation of the Holy Ghost which is therein contained, as an essential part of the consecration, and consequently as making a part of the form. But with Our Sa- respect even to the words of our Saviour, what variety is words, there in the Oriental Liturgies ! Let the great Collection of M. L'Abbe Renaudot be consulted, and the proof of this will be seen. In the Syriac Liturgy which bears the name of Matthew Variations, the Pastor, this form is expressed in the following manner: " n This is My flesh, which is divided for all the faithful adhering to Me, that it may be eaten for the expiation of offences, &c. In like manner also the cup of life, — He + blessed, He + sanctified, and He + gave it also to those who were ini- tiated in His mystery, and commended it to them, that of it " H;cc est caro Mea, qua? pro omni- que etiam ilium mysterio Suo initiatis, bus fidelibus Milii adha?rentibus dividi- commendavitque illis ut ex eo omnes tur, ut comedarur ad expiationem de- communicarent, quodque in eo salus lictorum, &C. Similiter et calicem vitae, bibentibus ilium esset declaravit, Sc. l-benedixit, + sanctificavit, -+- dedit- Lilurg. Orient, torn. 2. p. 348. 176 HERETICAL OR SCHISMATIC A L CHURCHES CHAP, all might partake, and declared that therein was salvation to ■ — them that drank it, &c." In the Liturgy of Thomas of Heraclea, the variety is still greater. " 0 He (Christ) took bread and wine, He + blessed, He + sanctified, He brake, + and gave it to His Apostles, saying: Take, use, and thus do. And when ye shall have received this, believe and be assured, that ye eat My body and drink My blood, doing it in remembrance of My death until I come." The Liturgy of Dionysius Barsalibi supplies us with yet another proof of this variety. For speaking of our Saviour, it says, that when He was about to suffer death, " p The bread which He took, He + blessed, He + sanctified, He + brake, and called it His holy body unto life eternal to them that received it. Amen. And the cup which He had mixed of wine and water, He blessed, and made it His precious blood to them that receive it unto everlasting life. Amen." There is yet a greater difference. For in the Liturgy which bears the name of St. Xystusn, and in the second attributed to St. Peter1", our Saviour's words are scarcely read in any manuscript, these only being found : Accipite et memdaeats, [and Accipite et bibite ex eo vos (mines,"] in rcmissionem peccato- rum, et vitam aternam. [Take and eat, (and Take and drink ye all of this,) for the remission of sins, and ever- lasting life.] Lesser va- After differences so essential in a form which all regard as nations, cletermined by Christ Himself, it is unnecessary that I should dwell upon other alterations which may be regarded as less important, but which do not fail to deserve some attention. Such is that which is seen in the Ethiopic Liturgy, where the form is thus conceived : " s This bread is My body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins." Or that of the Alexandrian Liturgy of St. Gregory, where the form is ad- ° Accepit(Christus)panemetvinum, aetemam illis qui illudacciperent. Amen. benedixit +, sanctificavit +, fregit, Et ealicem quem miscucrat vino et deditque Apostolis Suis (Keens : Acci- aqua, benedixit, et sanguinem Suum pite, utimini, et ita facite. Et cum hoc pretiosum perfeeit, illis qui ilium acci- accep:-ritis, credite et certi estote quod piunt in vitam aeternam. Amen. Ibid. corpus Meum editis et sanguinem bibi- p. 450. tis, in memoriam mortis Me;e facientes q r [Ibid. p. 112. and ICO.] donee veniam. Ibid. p. 384. ' Hie panis est corpus Meum, quod p Panem etiam quem aecepit, +bene- pro vobis frangitur in repiissioneni dixit, + sanctificavit, +frogit, et corpus peccatorum. Ibid. torn. 1. p. 517. Suum sanctum vocavit eum, in vitam ABLE TO MAKE CHANGES. 177 dressed to our Saviour Himself, after this manner; ".'Thou didst give thanks 4- Thou didst bless + Thou didst sanctify + Thou didst break, Thou didst give to Thy holy Disciples and Apostles, and didst say, Take, eat; This is My body, which is broken for you and for many for the remission of sins, — This is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many &c." I should not notice these latter varia- tions, as being but little essential, if it were not important to remark that in forms determined by our Saviour, the least alterations are of more consequence than more con- siderable changes in those which have been left to the deter- mination of the Church ; and if people have not thought themselves bound to certain expressions, even when they found them set down in the Scripture, they must have thought they might give themselves much more liberty when the question was only of prayers and formulae in which neither perpetuity, nor universality, nor uniformity is found. But what is more important to point out, is that these These alterations which appear so essential, have been made u by madeafter Sects separated from the Catholic Church ; that the right of sePara,i°«- making the changes they have made has never been contested with them ; and that their Consecration has never been re- garded as null. The learned are agreed in fact, that these Sects were already separated from the Catholic Church when they drew up their Liturgies. " x The heresy of the Nesto- rians and of the Eutychians," says the learned Father Le Brun, "was another reason for writing the Liturgy, because they could not but fear lest they should alter it. From that time in fact the Catholics and the heretics vied with each other in writing them ; and as both the one and the other carried them all over the world, nothing can serve better to shew the common origin of all the Liturgies before the ' Gratias egisti + benedixisfi + sanctificasti + fregisti, dedisti Sanctis Tuis Discipulis et Apostolis, dixistique: Accipite, edite ; Hoc est corpus Meum, quod pro vobis et pro multis fran- gitur, et datur in remissionem pee- catorum, Hie est sanguis Mens Novi Testament!, qui pro vobis et pro multis eflunditur &c Ibid. p. 104. u Bona, Rerum Lilurg. 1. i. c. 9. * L'heresic des Nestoriens et des Eutychiens fut un nouveau motif d'ecrire la Liturgie, parce qu'on devoit craindre qu'ils ne l'alterassent. Des lors, en eflet, les Catboliques et les heretiqnes les ecrivirent a l'envi des uns et des autres ; et romme les uns et les autres les out portees dans tout le monde, rien ne peut inieux servir a montrer l'origine commune de toutes les Liturgies avantle Concile d'Ephese. Lilurg. torn. ii. n. 135. 178 HERETICAL OH BCHI6HAT1CAL CHURCHES chap, council of Ephesus." But even though this were not an ■ — ■ agreed point, it would he enough to persuade one of it, to ohserve that the Liturgies did not hegin, properly speaking, to be written before the time when these Sects arose ; that the greater part bear the names of their authors, whom we recognise as Nestorians and Eutychians; that their little con- formity with the Greek and Latin Liturgies proves evidently that they were not derived from them ; that the errors of these Sects are often insinuated at least, if they do not always shew themselves openly : and that, in fine, besides the testi- monies of the Learned, who do not dispute that these Litur- gies belong to these Sects, the very corrections which they thought it right to make at Rome, prove sufficiently that they were not thought very orthodox, and that they needed to be reformed according to those which were regarded as the model of the rest. Ordina- If from the consecration of the Eucharist, we go on to the form of Ordination, we shall find as little uniformity between the Ordinations of the Greeks and Latins, and those of the Syrians (as well Nestorian as Eutychian) and Copts ; and this without any one's having disputed the Ordination of all these Sects. As the most able Divines do not annex the efficacy of the Sacrament to any particular words exclusively of the rest, it can not be shewn wherein precisely diversity consists, if it be not in this, that the prayers are not the same, that the words joined to the imposition of hands are altogether different, that all the ceremonies even of the Ordination are not alike ; and that, in short, there is no conformity, unless that in all the Rituals the grace of the Holy Spirit is invoked on the Bishop Elect, in order to make him worthy of his Ministry. Persons may consult these Rituals in the works of Father Morin and Father Martene, who have published them, in order to be satisfied for themselves that we must either allow no Ordination in these Churches, or else admit that notwithstanding their separation and schism, they have pos- sessed and used the power of drawing up for themselves the rites and forms of their Sacraments, as I undertook to prove. Date of In short, it cannot be doubted but that these Rituals were 1 ua s all posterior to the origin of those Sects for whose use they were drawn up. For, besides the reasons we have produced ABLE TO MAKE CHANCES. 179 in speaking of the consecration of the Eucharist, and which apply in part to the forms of Ordination, it is further certain, both by some names which are mentioned, and by the Rubrics, wherein Patriarchs, Metropolitans and Arch- bishops arc spoken of ; as well as by the very nature of the rites, already too much burdened to savour of the primitive simplicity, that these formulae were drawn up by Sects who took no pains to preserve more than the substance of Ordination ; that is to say, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, together with imposition of hands, as has been done in the Anglican Ritual. There is every reason to believe, that what we have re- Other Re- marked with respect to the Eucharist and Ordination, would cramen be found to be the case with respect to all the other Sacra- ments, if we had had communicated to us all the rites that are in use in all the Churches of the Christian world. For to judge of them by what we have of the Latin and Greek Churches, whether as to Matrimony, or as to any other Sacraments, we find constantly the same variety ; and this variety proceeds only from the authority which each Church has always allowed herself of regulating her exterior worship, under which arc comprehended the forms of the Sacraments, or rather the choice of the prayers and expressions proper for the form of each Sacrament. It ought therefore to pass for certain, that national Churches, Conclu- at least, have been in possession of the power of regulating lon' what concerns the forms of the Sacraments, and of pre- scribing to themselves the formulae and prayers which are to serve to that end ; and that even heretical and schismatical Churches have made use of this right, without its having been disputed with them. The proof of this usage is drawn from the facts we have confirmed produced ; and to convince one's self that they have not been bj Rome* disturbed on this head, one need only bear in mind that when- ever a reunion has been talked of between these Sects and the Church of Rome, no mention has ever been made of re- peating their Ordinations, or of abrogating those particular Rituals of which they were in possession in the administration of the Sacraments. It is true, that in the Liturgies of these Sects which have Objection 180 CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO chap, been published at Rome, there were considerable alterations - — — — made ; but these alterations ought not to be imputed to the Church of Rome ; and all intelligent Divines have re- garded them as so many attempts of men but little en- lightened, who not confining themselves to the correction of the errors peculiar to these Sects, have put their hands even to the most indifferent rites and those on which that Church had always left an entire liberty. We cannot therefore build on the changes made by the Roman censors in order to judge of the validity or invalidity of a form ; experience making it certain, that they proposed to themselves no other principle in their corrections, than that of reducing the Oriental rites to as near an affinity as possible with those of the Church of Rome, without troubling themselves whether the former were valid or not. Two con- But from these two facts, which carry their own evidence sequences. t]iem> t^at jg to sa^ from the possession in which parti- cular Churches have been of the regulation of their own dis- cipline, their worship, and the form of their Sacraments, and from their Sacraments not having been reputed invalid, there result two evident and necessary consequences. The first, that the exercise of a similar power ought not to have been contested with the Church of England. The second, that this power being founded in possession, and that the Church of England having made use of it only within the ordinary bounds, that is to say, preserving constantly what a perpetual and uniform tradition has transmitted upon this head, we cannot tax with invalidity the Ordinations made since the Schism. Grounds. These two consequences are founded upon the most simple First. reasonings. For, 1. The Church of England cannot be denied a power allowed in the Churches of the East, whom we know to have been engaged in heresy and schism. But by the facts alleged, it is evident, that the Oriental Sects have exercised this right ; that none of their Sacraments have been questioned ; that they have not been disturbed in the practice and possession of forming their own worship and discipline, even when their opinions were condemned in the strongest mam er. The same justice then is due to the English, since their case is similar, and it cannot be refused them without THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 181 condemning the example of those Churches who have ac- knowledged this right in the ancient Sects. 2. Since this right cannot be contested with the Church of Second. England, it follows necessarily that her Ordinations are valid. For since, as has been proved, the succession is certain ; since the alterations, which were made in the For- mulary of Ordination relate only to things not essential ; since they do not affect the substance of the Sacrament, and every Church has the right, and is in possession, of the deter- mination of things of this kind ; on what ground can we regard as invalid Ordinations which have been repeated only on the strength of false facts, reasonings of little solidity, and pretexts the most frivolous and the most unreasonable in the world ? To these two consequences (which unite all the use which Two diffi- can be made of the facts before adduced) are opposed two cu difficulties, which it is to the purpose to discuss before finishing this chapter. First it is advanced, that it cannot be proved that the Liturgies, or the forms of the Sacraments, were drawn up by schismatical Churches ; or at least, that those which they drew up were not the same with those which existed before in their Churches. But supposing even that schisma- tical Churches had composed their Liturgies, or the forms of their Sacraments, it is maintained that these facts do not establish a right in favour of these Churches ; that all that they do they do unlawfully, because they retain no longer cither jurisdiction or authority; and that therefore from what they have done we can by no means conclude that they had a right to do it. This is all that can be speciously objected : but the specious is not enough for those who seriously search after the truth. In fact, as to the first difficulty, it is entirely false, that it First an. cannot be proved that schismatical Churches have drawn up swered* their Liturgies and the forms of the other Sacraments, or that they did not preserve those which were used before their heresy or their schism. For though the Liturgies, and the detail of the ancient formulae which served for the admini- stration of the Sacraments, have not been preserved to us, nevertheless the names of their authors, which they carry with them, the errors they have introduced into them, the great di- 182 CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO CHAP, versity found among several Liturgies of Churches not distant ■ from each other, the alterations which have successively been made in them, and even the acknowledgment of the learned, who allow that the Oriental Bishops have used a great liberty in the composition of their Liturgies, and that they were not written until after the origin of the heresies ; are not these so many proofs either that these Churches drew up themselves the forms of their Sacraments, or that they did not use entire those which were in use before their schism and the birth of their errors ? It is false then, that we cannot prove the composition or alteration of the Liturgies or forms by schismatical Sects ; and since this can be proved, it is clear that there is now no more ground to dispute the validity of the English Ordinations, than there would be to deny the validity of the Sacraments conferred in these ancient Sects ; and that the same reasons which assure to these Churches the validity of their Liturgies, and of their forms, authorize the rest to make similar alterations in things which not having been determined by our Saviour, are susceptible of change. Second But these facts, it is said, do not establish a right ; and from exp aine< ' what these Churches have done, we must not conclude that they had a right to act as they did. A poor equivocation, to unravel which, is sufficient to destroy the difficulty. It is an abuse of the word right: as if we pretended to acknowledge that what is done in an heretical or schismatical Church is done legitimately; whereas, we have declared in several places in this Treatise, that what is done by a schismatical Church is illicitly and illegitimately done, as St. Augustine says. When therefore we say, that these Churches retain the right to make the changes they judge convenient or neces- sary, we mean nothing more than that it is in such sort in their power to vary in things not clearly determined either by Scripture or uniform tradition, that the changes which they may prescribe, although made contrary to order and subordi- nation, and consequently in an illicit and illegitimate manner, yet do not at all alter the validity of the Sacraments in which alterations of this kind are made. But this right understood in this sense, and supposed through the whole course of this Dissertation, what becomes of the difficulty they oppose ? From what has been done, we THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 183 cannot, it is said, conclude that they had a right to do it. This is true, if by right, is meant simply a legitimate right, and if we wished to conclude that what was done, was done lawfully. But if we thence conclude simply, that since no objection was raised against what was done, and since those Sacraments have been allowed as valid which were conferred in heresy and according to forms drawn up in schism, it follows that these Churches had the right to draw up or vary their Liturgies and their forms, without the Sacraments being for this reason the less valid; this conclusion is just, and we conclude invincibly from the fact to the right. But such exactly is the point at which we have aimed in this chapter, as one may see by these words, which are at the beginning of it, which fully express its whole object. It remains to prone, that the Church of England, in making the changes she did, did onlg what the other Churches have done, and that nothing can be concluded thence against the validity of the English Ordinations since the Schism. It may perhaps be said, that the question is here of the Objection, same power which is allowed to national Catholic Churches : that with regard to these we have undertaken to prove not only that what they do is valid, but further that it is legiti- mate ; and hence that as we have wished to assure to the schismatical Churches the same power with those that are Catholic, it follows, that the right allowed them assures them not merely of the validity of their Ordinations, but also of the legitimacy, if I may be permitted so to express myself, of all their variations in the matter of discipline. To this the answer is easy, that if we have compared with Answer. Catholic Churches, it has always been with the necessary reserves, and that we have never pretended to enquire what either the one or the other could do legitimately, but only what they could do validly. This is so true even with respect to the Catholic Churches, that it is allowed in several places of this chapter, that there are many alterations which they could not make legitimately, without rendering themselves guilty of schism, and without destroying the subordination which the Churches owe one to another, and especially the inferiors to the superiors. The question, then, has been only of the validity of the Sacraments; and the position reduced 184 CONCLUSION. CHAP, to these terms labours under no difficulty ; the facts and the ' reasons concur alike to prove, that the changes which are made in the forms of the Sacraments, cannot render them null, at least when the substance is not altered ; and that there is no essential alteration in those wherein there is still retained what is determined by Scripture, or by a certain and uniform tradition, whatever alterations are made in the rites which have been added. This is clear by the conduct observed with regard to the Baptism administered by the English, or by the pure Calvinists. The whole form has been altered therein, excepting the invocation of the Holy Trinity : the prayers, the unctions, the exorcisms, every thing has been either changed or suppressed: their Baptism is nevertheless received. And why these different weights and measures as to their Ordination ? Another We cannot ccrtainlv confine more than I do the power of objection , i » • • i „ . met. Churches, even when schismatic, without contradicting vener- able antiquity. But although it should be proved that I give too great a latitude to this power, what could be concluded thence against the validity of the Ordinations made out of the Church? It is agreed, that it is not by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Churches that we must judge of the validity or invalidity of the Sacraments, but by the preserva- tion or suppression of what has always been regarded as essen- tial ; that [as for] the changes which affect only the ceremonies which have been added merely for the sake of solemnity, [they] may be retrenched with the same facility, so far as regards the validity alone ; that it is on this ground that the validity of Baptism and the other Sacraments has been judged of, when heresies and schisms have arisen in the Church ; and that, in short, of what nature soever the power attached to the sacra- mental stamp in the Societies separated from the Church may be, they preserve enough of it to administer the Sacraments with validity, when the essential matter and form are found in them. Condu- These concessions are more than sufficient to terminate slon' our whole dispute. For, in two words, since the validity or invalidity of a Sacrament depends upon the preservation or omission of what is essential in its matter and form, it follows, that if the Church of England has preserved what FOURTH DIFFICULTY. (SEE P. 103.) 1. 85 is essential to Ordination, the Consecration of her Bishops is valid. But it has been clearly proved, that with respect both to the matter and to the form, all that is essential was therein preserved. Persons are therefore wrong in wishing to insist on the want of power in that Church, in order to destroy her Ordinations ; since even if it had been proved that she had not a power of which so many other Sects have been in possession, it would be necessary to prove further that she has corrupted the matter and form of this Sacrament ; which wc have shewn to be false. CHAP. XL ANSWER TO THE FOURTH DIFFICULTY. IT WAS NOT BY THE SECULAR, BUT BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY, THAT THE ENGLISH RITUAL WAS ALTERED. Those who are the greatest opposers of the validity of the obser- English Ordinations, have hardly touched this difficulty, — vatlon- whether because they thought it foreign to our question, or because they saw clearly that it would not be easy to make use and take advantage of it against the Church of England. But in order not to leave any thing unanswered in a matter so important, I have thought it to the purpose to examine with some attention a difficulty which is not so foreign to this subject, but that one may draw from it consequences suffi- ciently connected with the principal question. They grant us then, if it is wished, that a Church is mistress objection, of her own discipline, and that she may make therein such alterations as she thinks convenient; but they maintain that a change made by the authority of the Prince in things which may affect the essence of the Sacraments, renders them alto- gether null. But it is said, if we consult the contemporary writers, and the public Records of the English Reformation, it is impossible to doubt that the change of the Ritual was brought about by the secular power. Hence the authority of the new Ritual being founded only on that of the King, who approved it, it cannot be said that it was the Church of England that changed her ancient usages, but must be granted that, the change having been made by a secular power, which cannot 186 THE FORM OF ORDINATION chap, of itself give any authority to the things it prescribes in — — — spiritual matters, all that is done in consequence, ought to be accounted null; and all those Ordinations which have no other source and principle than this, are null from the beginning, and absolutely invalid. Answer. But in order to give this objection any weight, they should have begun by establishing the truth of the fact, and this is a thing which it is impossible to do. For it is clear from all the English writers, and from the Acts of Parliament, that the King and Parliament had no other part in this affair, than that of ordering the reformation of the Roman Pontifical, of appointing the Bishops to this function, and of sealing with their authority the alterations which the Bishops and Divines judged necessary. Heylin. This is what we learn from several authors, and among others from Dr. Heylin, from Burnet, and from Collier. 3 and 4 " There passed," says Heylin a, in this Parliament (viz. in the Edw. 6. Parliament of 1549) "two Acts of especial consequence — " to the concernments of Religion. The first declared to this " effect: That such Form and manner of making and con- " secrating Archbishops and Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and " other Ministers of the Church, as by six Prelates, and six " other learned men of this Realm, learned in God's Law, " by the King to be appointed and assigned, or by the most " number of them, shall be devised for that purpose, and set " forth under the Great Seal, before the first of April next " coining, shall be lawfully exercised and used, and no other." Burnet. Burnet agrees in this point with Dr. Heylin: b"So now," says he, " the Reformation was ordered to be carried on ; and there being one part of the divine Offices not yet reformed, that is, concerning the giving Orders, some Bishops and Divines, brought now together by a Session of Parliament, were appointed to prepare a Book of Ordination." — c " A bill for the Form of ordaining Ministers was brought into the House of Lords, and was agreed to, the Bishops of Duresme, Carlisle, Worcester, Chichester, and Westminster protesting against it. The substance of it was, that such Forms of ordaining Minis- ters as should be set forth by the advice of six Prelates and six Divines, to be named by the King, and authorized by a » Hist. Rcf. p. 82. b His*. Rcf. vol. ii. p. 1 K>. " IW. p. 1 H. DRAWN UP BY SPIRITUAL PERSONS. 187 warrant under the Great Seal, should he used after April next, and no other." Collier, in his Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, re- Collier, lates exactly the same thing d, and transcribes in full the Act of Parliament of which Heylin has given the suhstancc; by which we perceive clearly that this new Formulary was drawn up by Bishops and Divines, and not by any secular authority. For, if we follow IIeyline, the Bishops were Cranmer Archbishop of Canterbury, Goodrick Bishop of Ely, llolbeck Bishop of Lincoln, Day Bishop of Chichester, Skip Bishop of Hereford, Thirlby Bishop of Westminster, and Ridley Bishop of Rochester ; and the Doctors were Richard Cox, May, Taylor, Heynes, Robertson, and Ridley, or rather, according to Burnet f, Redmayn; and there is no mention made of any layman being concerned in that affair. What is more, the King and Parliament looked upon the Authority execution of this order as a thing so foreign to their jurisdic- theW- tion, that the Act which directed the revision of the book of sh°Ps- Ordination, was to take effect immediately upon its .being ap- proved by the Bishops, without any further necessity of pre- senting it to the Parliament, and having a new Act to order it to be used and observed, as we arc informed by Dr. Heylin. s " They," says this author, viz. the Bishops and learned men appointed to draw up the Form of Ordination prescribed by the Parliament, "accordingly applied themselves unto the work, following therein the rules of the primitive Church, — Which book, being finished, was made use of," so corrected, " without further authority, till the year 1552." In fact, the first Act declared expressly that to introduce Words of the use of this new Formula of Ordination, there should be the Acf' no necessity for a new Act, and that that Act itself should suffice. hBe it therefore enacted, says this Statute, — that such Form and manner of making and consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Ministers of the Church, as by six Prelates, and six other men of this Realm, learned in God's haw, by the King's Majesty to be appointed and assigned, or by the most number of them, shall be devised for that purpose, and d Collier, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 288. - Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 58. [com- pare p. 82, 83.] f Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p. 61. e Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 83. " Collier, Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 288. 188 EXTENT OF SPIRITUAL POWER "HAP. set forth wider the Great Seal of England, before the first day : — of April next coming, shall by virtue of this present Act be lawfully exercised and used, and none other. nference. Is not this a convincing proof, that this work was the work of the Clergy ? that the secular authority did not interfere in the matter except for the external maintenance of that of the Church ? that the King did not intrude into a function, which belongs absolutely to the Bishops? that such is the practice of the greater part of Churches, whose Ordinances do not take effect except so far as the Prince supports them by his regal authority? and, that if the King, in directing this reformation, exceeded the bounds of his power, the execution of the order had nothing but what was legitimate in the manner of pro- ceeding ? Objection. To elude the force of all these testimonies, it is said that ^'"^ all this was done by the secular authority ; that the Bishops "Kin" were merely trie executors of the orders of the King and Parliament ; that their determinations were of force only so far as the King made them so by enjoining the observation of the new Ritual ; and that, in short, the title of Head of the Church given to the King, with all the rights which any spiritual Power ever had over Ecclesiastical persons and things, to establish or to reform all that was necessary in the Church, proves evidently that the ministry of the Bishops was here only a matter of form, and that nothing had force except in virtue of the Prince's authority, and by his order, — as is proved by the Act of Parliament of the year 1535, which declares, 1 " that the King — his heirs and successors, — shall be — re- " puted the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of " England, — (2.) And shall have and enjoy, — all honours, dig- " nities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, " immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity — bc- " longing and appertaining ; (3.) And — shall have full power " and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, " reform, — all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, — which " by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or " may lawfully be reformed," &c. This Statute was renewed El. c. l. by the first Parliament held under Elizabeth3 in the first year of her reign, and laid the foundation of all her conduct and of ' Statutes at Large, vol. i. p. 436. ' lb. p. 7 "!). ALLOWED THE SOVEREIGN. 189 that of her successors, with respect to Ecclesiastical affairs. But it is clear by this Statute, that the whole spiritual authority is made over to the King, that it is in him that it rests as its source, and that being substituted for every other spiritual power, he is accounted to have a right to exercise its func- tions, and to communicate to others the power of which he has the fulness, as Sovereign Head of the Church of Eng- land, as well in spiritual as temporal matters. This power which the Parliaments have granted to the l'?e made Kings of England has moreover not remained unused. We find, po^r. it is said, in the documents published by Burnet, Commissions given by the Prince for the visitation of Churches, and these Commissions sometimes executed by mere laymen. We find Ordinances made in matters purely spiritual. We see powers given to preach and to administer, and also revocations of these powers. In a word, these Princes have united in their own persons both the regal and the sacerdotal authority, and have usurped a power which Princes had never enjoyed before them, and which had been thought incompatible, the one with the other, since the publication of the C-ospel. This, without doubt, is what may be said with the greatest Answer, force against the authority of the new Bishops, who have not, as is pretended, any other mission than that of the Prince. Our business is to inform ourselves of the truth of the fact. I agree in the first place with some English Divines, as Arch- Conces- bishop Bramhallk and several others, that the power of the Kings of England has been too far extended in spiritual matters; that the title of Head of the Church of England in things spiritual and temporal, has in it something odious, and even scandalous ; that such a title is a thing unheard of in the Church ; and that it was impossible without prevarication and schism, to attribute to him all the rights, privileges and jurisdictions that ever appertained to any spiritual Power. An avowal like this ought to leave no suspicion that I ap- prove, in any degree, the change made in this respect in the Church of England. From all this docs it follow that in England, the King is What is regarded as the source of spiritual power? as able to exercise denied- by himself the Ecclesiastical functions, and as substituted in k Works, p. 337. 190 PROOFS THAT SPIRITUAL POWER ° xi* P a^ ^"nKs f°r tnc fight of the spiritual Powers, from whose ■ : — jurisdiction they wished to withdraw themselves? These are so many consequences disavowed by the English Divines, and we must add by the Kings themselves, and by all the Clerg}\ Proofs. In 1562, the Bishops assembled at London, drew up some Art° 37' articles in their Convocation, which they thought necessary for establishing uniformity of faith and discipline in their Churches; and we shall see what is said in the 37th x\rticlc'. " Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some dangerous folks to be offended; we give not our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly testify ; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God Himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees com- mitted to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesi- astical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers." Two years afterwards, this article was ratified by the Convocation of the Province of York, and was thus allowed by the whole Nation. It was confirmed anew in 1571 by the Clergy, and authorized by the consent of the Queen, who thereby limited her own power to those functions which were purely external, for the maintenance of the Ecclesiastical discipline. » Canon 2 In 1603, a new Convocation of the whole Province of of 1603. Canterbury was held at London, and this Convocation was approved and ratified by James the First. The second Canon treats of the King's Supremacy in the Church of England ; but there is no mention of any spiritual function which the Prince could exercise. m" Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, that the King's Majesty hath not the same authority in causes Ecclesiastical, that the godly Kings had amongst the Jews, and Christian Emperors of the primitive Church ; or impeach any part of his regal Supremacy in the said causes restored to the Crown, and by the laws of this Realm therein established ; let him be excommunicated ipso facto". In the Convocation i [-(-Sparrow's] Collection of Articles, "> Ibid, [in the Latin,] p. 272. &c. [p. 106: in the Latin,] p. 221. IS NOT GIVEN TO THE ENGLISH SOVEREIGNS. 191 of 1640, held under Charles the First?, wherein is explained the extent of the King's power as to what regards the Church, the whole consists in subjecting to him the Ecclesiastical Persons, in excluding the submission to any Foreign Power, that is to say to the Pope ; in giving him the power of assembling and dissolving the Councils, and of using the civil sword, that is to say, his external power in retaining the Ec- clesiastics, as well as the rest, in duty and submission. Queen Elizabeth in her Injunctions of the year 1559° had Queen's herself disavowed all the spiritual power attributed to her, Jum"0 to confine herself to preventing the recognition in her kingdom of any other independent authority in things spiri- tual. For she there declared, that by the Oath of Supremacy she pretended not to assume to herself any power or autho- rity in the exercise of the Ecclesiastical Ministry, but required only that her subjects should acknowledge that she had sovereign authority over all persons, as well Ecclesiastics as Laics, within her Realm, and that no foreign Power had any authority over them. For see how she is there made to speak: " The Queen's Majesty being informed, that in certain places " of the Rea-m, sundry of her native subjects, being called to " Ecclesiastical Ministry of the Church, be by sinister persua- " sion and perverse construction, induced to find some scruple " in the form of an Oath, which by an Act of the last " Parliament is prescribed — her Majesty forbiddeth all man- " ner her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse " and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously " labour to notify to her loving subjects, how by the words of " the said Oath it may be collected, that the Kings or " Queens of this Realm — may challenge authority and power " of Ministry of divine Service in the Church, — her Majesty " neither doth, nor ever will challenge any authority, than that " was challenged and lately used by the said noble Kings of " famous memory, King Henry the Eighth and King Edward " the Sixth, which is, and was of ancient time due to the " Imperial Crown of this Realm, that is, under God, to have " the sovereignty and rule over all manner of Persons born " within these her Realms, — of what estate, either Ecclesiastical " or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign Power " Ibid. p. 346. ° Ibid. p. 83. 192 PKOOF.S THAT .SPIRITUAL POWER c HA p. « shall or ought to have any superiority over them. And if : — " any — shall accept the same Oath with this interpretation, — " her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such in that behalf, " as her good and obedient subjects, and shall acquit them of " all manner of penalties contained in the said Act," &c. Apoiogyof James the First went yet further; as both in his Apology James I. ^ ^ Qafa Qf Allegiance, and in his Premonition to the Princes, he declared that he did not pretend to assume to himself by that Oath any other than a superiority in matters civil and temporal. P " I thought good to set forth an Apo- logy for the said Oath : wherein I proved, that as this Oath contained nothing but matter of civil and temporal obedience, due by subjects to their Sovereign Prince, so &c." This is what he repeats in several other places, and what proves clearly that nothing is less true than the attributing of spiritual statutes power to the Kings of England. It is true that the Acts of restrained. parhament of 1535 and of 1559 seem to give the King some- what more ; but since the Clergy and the Kings themselves restrain their sense, and acknowledge that these Acts mean no more than to declare, that the King has a supreme autho- rity over the Ecclesiastics of his Kingdom as well as over others, and that the subjects of his Realm ought not to submit to any other Power ; it is an injustice to press their terms rigorously, and not abide by the sense put upon them by their proper interpreters. For this interpretation has been so fully regarded as the only sense of the law, that the English Divines have not otherwise explained the Supremacy of the King, and his authority in matters Ecclesiastical and spiritual, than in subjecting all Ecclesiastical Persons to him, exclusive of any other Power, and making him to employ his power in the maintenance of the doctrine and discipline of the Church. Mocket. "q Now this regal authority in the Anglican Church," says the v Works of James I. [Prem.] p. 292. mit a sacrilege, but also to render the Sacrament null and invalid. This is also the opinion of most Divines, and is the ground of the sentence of Pope Innocent the Eleventh, and of the Clergy of France, against a proposition authorizing us to follow the less sure and less probable opinion in the adminis- tration of the Sacraments. This condemnation is very just, and I freely subscribe to this doctrine. But I am surprised that persons should make use of this Answer, difficulty, which has almost no relation to our case. For, in short, when the Committee of Bishops appointed in King Edward's time to draw up the new Ritual, had proposed to make such changes as they should think necessary, these Prelates were persuaded that they did follow the most sure and most probable side. It was in fact more sure and more probable, that imposition of hands and prayer alone made the essence of Ordination, and not all the rest of the ceremonies which were added by parcels and at different times. All our most able Divines acknowledge it at this day. They had no doubt on this head. If our Catholic Divines had any doubt, it was owing to the prejudices and the ignorance of the age; and such a doubt had no influence on the validity p 2 212 SUCH A DOUBT PROVES CHAP, of the Ordination of those with whom it had no place. To ' — what purpose then would it he now to avail one's self of a doubt which the administrators of this Sacrament had not, and which others ought not to have had, and which is only criminal in those who, notwithstanding such a doubt, of the bottom of which they are ignorant, act against the testimony of their own conscience, which reproves them, and which ought to suspend all their operations? Parallel This then is not the case in which the doubt ought to argument, hinder from acting, and in which it renders all that is done invalid. And to destroy Champney's whole argument, it is sufficient to oppose to his, one entirely contrary to it, whereof the evidence itself will form the proof. He says1, that an Ordi- nation w hich is only probable, makes only a probable Bishop; and that a Bishop who is only probably a Bishop, is not one validly. To which I oppose this argument. A certain Ordination makes a certain Bishop, and a man is truly a Bishop when he is one with certainty. But the Ordination in question is certain ; for every Ordination is certain when it includes what is essential to Ordination, that is to say, impo- sition of hands, prayer, and the Consecrator. But such is the English Ordination, as has been shewn at great length through- out this Treatise, and as all those' will be able to convince themselves, who will take the trouble to investigate the facts. Doubts to But I say more. Every doubt on this subject does not guished" render a Sacrament invalid. The matter and form of the Sacraments is a thing much disputed of in the Schools: diere is scarcely any point thereof on which there has not been some variety of opinions. Nevertheless, though something should be omitted which some Divines judged essential, the Sacra- ment would not become invalid for that reason alone that some Divines judged so. It is not enough even that the doubt they might raise should be real ; it must also be solidly founded upon Ecclesiastical monuments proper to establish its obligation ; without which no account would be had of such a doubt. For example, it is known that two hundred years ago, a great number of Divines thought the delivery of the instruments essential to Ordination. In spite of this opinion, founded on ignorance, who now would regard as invalid an 1 De Vocat. Minist. [c. 13.] p. 421. NOTHING. TWO DIFFICULTIES. 213 Ordination in which it had been omitted? and what man of ability would presume to declare for its invalidity ? The practice is, in truth, to supply what had been omitted ; but this is only as the exorcisms after Baptism are supplied ; not because they are thought necessary, but as a mark of respect to the orders of the Church, and to render more present to us the spirit whereby she is animated, and the functions which she prescribes. So that in what light soever we view this doubt, it is im- Summing possible to conclude from it the invalidity of the English up' Ordinations ; nor can any other use be made of it, but to prove that the endeavour has been only to embarrass the facts, and to make a thing obscure which of itself would have caused but little difficulty, had men been willing to reason by principle, and inform themselves without prejudice of all that might serve to the clearing up of the truth. I should have stopped here, if the authors of the Journal Journal de de Trevonx had not given me occasion to add something to Two diffi- clear up two difficulties which they have lately proposed on this culties- subject to the author of the Apologetic Letter for the Succes- sion of the Bishops in the Church of England'". The first relates to the difference between Divines as to what is the essential matter and form of Ordination. The second is taken from the defect of the Priesthood, which it is supposed there is in the English Ministers. Let us examine them both. I am surprised that they have appeared solid to those who give themselves out for their authors. I have before touched on the first in the beginning of this First, chapter, so that it will not long detain me. Divines, it is said", are divided as to what makes the essence of the matter and form of this Sacrament. Be it allowed, if it is wished, that it is probable, that imposition of hands and prayer, are the only es- sentials of Ordination: it must at least be admitted, that the contrary opinion has had and has still a great number of de- fenders: therefore it is true, that it is probable also, that imposi- tion of hands and prayer are not all that is essential to Episcopal Ordination: it may therefore lawfully be believed that these Ordinations are invalid, and it will be always true that the English Bishops are not, or ought not to pass for, sufficiently m April, 1722. Art. 38. p. 70S. et seq. » lb. p. 723. 214 FACTS, NOT REASONINGS, CXUP 0Klained, since it is probable tbat their Ordination is imper- feet. To this argument may be reduced all the declamation of the authors of the Memoire, who have but enlarged upon Champney's reasoning before mentioned, and which will pass for a demonstration only with the defenders of probability. Answer. But I am surprised, that these Divines, after having been so often beaten on their pretended outward probability, should wish to employ it again in a matter of this nature, where all that is wanted is but to inform one's self of the practice of the Churches, and not at all of the metaphysical reasonings of Divines. Were the question to be decided by their authority, it would be in vain for us to cite some of them, because the testimony of those which would be op- posed to them would be a counterbalance to the authority of the former. But when I quote a Father Morin, a Father Mabillon, a Father Martin, a Father Goar, and such others, it is not to their testimony that I send the reader : it is to the authentic monuments they have produced, to the most ancient and venerable Rituals, to the most unsuspected Pontificals, to the Roman Orders of Service, to the Greek Euchologies, to the testimonies of the ancients; in a word, to all that can convince us as to the practice of the Churches on this head. If it depended on simple reasoning, one might oppose author to author, Father to Father, Divine to Divine ; and in such an opposition, where even principles are often not agreed on, we might regard as simply probable a question which a superior authority or an evident reason could not decide. We must But this is not our case : our question is of a matter of fact, be guided , _ . , . i i i by facts. The documents to decide it arc in our own hands, and we have nothing to do but to consult them. Let Durand or St. Antonin, Suarez or Vasquez, Isambert or Gamachius, think as they please, we shall still be obliged to come back to what was done or what was omitted, and by this to determine of the necessity or non-necessity of the rites or Ecclesiastical cere- monies : for we cannot regard as essential that which has not been practised cither every where or always; and upon these subjects the rule of our faith is formed on that of our usages. But according to this principle, which every judicious Divine will think incontestable, what becomes of the extrinsic probability of the author of the difficulties ? If this question TO BE FOLLOWED. 215 is not to bo determined by the decision of Divines, bnt by the nature of the proofs, and the authority of the an- cient Ecclesiastical monuments, can we doubt for a moment that prayer and imposition of hands are the only essential parts of Ordination ? It is only by reasoning on the Sacraments " without the exact knowledge of the facts", says M. l'Abbe Fleury0, that the Schoolmen "have sometimes regarded as essential, ceremonies which are but accessory, as the unction, and the delivery of the chalice to the Priesthood, whereas what is essential in this Sacrament is the imposition of hands." Let us not dwell upon opinions founded solely on ignorance of ancient tradition ; but let us go back to the first sources, to see whether the contrary opinions will find there the least degree of probability. But how, in a time when the greater part of the ceremonies of the Roman Pontifical and of its formulae were not in use, will they find wherewith to prove their necessity? And if they were not formerly thought necessary, why should it be maintained that they are so now? The pretended probability then of the necessity of all these ceremonies is a chimera; and to wish to found the invalidity of the English Ordinations upon such an opinion, is to make the validity of a Sacrament depend on the opinions of some Divines, although those opinions are destitute of any founda- tion in antiquity. But, it is said, the Scripture does not clearly and distinctly Objection, determine the matter and form of Ordinations ; there is nothing in the Fathers and Councils that can give a sure foundation to the opinion of the sufficiency of the imposition of hands ; and even though there were in the Church any decision in favour of this opinion, the Catholic Church is to the English an incompetent tribunal, whose judgment they reject, and from whom, consequently, they cannot draw any advantage. Thus the whole matter is limited to the judg- ment of Divines, which being found divided, can make only a probable opinion, the probability of which does not destroy a contrary probability, and by consequence does not suffi- ciently assure the validity of the Ordinations. Nothing is more false than what is here advanced, that Answer, there is nothing either in Scripture or tradition which can ■ Hist. Ecdcs. torn. 17. Disc. 5. p. xviii. 2 10 SUFFICIENCY OF IMPOSITION OF HANDS CHAP, assure the sufficiency of imposition of hands and of prayer in — — Ordination. I will grant that the Scripture does not clearly and distinctly determine the matter and form of Ordinations ; but at least it names imposition of hands and prayer, and names nothing else. This indication is supported by the testimony of Fathers and Councils; and what is decisive is, that the practice of the Church, represented in the ancient Pontificals and other Ecclesiastical books, being found to be conformable to these testimonies, does not leave the least probability of the necessity of any thing else. Nor is the judgment of the Catholic Church so incompetent a tribunal as is supposed. It is not the cause of the Anglicans that is concerned herein : it is that of the whole Church : and even if the question did concern only the English, who reject her infallibility, yet in a matter of this nature, the practice of the ancient Church alone forms a proof, to which they have always professed to be willing to conform. To reduce then this whole answer to a few words, it is certain that the Scrip- ture implies the sufficiency of the imposition of hands and of prayer, and implies nothing else ; that the Fathers and Coun- cils support it incontestably; and that the practice of the Church demonstrates it. But a practice thus established and demonstrated, leaves no probability to the contrary practice. That opinion then of the Divines which favours the necessity of the other ceremonies, is neither true nor even probable ; and the other alone is probable, and consequently is perfectly sure in practice. Proofs. Who told you, say the}7, that those who do not think as .you do are in error ? But should that be asked when there are at hand proofs so strong and so numerous ? Who told it me, say you? It is the Scripture, which teaches it me by the silence it observes with respect to so many modern ceremo- nies : it is the Fathers and Councils, who did not so much as know the practices of the necessity of which you wish to make use : it is the Greek Church, which has been unacquainted with them to this day, and professes to be unacquainted with them still : it is our own Churches, who did not receive the greater part of them till these later ages; the Rituals too, and the ancient Pontificals, making no mention of them. Ought we to hesitate, with such authorities, in rejecting an opinion haz- WITH PRAYER NOT DOUBTFUL. 217 arded by some Schoolmen, who judging of the first times by their own age, have been so rash as to determine upon the matter and form of the Sacraments by metaphysical preci- sions, without having any jnst idea of these subjects, nor any knowledge of the ancient discipline ? And besides, as I have before observed, if once you make Doubts the certainty or the validity of the Sacraments to depend on endless- the doubts or opinions of Divines, what that is certain will remain to us in this class of things ? Some are divided as to the form of a Sacrament ; others as to the matter ; some even as to the administrator. This will have a deprecatory form, the other will have an imperative one ; some admit for the matter one thing, others another; there will be no end to the doubts, if we must hold to their opinion as a rule. But these sort of opinions have never been made use of in deter- mining the validity of a Sacrament. The usage and practice of each Church in things undetermined is the great rule. It is by this that we justify the Greeks: it is by this that we have received the Sacraments of the Orientals. It is al- lowed you to supply all the ceremonies which religion, or solemnity inspires you to add ; but their omission does not in the least derogate from the validity of the Sacraments con- ferred without them ; and it is certain, that the opinions of Divines cannot render necessary ceremonies whose non-ne- cessity is demonstrated by the contrary practice of the Churches, and their omission for many ages. I proceed to the second difficulty, which is not more solid, Second but which is singular enough to deserve to be given in the dlfficult; very words of the author, for fear that I should seem to weaken it. "Add," says hep, "that the Episcopal necessarily supposes the Sacerdotal Ordination, as an essential and requisite disposition according to the Catholic doctrine. But you have not among you other Anglicans the foundation of the Sacerdotal Ordination. For in the opinion of the Church, the Priesthood of the new Covenant principally and essen- tially includes the power to consecrate and sacrifice the adorable Body and Blood of Jesus Christ ; a power which passes among you for a thing as chimerical as the Sacrifice itself ; a power which you reject, and which your Ordinations " Journal de Trevoux, April 1722. p. 729. 218 THE SECOND DIFFICULTY FOUNDED ON FALSE chap, give not; consequently the Catholics will have a right to — — — dispute with your Prelates the title of Bishops, so long as they shall he persuaded, that you have no longer among you any true Priests." Not new. I Jo not know whether the author of the difficulties pretends here to propose to us something new ; but the truth is, that Champney had before made use of the same thing, and that Mason had then answered it in an entire book. w« Whence it necessarily follows," says Champney, "that those pretended Bishops .... neither are nor ever were true Bishops ; foras- much as they were never true Priests ; that is to say, they had not the power of offering the true Sacrifice. And hence, that they have such and so essential a defect of Episcopal calling, beyond all their predecessors, that even though those first had been true Bishops, yet these cannot be such." This is exactly the objection of the author of the difficulties ; who, as we see, has nothing that deserves a new answer. But be this difficulty old or new, this is not the point in question : our business is to ascertain whether it be solid, and this is what we must examine. Merely The manner in which the author proposes it does not alto- subsidiary. gCt]ier mciine one to believe it. It is a kind of subsidiary reason, which he appears to hazard not so much with the hope of fortifying his cause, as with a design of embarrassing an adversary by the delicacy of the matters on which he wishes to oblige him to explain himself, and which it is difficult to treat to the taste of a certain number of Divines. For the rest, Allitspro-he has reason not to build much on such an argument. All !a"seor S its propositions are false or very uncertain ; and I am sur- vey un- i)rjsecl that a man should announce such writings to the certain. 1 _ 6 public with an air of complaisance, as if there were something very singular to learn in them. For it is false, that Episcopal Ordination supposes the Sacerdotal ; and it is a rashness yet more to be condemned than ignorance itself, to make a Catholic dogma out of a false- 11 Unde necessario sequitur, prceten- sos illos Episcopos .... non esse neque fuisse veros Episcopos, quandoquidem veri Sacerdotes non t'uerint ; hoc est, vernm Sacrificinm offerendi potestatem non habuerint. Ac proinde talem tam- que essentialem Episcopalis vecationis defectum super omnes prsedecessores suos habere, ut etiamsi illi veri Epis- copi fuissent, isti tamen tales esse non possint. De Vocat. Min. c. 18. p. 710. OK VERY UNCERTAIN PROPOSITIONS. 219 hood. It is false, that the Sacerdotal power is conferred by words expressing the power of sacrificing. It is false, that the English do not acknowledge a Sacrifice in the sense of our best Divines, that is to say, a representative and commemo- rative Sacrifice, as it is called by their Lordships the Bishops of Belley and Meaux, Father Veron, the author of the Moral Theology of St. Augustine, and a number of others, who have best studied this subject. It is false, that in this sense, the English do not acknowledge in their Priests the power of sacrificing, and that their Ordination does not confer it. In a word, this whole reasoning is but a tissue of false supposi- tions and sophisms, which do not deserve that one should spend any long time in refuting them, for fear of embarrass- ing the principal question by so many foreign digressions. I say, 1. that it is false, that Episcopal Ordination sup- First poses the Sacerdotal conferred before ; since, according to Bcllarmine himself, both may be conferred by the same Con- secration: rImpossibile est ordinari Ejnscopum, qui antca non sit Presbyter, vel certe non tunc simid accipiat idramque Ordi- nationem; quia utraque est de essentia Episcopates: [It is im- possible that a man should be ordained a Bishop, who is not a Presbyter before, or at least does not then at the same time receive both Ordinations : for both arc of the essence of the Episcopate:] and because, according to St. Jeromes, "In the Bishop is included the Priest also": In Episcopo et J'rcsbi/fer con- tinetur. And in fact, it appears by several examples of antiquity, by the ancient Roman Orders of Service, by the reproaches of the Greeks, by the acknowledgment of the Latins, and even by the complaints themselves of some Popes, that the Epis- copate was sometimes conferred without the Priesthood having preceded it ; and even those who regarded these Ordinations as unlawful do not seem to have doubted of their validity. tMonnulli ex quacunquc militia se ad Ecclcsiam conferentes, says Pope Zosimus, statim saltu quodam summatem locum Rcligionis affectant, qui gradatim per Ecclcsiastica stipendia venicntibus, cxplorata solet discussione differri : idcirco quouiam in nonnidlis factum infirmare non possnmus, si qiri jam ordinati sunt, in ro gradu ad quern saltu subito pervenerunt, pcrdurare debebunt. ' De Ord. cap. 5. " Ep. 85. Zosim. Ep. 7. ad Patrocl. Arelat. 220 EXPRESS MENTION OF THE POWER TO SACRIFICE CHAP. [Some out of every profession betaking themselves to the — - — : — Church, taking as it were a leap, aim at once at the highest place in Religion, a place which is accustomed to be delayed, men advancing step by step through the Ecclesiastical ranks of service, by a well-explored probation : wherefore since we cannot annul what in the case of some has been done, if any have already been ordained, it will be right that they remain in that rank to which they have suddenly come by a leap.] The examples of the Popes Sabinian, Constantine, Valentine, Nicholas the First, and some others, do not even leave us room to doubt, that this which Zosimus regarded as unlawful was become pretty frequent at Rome. And after such examples, I leave to the reader's judgment the truth and solidity of this proposition, that the Episcopal necessarily supposes the Sacer- dotal Ordination. Unfair as- But that which we cannot avoid censuring is, the making a sumption. £atj10|jc UOgma 0f a Very false, or at least a very uncertain opinion, on which the Schools are divided, which learned Divines attack in the sight and knowledge of the Church, and which is opposed by examples, and by strong theological reasons, as it would be easy to prove, if I were not afraid of being carried into digressions foreign to the purpose. Second But let us suppose that true which is false, that the Episcopal does suppose the Sacerdotal Ordination, the author of the Memoire is none the nearer to his point. For how will the nullity of the English Priesthood be proved? It is, says heu, because the English Ordination does not give the power to sacrifice. But where has he learnt that the Priesthood is conferred by the formula which expresses the power to sacri- fice ? There is not a single word said of it in the ancient Orders of Service, no more than in the Euchologies 'and Rituals of the Greeks, the Syrians, the Copts, and generally speaking of all the Orientals. On this subject may be con- sulted the Collection of Father Martene*, and it will there be seen, that it is only since about the eleventh century that we find the formula, "y Receive power to offer Sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass as well for the living as for the u Journal &c. p. 729. cium Deo, Missamque celebrare tarn * De Ant. Rit. torn. 2. pro vivis quam pro defunctis, in no- Aecipe potestatem offerre Sacrifi- mine Domini. NOT NECESSAIIY. ANGLICANS ALLOW THE SACRIFICE. 221 dead, in the Name of the Lord " : a formula which has been drawn in only by the ceremony of the Chalice and the Paten; and independently of which the Priests were formerly very validly consecrated in the Latin, and are still at this day in all the Eastern Church. Accordingly Morinus and Martene scruple not to reject the opinion of those who would have this formula regarded as the form of the Priesthood, it being so modern as it is, and confined within the Latin Church alone. The omission then of this formula in the Anglican ltitual Third cannot prejudice the Priesthood of the English; the less be- cause they make no difficulty to allow the Sacrifice in the same sense with the greater part of the ancient Fathers, and of our most able controversialists, that is to say, a representa- tive and commemorative Sacrifice, which is no ways different from that of the Cross, and which bears its name, because it is the image and memorial of it, and because the same Victim is there offered. This is very exactly allowed, among other learned English Divines, by William and John Forbes, Mason, Bishop Andrewes, Thorndike, Jos. Mead who wrote an express treatise on the subject, Grabe in his Notes on St. Irenasus, and many others ; and I even dare assert that those among them who seem opposed to this doctrine, combat it only in opposition to the opinion of those of our Divines who maintain that in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, there is a real immolation made, and that it is less the memory of the death of Jesus Christ than His death itself which is there renewed, an opinion which is founded only on ideas of little exactness and little authority. "We have no objection, says the Bishop of Ely, to the term Andrewes. either of Sacrifice or of Oblation." z Nec a voce vel Sacrificii vel Oblationis abhorremus. We offer, says John Forbes, the Sacri- John fice of Jesus Christ, not by immolating Him anew, but by making a memorial of His immolation, and praying God to make it propitiatory to us. aIpsam Ejus (Christl) obedientiam cruentamque immolationem . . . offeriynus Deo, non sacrificando Christum, aut de novo immolando, sed unicam Mam, pro nobis in Pussionc semel factam, Cliristi immolationem commcmorando ; Deum suppliciter orantes, ut cam intuens nobis peccatoribus sit 1 Apol. cont. Bellarm. c. S. Theol. 1. xi. c. 20. § 2 3. [p. 575. Ed. " Joan. Forb. Instruct. Historico- Amst. 1702.] 222 ANGLICANS ALLOW THE SACRIFICE. CHAP, propitius ; non propter hanc nostram com memorationem, sed — — - — propter cruentam ilium vere et proprie sacrificatoriam et propi- tiator iam Oblationem, quam commemoramus Deuqne offerimus Ob- latione non sacrificatorid, sed commemorative!, Sec. [His (Christ's) very obedience and bloody sacrifice . . . we offer to God, not by sacrificing Christ, or immolating Him anew, but by com- memorating that one immolation of Christ once made on the Cross for us; suppliantly beseeching God, that looking on it He would be propitious to us sinners ; not for the sake of this our Oblation, but for the sake of that truly and properly sacrificatory and propitiatory Oblation, which we commemo rate and offer to God not with a sacrificatory, but with a Mason, commemorative Oblation, SfeJ] Mason, Mead, and many others &c. ' whom I might adduce, express themselves in the same man- ner. But not to enlarge here beyond my purpose, I will Grabe. content myself with the testimony of Grabe. It is certain says this author b, that St. Irenaeus, and all the Fathers, as well those who had seen the Apostles as those who succeeded them, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the new Law, and that they offered the bread and wine as sacred offerings ; offering them to God before the consecration, as the first fruits of His creatures, to acknowledge His sovereign dominion over all things ; and after the consecration, as the Bod}' and Blood of Jesus Christ, in order to represent the bloody Sacri- fice offered on the Cross, and to obtain the fruits of His death for all them for whom it was offered. This is not, says he, the doctrine of one particular Church or Doctor, but of the Church universal. The Church had received it from the Apostles, and the Apostles from Jesus Christ. " Atque hanc non privatum particulates Eeclesice vel Doctoris, sed pnblicam universalis Ecclcsicc doctrinam t tqu praxin fuisse, quam ilia ab Apostolis, ApostoKab ipso Christo edocti accepernnt, diserte — docet Ireneeus, atque ante ipsum Justinus JSIartyr," et Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Tertullianus, Cyprianus, et alii. [" And that this was not the private doctrine of a particular Church or Doctor, but the public doctrine and practice of the Church Universal, which she received from the Apostles, the Apostles received as the teaching of Christ Himself, Ireneeus teaches distinctly, and before him Justin Martyr,'' and Clement b Not. in hen. lib. 4. cap. 32. [p. 323.1 DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS. 233 of Rome, Ignatius?, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others.] Such is the language and doctrine of the English Divines, which implies an authentic acknowledgment of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, recalled and represented in the celebration of the Holy Mysteries ; and nothing is more conformable to the language and doctrine of the Fathers, of our ancient Divines, and of our best controversialists. St. Clnysostom, in his Homilies on the Epistle to the St. Chry- Hcbrews, expresses himself after the same manner. c Quid vero? says he, nos non quotidie offerimus? Offerimus quidem, sed Pjus mortem rcvocamus in mcmoriam: et ipsa una est, et non multa ^Pontifcx noster Ille est, Qui ilktm ohtulit Ilostiam, qua nos mundat. Ilium nune quoque offerimus qua [_et] tunc fit it oblata, qua non potest consumi. Hoc Jit in rccordationem ejus quod tunc factum est. Hoc cnim facite, inquit, in Meant commemorationem. Non aliam hostiam, stent [tunc] Pontifex, sed eandem semper J "ad- mits, vel potius {Ilostia seu) Sacrificii facimus commemorationem. fj,aX\ou &e avdjjtvr](Tiv epya^6p,eda 6v, denuo facto decreto electionis more solito, cum Clero et plebe ad Apostolicam adrenisscnt Sedem, et ab eodem Sanctissimo Ste- phano Papa benedictionis susccpissent Consecrationcm ; Prcsby- teri vero illi ac Diaconi ab eodem Constantino consecrati, simili modo in co quo prius existebant habitu revcrterentur ; et postmo- dnm, si qui eorum placabiles extitissent, antcfatus Beatissimus Pontifcx Prcsbyteros eos aut Diaconos consecrasset. [And con- cerning the Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons whom Con- stantine himself had consecrated, it was thus promulgated in the same Council: that of those Bishops, if any one had been a Presbyter or a Deacon, he should return to his original grade of honour ; and if they were approved by the people of their city, that, the decree of election having been made anew after the accustomed manner, they should come with the Clergy and people to the Apostolic See, and from the same most holy Pope Stephen receive the Consecration of benediction ; but that those Presbyters and Deacons whom the same Constan- tine had ordained, should return in like manner in that habit in which they had been before ; and afterwards, if any of them were approved, that the aforesaid most blessed Pontiff should consecrate them Presbyters or Deacons.] what may I agree that, as Auxilius has very well observed, we infeiTec?. must never draw consequences from bad examples. iXun- quam exemplum a ?nalis est sumendum. Ex his enim qua in voluminibus leyuntur, ea solummodb imitanda vel facienda sunt, ' Anastas. in Steph. IV. [Rerum s De Ord[inationibus] Fomi[osi,] Italicarum Scriptures, torn. 3. p. ] 77. lib. 2. cap. 4. [sp. Morinum de Sacr. col. 1. C, D. Ven. 1723. See the Edi- Ord. part. 2. p. 363. col. 2. B.] tor's notes.] AND CONSTANTINE. — MOTIVES. 243 qua: bona esse probantur ; mala autem penitus execranda sunt, et omnino cavendu. [We must never take example from bad things: for of the things which are read in books, those alone are to be imitated and done which are proved to be good; the bad utterly execrated, and altogether avoided.] Accordingly I do not pretend to make a law of what was practised on these two occasions ; but on the contrary, simply conclude thence, that what is done at Rome is not always the rule of what we ought to do ; and that since they decided wrongly with respect to the Ordinations of Constan- tine and Formosus, the practice which has been introduced there of re-ordaining the English Bishops may perhaps be neither more just, nor better founded ; and that then, ac- cording to St. Augustine's maxim, more regard must be had to reason than to examples. 1 Sana guippe ratio etiarn ex- emp/is anteponenda est. [For sound reason is to be preferred even to examples.] It will perhaps be said, that there is this difference between objection, what was done at Rome with respect to Constantino and Formosus, and what is done with respect to the English ; that in the two former cases they acted by passion, whereas in this last, they have but followed the Ecclesiastical rules ; that more- over, Constantine and Formosus observed all that is pre- scribed for the administration of Orders, whereas the English have overthrown the whole form and all the ancient cere- monial prescribed and practised in the Catholic Church ; and that whatever might be defective in what was done against the Ordinations of these two Pontiffs, becomes legiti- mate when applied to the re-ordinations of the English. But whatever supposition be made, it is still certain that Answer, what has been done at Rome, is no certain rule for what we ought to do. The more favourably the cause of Formosus and Constantine is thought of, the more true my proposition is. For if they were mistaken there in cases in which there must have been less difficulty, it is not impossible that in this, in which the facts have been embarrassed, they should be deceived by the difficulty they have found in clearing up and being assured of the truth, which so many authors appear to have made it their business to obscure. 1 DeCivitate Dei, lib. 1. cap. 23. [cap. 22. § 2. torn. 7. col. 22. A. Ed. Bened.] K 2 2U PASSION NOT THE ONLY MOTIVE. C H a p. Moreover, I do not know whether it is as certain as they ". — sav, that in the business of the re-ordinations directed in the Motives. J _ _ • i t i cases or Formosus and Constantine, passion alone dictated these resolutions. It is true, that in Stephen the Sixth and Sergius the Third, there was in reality much animosity and passion : but is it equally certain that all the Bishops who had a hand in the decisions made in the Councils which they as- French semblcd, espoused all their hatred and animosity ? Will it fcase of easily be believed, that the French themselves, who were called tino"1 to tne Synod held under Stephen the Fourth against Con- stantine, decided as they did merely from passion ? And is there not more ground to think that this rpicstion not having as yet been very clearly determined, we ought not to be sur- prised, that they were mistaken at Rome on this subject, and that their opinions have been much divided thereon, as Sisrebert. Sigebert in his Chronicle bears witness. " u With much Forraosup.) scandal there was much discussion and controversy agitated for many years in the Church, some rashly determining that his Consecration, and that of those ordained by him, ought to pass for null : others, on the contrary, deciding with sounder judgment, that what kind of person soever Formosus was, yet on account of the dignity of the Sacerdotal office, and the faith of those who had been ordained, all his Con- secrations ought to be considered valid." But be this as it may, it is enough for me to have proved by these examples, that the practice of the Church of Rome is at most only a prejudice, against which it is always lawful to object, and that nothing demonstrative can be concluded thence against the English Ordinations, any more than from what was done under Mary, and from what those English have thought, who have attacked the validity of the Ordination of Parker. » Cum multo scandalo multa per tarr.en propter Sacerdotalis officii digiii- multos annos quastio et controversia tatem, et fidem eorum qui ordinati fue- est agitata in Eeclesia, aliis ejus et ab rant, omnes Consecrationes ejus ratas eo ordinatorum C'or.secrationem irritam esse debere, saniori consilio judicanti- esse richer? praejudk-antibus, aliis e bus. — Sigebert. Chron. ad Ann. 900. contra qualiscumque fuerit Formosus, CHAP. XIV. CONTINUATION OF THE SAME SUBJECT. THE RE -ORDINATIONS OF THE ENGLISH ARE CONTRARY TO ALL THE PRINCIPLES NOW RECEIVED IN THE SCHOOLS ON THE SUBJECT OF RE- ORDINATIONS. We have just seen that no use can be made against the Re-ordina, validity of the English Ordinations, of the re-ordinations the Refor- which have taken place of the Bishops ordained since the Re- matlon- formation. I now go further, and I think it is easy to shew that these re-ordinations are contrary to all the principles at pre- sent received in the Church and in the Schools on this sub- Former ject. It is certain that for a very long time persons did not know which side to take in the matter. The decision of the question which regards the reiteration of Baptism ought, one should think, to serve for a rule for those other Sacraments which, like this, are not reiterated. Nevertheless, many Divines were still in doubt, even to the twelfth and thirteenth century, whether an unlawful Ordination ought to be held as good, and some have denied it without hesitation. But it must be acknowledged, that since that time, the Now so a'so he that has been ordained, if he de- tine, parts from the unity, does not lose the Sacrament of giving Baptism. For we must not detract from any Sacrament". It is true that this Father speaks here of those only who had been ordained among the Catholics ; but he goes farther than this in his Books against the Epistle of Parmenian ; for he there shews that those even who have been ordained among the heretics, are validly ordained, as those who have been bap- tized in heresy, are validly baptized. b Utrumque enim Sa- cramentum est ; says he, ct quddam Consecratione utrumque homini datur ; Mud cum baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur ; ideo- quc in Catholica utrumque non licet iterari. Nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes etiam propositi pro bono pads, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, et si visum est opus esse ut eadem officio gererent qua (jertbant, non sunt rursum ordinati ; sed sicut Baptismus in cis, ita Ordinatio mansit Integra: quia in prcecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitatis pace correction est; non in Sacramentis, qua. ubicumque sunt, ipsa sunt. [For each is a Sacrament, and each is given a man by a kind of Consecra- tion, the one when he is baptized, the other, when he is or- dained ; and hence it is not lawful in the Catholic Church to repeat either. For whensoever, for the good of peace, even the leaders, coming from the schismatic party itself, the error of their schism having been corrected, have been re- ceived, and it has been deemed expedient that they should bear the same offices which they bore before, they have not been ordained again ; but as their Baptism, so their Ordina- tion remained entire in them ; because the fault, which was corrected by the peace of unity, was in the separation, not in the Sacraments, which wheresoever they are, retain their nature.] Second A second principle admitted in the Schools as indisputable pnneipe. ojj subjeet is, that the conferring of a Sacrament out of the Church, does not render that Sacrament null, at least, when nothing is omitted which belongs to the essence itself of the Sacrament : but in this case, it would be this omission which would make the Sacrament null ; not the conferring it out of the Church. This principle is a consequence of the k Lib. 2. com. Ep. Farm. cap. 13. [cap. 28. torn. 9. col. 14. B, C. Ed. Bened.] ANALOGY BETWEEN BAPTISM AND ORDINATION. 247 doctrine of the character : and though it has heen contested in former times by those who did not allow the impression of any character out of the Church, there is now no further hesitation in admitting it, on the principles of St. Augustine St. Augus- against the Donatists, who proves to them that in every place where the Sacraments are, they ought to be recognised; ubicumque sunt, ipsa sunt ; [wheresoever they are, they retain their nature ;] and that the dissensions of men destroy not the gifts of God, according to Optatus : " c And if the minds Optatut. of men are at variance, the Sacraments are not." The third principle received by Divines is, that we must Third ^ on this point reason of Ordination in the same manner as of Baptism. This maxim was not always universally received. Not always Urban the Second would not admit of a parity between these receded. ? two Sacraments. d Alia in Baptismo, says he, et alia in Urban n- reliquis Sacramentis consideratio est. [The consideration is different in the case of Baptism and in that of the other Sa- craments.] And Gratian, in his Decretal, expressly denies Gratian. that any thing can be concluded from the one to the other. e Patet ergo Mud Augustini, says he, Sacramenta videlicet Christi per hcereticos ministrata suo non carere effectu, non de omnibus intelligi generaliter, sed de Sacramento Baptismi. [It is clear that that saying of St. Augustine, viz. that the Sacra- ments of Christ administered by heretics do not fail of their effect, is to be understood not of all in general, but of the Sacrament of Baptism.] And, continuing in this same view, lie adds, f Patet quod Sacramcjita Ecclesiastica prater Daptisma ab hecreticis ministrari non possunt. [It is clear that the Church Sacraments with the exception of Baptism, cannot be administered by heretics.] And for fear it should be sup- posed that he meant this of a simple suspension, and not of an entire defect, of power, explaining what St. Augustine says, that the power attached to the character is not lost by schism, he maintains that St. Augustine speaks thus of those only who have received their Ordination in the Church, and not in the heresy or the schism, s De bis ergo qui accepta « Et si honrinam litigant mcntes, [§ xxxv. torn. 1 1. col. 949. B. Col. Agr. non litigant Sacramenta. O/itaL lib. 3. 1609.] parag.9. [p. 66. Ed.Dupin, Antw.1702.] e Decrct. p. 2. c. 1. 411. 1. [Ed. Tar. d Epist. ad Luc. S. Juv. prsep. [Lu- Hi 12.] can. 1.r>. eium Eccl. S. Juven'tii apud Ticinum fs Can. 74. & 97. praepositum,] apud Baron. An. 1099. 248 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS CITAP. Sacerdotali potestute ab imitate Catholics Ecclesice recedunt, — — loquitur Augustinus, non deillis qui in schismate vel hceresi positi Saccrdotalem unctionem accipiunt. [St. Augustine there- fore speaks of those who after they have received the Sacer- dotal power, depart from the unity of the Catholic Church, not of those who receive the Sacerdotal unction while placed in heresy or schism.] Ancients It must nevertheless be allowed that the ancients thought otherwise, otherwise. For, besides what we have adduced from St. Au- ttneAarfdS gustme» St. Gregory the Great is very express. " h But what Greg. I. you say," writes he to John Bishop of Ravenna, " that he who has been ordained, should be ordained again, is very ridi- culous, ... Be it far, however, from you, my Brother, to think so. For as he who has once been baptized, ought not to be baptized again ; so he who has once been consecrated, ought not to be consecrated again in the same Order." The third Concii. Council of Carthage also makes the same comparison between A^Dh'397. tne reiteration of Baptism and that of Ordination. ' I lb id suggerimus mandatum nobis, quod etiam in Capuensi plenarid Si/nodo videtur statutum : non liceat fieri rcbaptizutiones et re- ordinationcs. [We recommend to ourselves that order which in the full Synod of Capua is seen to have been decreed : let re-baptizings and re-ordinations be forbidden to be per- formed.] For the rest, the foundation of this comparison was very solid. For as what makes the price and value of the Baptism given in the Church, is that it is conferred in the Name of Jesus Christ, and that the faith or want of faith of the Minister neither adds to nor takes any thing away from the gifts of God, and the same reasons hold good with respect to Ordination, we must necessarily reason about the one as about the other. It is on this ground that Divines have re- turned to the maxims of St. Augustine and St. Gregory, and have altogether given up the doubts which formerly divided Peter the Schoolmen on this head, as the Master of the Sentences Lombard. remar]-S- k JJnnc qua?stioncm perplexam ac pene insolubilem " Mud autem quod dicitis, ut is qui secrari. Greg. M.lib. 2. Ep. 32. [Ep.46. ordinatus est, iterum ordinetur, valde torn. 2. col. 60S, 7 o the first Sacrament out of the Church did not render that Sacrament to Bap-'td nuU- On the contrary, all the reasons of St. Cyprian, and of tism. tjie dllirc]ies Qf Africa, were founded on this principle, that out of the Church there was no true Sacrament. Men, says St. Cy- St. Cyprian, not becoming Christians but by Baptism, and p"an' Baptism having neither fruitfulness nor holiness except in the Church, how can he have God for his Father, who has not also the Church for his mother ? b Cum nativitas Christiano- rum in Baptismo sit, Baptismi autem rjeneratio et sanctificatio apud solam Sponsam Christi sit, . . . ubi, et ex qua, et cut natus est, quiJiUus Ecclesia; non est, nt habere quis possit Deum Pa- ti'em ante Ecclesiam matrem ? [Since the nativity of Christians is in Baptism, and the generation and sanctification of Baptism is with the Spouse of Christ alone, . . . where, and of whom, and to whom has he been born, who is not a son of the Church, that a man should be able to have God for his Father before he has the Church for his mother ?] There is but one God, says the same Father, one Christ, one hope, one faith, one Church, one Baptism, and this Baptism is found in the Church alone. 0 Tradition est nobis qubd sit unus Deus, et Christus units, et una spes, et fides una, et una Ecclesia, et Bajitisma unum, non nisi in una Ecclesia constitution. [It has been delivered to us that there is one God, and one Christ, and one hope, and one faith, and one Church, and one Baptism, established in the one Church alone.] In his Letters to Jubaian, Firmilian, and others, the same Saint repeats every where the same principle, and argues that nothing is conferred out of the Church, because out of the Church is preserved neither right nor power to bestow any thing of what belongs to the Church. d Qui (hceretici), foris positi, et extra Ecclesiam constituti, vindicant sibi rem nec juris sui nec potcstatis (cum Baptismum conferuni): quod nos necratum possumus nec lerjitimum computare, quando hoc apud eos esseconstet b Cypr. Ep. 74: ad Pompeium. [torn. « loid. [p. 253.] 1. p. 2.;0. Ed. Wirccburgi, 1782.] [" Ep. 73: ad J ubaianum : p. 231.] AS APPLIED TO BAPTISM. 265 URattah. [Who (the heretics), being placed without, and situ- ated outside the Church, claim to themselves a thing which is neither of their right nor of their power (when they confer Baptism): which we cannot judge either valid or lawful, since among them it is certainly illicit.! This opinion was common to Afircan . Church. him with the whole Church of Africa, as appears hy the Council of Carthage which he caused to be held upon this subject. There is no true Baptism but in the Church, says Felix e of ^'^of Misgirpa. f Non est Baptisma nisi in Ecclcsia nnum et verum: ...Nam qitcB foris exercentur, nullum habent salutis effectum. [There is no Baptism except the one and true Baptism in the Church. . . . For those which arc performed without have no effect of salvation.] The Church and Heresy are two oppo- site things : if Baptism is with us, it cannot be with the here- tics, and vice versa, says Januarius Muzulensis. % Ecclcsia ct januarius hceresis duee et diversce res sunt. Si hceretici Baptisma habent, s/sUZUle"" nos non habemus ; si autem nos habemus, hceretici habere non possunt. [The Church and Heresy are two distinct things. If the heretics have Baptism, we have it not ; but if we have it, the heretics cannot have it.] " Either the Church is the Church, or Heresy is the Church. But if Heresy is not the Church, how can the Baptism of the Church be found among the heretics?" says Pelagianus of Luperciana. hAut Ecclcsia Pciagi- Ecclesia est, ant Hceresis Ecclesia est. Porro si Hceresis Ec- L„pSerd_ clesia non est, quomodo esse apud hcereticos Baptisma Ecclesice ana- potest ? — It is clear from all these reasonings, that the prin- ciple of which we arc now so well persuaded is the very one which was most contested ; not merely by the Africans, which is not surprising, but also by the greater part of the Orientals, Orientals, even those posterior to the Council of Nice. I speak not here of Firmilian, whose principles every one knows: but St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, and some others, all regarded this principle as very dubious ; being persuaded that a Sacrament administered in heresy was no Sacrament at all. Soli hccrctici rebaptizantur, says St. Cyril [f of Jerusalem,] ' siquidem prius Mud non crat St. Cyril Baptisma. [Heretics alone are rebaptized, since that former °emfmSa" [c See the Editor's notes.] [B » Ibid. p. 114. 115.] [f Cum non sit &c. Cone. Carth. ap. j Cyril. Ilierosol. in proef. Catechcs. Cvprian, torn. 2. p. 106.] [§ 4. p. 6. Ed. Oxon. 1703.] 266 CASE OF ORDINATION c ha P. Baptism was no Baptism at all.] Which is also the opinion of st Basi) St. Basil, whatever some Divines have thought. "EBo^e tciwv Tot? e£ wpx*}?, says he in his first Canonical Letter to Amphi- lochius k, to p,ev twv alpeTiKwv (ft uttt tafia) iTavTe\o)<; aOeTrjaar . . . ov yap e/3a7rTi<707) locus, quia id potest prccstare Ordinatio, quod longa satisfactio prcestare consuevit. ["But it is said/' says this Pontiff, "that the true and right benediction of the lawful Priest removes every fault which by the faulty one had been introduced. Therefore, if this be true," answers he, " let sacrilegious persons, adulterers, and those guilty of every Can. 1: Conciliorum torn. 2. 1 Innocent. I. Ep. 18. [§ 3, ibid. col. col. 1717 A, C. Ed. Labbei et Cos- 1269. D.] sartii Paris. 1G71.] ™ Ibid. Ep. 22. [§ i. col. 1274 B.] WORSE THAN THAT OF BAPTISM. 267 crime be brought to Ordination; because by the benediction of Ordination crimes or faults are supposed to be removed. Let there be no room for penance, because Ordination is able to perform that, which long satisfaction has been accustomed to perform."] It is certain that this passage cannot be inter- preted of any thing but re-ordination, since these heretics would not have been purified but by the same Sacrament which would have purified the adulterers and the sacrilegious. But this Sacrament, according to Innocent, is no other than Ordination ; quia benedictione Ordinationis crimina vel vitia putantur auferri: [because by the benediction of Ordination crimes or faults are supposed to be removed.] And besides this, what reasonable sense can one give to these words, That he who has nothing can give nothing, "Nihil in dante crat, qxtod We posset acciperc, [There was nothing in the giver which the other could receive,] except that that Ordination imprinted no character on him who received it, and that it attributed to it- self an authority which it had not: °Rci stmt usurpatai digni- tatis, qui corificiendorum Sacramentorum sibi vindicaverunt P au- ctoritatem. [They are guilty of usurping dignity, who have assumed to themselves the authority of pei'forming the Sacra- ments.] The second Council of Saragossa, held in the year 592, Cono. c»- exprcsscs itself nearly to the same purpose. It is on the tanum II. subject of the Arians, whose Baptism it ratifies, but whose Ordination it will have reiterated. iPlacuit sanctxe ct vene- rabili Synodo, says this Council, ut Prcsbyteri qui e.v liccresi Ariand ad sanctum Cutholicam Eccksiam conversi sunt, qui sanctam ct puram fidem atque castissimam tenuerint vitam, ac- ceptarn denuo bencdictionem Prcsbyterii sancte et pure ministrare debeant. [It has pleased the holy and venerable Synod, that those Presbyters who have been converted from the Arian heresy to the holy Catholic Church, who shall have main- tained the holy and pure faith and a most chaste life, having received anew the benediction of the Priesthood, should mi- nister it in a holy and pure manner.] It is certain, that this benediction can here be nothing but Ordination ; for the imposition of hands either in Penance or [" Ibid. § 3. col. 1274 A.] [° Ibid. § 5. col. 127-3 E.J p I'd. Labi). vendieaeeruntJ] 1 Can. 1. [torn. col. 1000 C] 208 CASK OF OKDINATION C xv P 'n ^onnrmat'on> was never called by this name, Preshyterii benedictio, [the benediction of the Priesthood.] Tbe Council of Bom. Rome held on business of Constantine, and that of Soissons Suession. assembled for that of Ebbon, reason on the same principle, and II. t? cnrovSaloi Xa'iicol ^eipoTovovvTac eKelvo o r/crav Trap avTol<; to irpoTepov cere irpeafivTepoi, elre hiaicovoL, k. t. X. [After these things, as good laics, they are ordained what they were before in their own Sect; whether Presbyters, or Deacons, &c] Balsamon. The other is Balsamon's, who being consulted by a Patriarch of Alexandria, sAn Sacerdos vel Diaconm hcereticiis, dignus habitus divino et sancto Baptismate, vel per sanctum Chrisma sanctificatus, possit sacra faccre cum priorc Ordinatione sua ? An vero si sacra ministrare velit, iterabitur ejus Ordinalio ? [Whether an heretical Priest or Deacon thought worthy of the divine and holy Baptism, or sanctified by the holy Chrism, may minister in virtue of his former Ordination? Or whether, if he wishes to perform the sacred fuuctions,his Ordination shall be repeated?] answers in distinct terms, that (whether his Baptism be repeated, in case the former was nidi, or he be received by the Unction, supposing the former Baptism valid,) ' 1 if he be thought worthy not merely of the Priestly, but also ' of the Episcopal dignity, his first Priesthood being accounted ' as a sacrilege, and as not conferred, he shall rise altogether ' by the usual degrees to the Doctorial height,' that is to say, to the Episcopal dignity. But it is evident by these two answers adduced by Morinus", that in the East as well as in the West they made a great difference between Baptism and Ordination, and that they did not conclude the validity of the one from that of the other, as we now do. ' Lib. 4. Jur. Orient. [Juris Grseco- palis, priore Sacerdotio pro sacrilegio Romani, Franeofurti, 1596 ] p. 290. habito, et pro non facto, omnino per * Ibid. lib. 5. p. 378, 379. [Seethe consuetos gradus ad Doctoriam sublimi- Editor's notes.] tatem ascendet. ' Si dignus censeatur non modd Sa- u De Sacr. Ordin. part. 3. Excrcit. J. cerdotalis dignitatis, sed ctiam Episco- car.. 7. [§ +. 5.] p. 98. worse Than that of baptism. 269 We have already seen that Urban the Second also rccog- Urban 11. nised this difference, avowing that we ought not to reason of the other Sacraments as of Baptism. x Quia alia in Bap- tismo, et alia in reliquis Sacramentis consideratio est; quippe ciim et online prior et necessarior sit. [Because the considera- tion is different in the case of Baptism and in the case of the other Sacraments; seeing it is both prior in order and more ne- cessary.] This also was the opinion of several Divines in the others^ time of Cardinal Peter Damian, as appears by one of his by Peter Treatises, in which he teaches clearly that according to them Damian- the Ordinations of the Arians ought not to be allowed as valid, although their Baptism was admitted, y Ubi notandum, says he, quanta invocationi divini nominis revcrcntia debeatur, cum et ab cis baptizati quos tarn perfida, ut ita dixcrim, Jides darnnat, rebaptizari tamen omnino non audeant. [Where we must take notice, how great reverence is due to the invocation of the Divine name, when even persons baptized by those whom (so to speak) so perfidious a faith condemns, dare not at all be re-baptized.] And yet, when speaking of the Ordi- nation conferred by these heretics, he adds : z Quia igitur virtutcm Sancti Spiritus in fide non habent, qua videlicet omtiis EcclesicB dignitatis ordo perficitur, apud eos Jacta Ordinatio canonicis sanctionibus irrita judicatur. [Because therefore they have not the virtue of the Holy Spirit in faith, that by which the rank of every Ecclesiastical dignity is produced, the Ordination performed among them is adjudged void of Canonical sanction.] It is true he is not of this opinion himself; and notwithstanding what Morinus saysa, lays down clearly, in the thirtieth and thirty-first chapters of the same little work, that we ought to pass the same judgment on Baptism as on Ordination, as appears by the mere titles of these two chapters. "bThat re-baptizing and re-ordaining is an equal crime. That as no one can be re-baptized, so no one can be ordained anew." But this work at least shews that all did not reason in the same way on this subject ; and this is precisely the whole which we have proposed to prove. 1 Epist. ad Lucium. [See p. 247.] b Qudd rebaptizatio et reconsecratio y Petr. Dam. Opusc. (i. c. 22. [Ope- par crimen est. — Quod sicut rebaptizari, rum torn. 3. p. 55. B. Roma?, 1015.] ita et denuo consecrari quisque non po- 1 [Ibid. p. 5 k F.] test. [Tom. 3. p. 59, 60.] * De Sacr. Ord. part. 3. Ex. 5. c. 2. 270 FACTS AND EXAMPLES. CHAP. But the recital of the facts and examples which are found - — in the history of the Church on this subject, affords yet better proof than the words of the ancient authors, though distinct enough, how much variation there has been about this matter. It is true that bad examples can never stand for a rule ; c Nunquam a malis sumendum est exemplum, as Auxilius said: accordingly we do not pretend to make a Law of these examples, but only to draw from them a convincing proof of the variation there has been on the subject of re-ordinations. Council I speak not here of the eighth Canon of the Council of a.d!C325. Nice. As it is somewhat obscure, it cannot be brought in as a proof; and though it appears to me that it cannot be reasonably interpreted of any thing but re-ordinations, I will not insist on a testimony of which we know not from other sources the manner of the execution. Nevertheless it appears that the Greeks were always inclined to the idea of re-ordina- Second tion ; and the single example of the Ordinations of Maximus Council : the Cynic, declared null by the first Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381. geems to decide it. For Balsamon and Zonaras do not hesi- tate to interpret in this sense the decree of that Council. " d Therefore this holy Synod," says Balsamone, "deposed him (Maximus), defining that he neither was nor had been a Bishop, because he had been elected in an illicit manner ; and that those who had been ordained by him, of what de- gree soever, were not Clerks." Which agrees with the words of the Canon f, which, according to an ancient version, says : omnibus scilicet qua circa eum vel ab co ejesta sunt, in irritum revocatis : [all things, in fact, which had been done with respect to him or by him having been declared null.] Case of The example of Photius and of his Ordinations, is very ordained similar t0 tnat of Maximus. It is for this reason that Adrian A.D. 868. the Second would have him treated in the same manner ; and Anastasius the Librarian, after Adrian, gives a convincing [c Seep.242.] d 'H ovv aytd ovvoBos avTrj aireKripv^e tovtov (rbv yid^ifiOf) , 6pis xe'P','''ovvSv''ai, hVT* T<>vs iir avTov xeipoTOfTiSifTai o'iovSt)tii>os /3o0- H *n i>'r^um ductis : [all tilings, especially the things which in him and by him were done with respect to the receiving or condemning of the Sacerdotal rank, being made void.] Obser- It is true we may suspect all these expressions of exap-o-era- vation. . , • • t i i j i i • - tion, and imagine that they regarded only the suspension ot acting in those who had been ordained ; and that this is so Tempo- much the more probable, because in the reconciliation which dUation"' was made between Photius and the Church of Borne, under JohnVIII tue Popedom of John the Eighth, no mention was made of A.D. 879. re-ordaining either Photius or those whom he had ordained. p In Pontificdli officio Comministrum, atque . . . in Pastorali ma- gisterio Consaccrdotem, pro Ecclesiai Dei pace et utilitate, . . . recipimus. [We receive him ... as a fellow-Minister in the Pontifical office, and ... in the Pastoral government a fellow- Varia- Priest, for the peace and advantage of the Church of God.] tions. This is certainly distinct: but may we not suspect that the same thing happened in the case of Photius as afterwards in that of Formosus, in which his Ordinations were first reputed null, and afterwards valid ? For how otherwise [m Ep. 4-. (see note g): ibid. col. [° Cone. torn. 8. eol. 1128 E.] 1012 D. (see also Harduini Concilia, [p John VIII. Ep. 199. ibid. col. Paris. 1715, torn. 5. col. 794 D.)] 1 H5 A. and torn. 9. col. 131 E.] [" Ibid. col. 1012 C] CASE OF CONSTANTINE. 273 can we reconcile John the Eighth with Adrian the Second, who makes an essential difference between those who had been ordained by Photius, and those who after their Ordi- nation had taken his side ? q Eos . . in siiis gradibus confirm- antes, says he, speaking of these, ignoscc7idum decrevimus: [con- firming them . . in their ranks, we have determined to par- don them :] whereas he absolutely rejects the others, as having received nothing but their own condemnation, as we have seen. This may be taken as a new proof that as yet they had no fixed principle whereby to judge of the validity or nullity of Ordinations. This variation, or at least, this uncertainty, is yet infinitely other more evident in the facts relating to Constantine, to Ebbo, casLS" and to Formosus. We cannot deny, with any appearance of truth, that there were on these occasions, real re-ordinations; and to wish to force every thing in order to reconcile them with the present practice, is to make the clearest passages of no use to convince us of any truth. We see on one side, that in the affair of Constantine, Stephen the Fourth caused a Case of Synod to be held at Rome, and that it was there determined t(|;,°£stan' that the Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ordained by that intruder should be reduced to their former degree, and after a new election be consecrated again. "In eodem Concilio, says Anastasius, promulgatum est, ut Episcopi illi (guos ipse Con- stantinus consecraverat), . . . in pristinum honoris sui gradum re- verterentur ; " ct si placabiles fuissent coram popido civitatis sues, denuo facto decreto electionis more solito, cam Clero et plebc ad Apostolicam advenissent Sedem, et ab eodem Sanctissimo Stejihano Papa benedictionis suscepissent Consecrationem ; Presbyteri verb illi ac Diaconi ab eodem Constantino consecrati, simili modo in eo quo prius cxistebant habitu reverterentur ; et postmodum, si qui eorum placabiles extitisscnt, antefatus Beatissirnus Pontifex Pres- byteros eos aut Diaconos consecrasset. . . . s Ita enim in eodem Con- cilio statutum est, ut omnia qua isdem Constantinus in Ecclesi- asticis Sacramentis ac divino cultu egit, iterata fuissent, prater sacrum Baptisma, atque sanctum Christna." [In the same Council it was promulgated that those Bishops (whom Con- stantine himself had consecrated), . . . should return to their [•> Adrian II. Ep. 4. (see p. 270.): ' Anast. in Steph. IV. [See p. 242.] ibid. col. 1013 C] [' Ibid. col. 2 A.] 274 CASES OF EBBO AND FORMOSUS. CHAP, original grade of honour ; " and if they were approved by the '- — people of their city, that the decree of election having been made anew after the accustomed manner, they should come with the Clergy and people to the Apostolic See, and from the same most holy Pope Stephen receive the Consecration of benediction ; but that those Presbyters and Deacons who had been consecrated by the same Constantine, should return in like manner in the habit in which they were before ; and afterwards if any of them were approved, that the aforesaid most blessed Pontiff should consecrate them Presbyters or Deacons. . . . For so was it determined in the same Council, that all things which the same Constantine performed in the Sacraments of the Church and divine worship should be re- peated, except sacred Baptism and the holy Chrism."] Case of The same is the case with regard to Ebbo. The second °* Council of Soissons annihilates all his Ordinations, and de- clares them null without hesitation. tDecretum est a sacra- tissima Sgnodo, ut quidquid in Ordinatioitibus Ecclesiasticis idem Ebbo post damnationem suam egcrat, secundum traditionem Aj>ostolica> Sedis, ut in gestis Pontificum legitur, prater sacrum Baptisma, quod in nomine sanctcc Trinitatis perfectum est, irri- tum et vacuum habeatur. [It was decreed by the most holy Synod, that whatever in Ecclesiastical Ordinations the same Ebbo had performed after his condemnation, according to the tradition of the Apostolic See, as is read in the acts of the Pontiffs, besides sacred Baptism, which is perfected in the name of the Holy Trinity, should be accounted null and void.] Case of As to the case of Formosus, it is so clear, as has already Formosus. ^ecn sceri) that there is no answer to give to it besides this sole objection, that all was done contrary to the rules. I allow this : but after all, if re-ordinations had been regarded as a thing as contrary to the nature of Orders, as re-baptization is to the nature of Baptism, it would never have come into the minds of Stephen the Fourth and Sergius the Third, to have all those re-ordained who had been ordained by For- mosus, as they did not think of having those re -baptized whom he might have baptized. Even when it is said that all was done contrary to the laws, this is not saying that re- ' Cone. Suession. It A.D. 853. action. 5. [Cone. torn. 8. col. 88, 89.] MR. TIIOHNDIKE S PRINCIPLE. 275 ordinations in general were contrary to the laws ; but simply that in this case of Formosus, there was no reason to re-ordain those whom he had ordained, and that this was the effect of Stephen's passion against this Pope, which is nothing to the question. It ought therefore to stand as certain, not only that there Conclu- has been variation on the subject of re-ordinations, but also Sl0n that the principles on which we now build more, in order to establish the validity of Ordinations conferred by heretics, have not always been regarded as certain: but, on the con- trary, were much contested for a long time. u A learned English Divine, Herbert Thorndike by name, Principle in a Book intitled De Ratione ac Jure Finiendi Contro- by°Thorn- versias Ecclesice, has proposed a principle which he believed dike' might serve to fix the variations here mentioned, and likewise to regulate this point. I shall transcribe the passage, though somewhat long, because it is too important to be abridged, and well deserves to have some reflections made upon it. x In Ordinationc, says he, cum duo esse ex dictis constct, au- Thom- ctoritatcm ac jus Ecclesice in Ordinante, primum ; turn Con- secrationis solennitatem, qua Ministerio Ordinis traditi auctorem Ecclesiam palam inscribit ; tanto majo?-is est momcnti Ecclesice auctoritas quam consecrandi ritus, ut in irritum cadat rite ac more Ecclesice peracta Consecratio, ad quayn usurpata sit aucto- ritas Ecclesice. Nam etsi in perpetuum Deo sacrum sit, quod semel Deo rite sacratum fuerit ; non tamen Deo rite sacratum videri debet, quod non sit jure Ecclesice Deo consccratum, etsi servato ritu Ecclesice yltaque si clubium existat de auctoritatc Ecclesio2, non de ritu ordinandi, non est mirum, accedente aucto- ritate Eeclesia, valere Ordinationem non jure fact.am, ad id ad quod valere cam vidt acccdens auctoritas Ecclesice. Pauca sunt hujus causa exempla in rebus veteiis Ecclesice; pauca qxddem, scd sunt tamen quce earn dubiam esse non sinunt. . . . Sane cum nihil majus quceri in hac totd re possit, quam ut rata sint apud Deum, qua; Jideli plebi ministrantur ab iis quorum dubia sit Ordinatio ; nec plebis esse de rebus Ecclesia communibus judicium dictum sit ; statuendum est non posse JideUbus fraudi esse ea apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur Jidem Ecclcsiai. . . .z Igitur « The remaining part of this chapter author. [D. W. See the Editor's notes.] considerahly varies from the French ,yI De Ratione &c. cap. 20. p. 363, edition, being altered by the learned 365, 367. T 2 276 MR. THORN-DIKE'S PRINCIPLE. CHAP, non est mirum, accedente Ecclesice auctoritate, ratas Ordina- - — ^X: — tiones evadere eas, qua: non accedente Ecclesice auctoritate irritce dike. erant. [In Ordination, says he, as it is clear from what has been said that there are two things ; first, the authority and right of the Church in the ordainer; next the solemnity of the Consecration, which on the ministry of the Order delivered inscribes openly the Church as its author; of so much greater moment is the authority of the Church than the rite of con- secrating, that a Consecration performed rightly and after the manner of the Church falls void if the authority of the Church have been usurped for it. For although that is for ever sacred to God which has once been hallowed to God, yet that ought not to be thought duly hallowed to God, which has not been consecrated to God by the right of the Church, even though the Church's ceremonial has been observed. . . . Hence, if there be a doubt about the authority of the Church, not about the rite of ordaining, it is not wonderful that if the authority of the Church be added, an Ordination not performed with right should be valid for that, for which the added authority of the Church chooses that it should be valid. There are a few examples of this case in the affairs of the ancient Church ; a few indeed, but they are such as do not leave it doubtful Certainly as nothing greater can be sought in this whole matter than that those things should stand good before God which are ministered to the faithful people by those whose Ordination is doubtful, and it has been said that the judg- ment about the common affairs of the Church does not belong to the people ; we must determine that those things cannot injure the faithful with God, in which they follow the faith of the Church. . . . Therefore it is not wonderful, that if the authority of the Church be added, those Ordinations become valid, which without the added authority of the Church were void.] obser- 1. The author supposes with St. Leo a, that two things are First"5' necessary for the validity of Ordination ; the solemnity of the Rite prescribed either by our Saviour, or in default of such appointment, by the Church ; and the authority of the Church ; auctoritatem ac jus Ecclesia — ; turn Consecrationis solennitatem: [the authority and right of the Church — ; next » Leo Magnus, Ep. 2. inquis. 1. [p. 404, 405. Ed. Quesnel, Paris. 1675.] MR. TIIORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLE. 277 the solemnity of Consecration.] And this point ought not to appear extraordinary, since in fact it is not thought that a Sacrament conferred in heresy is valid for any other reason, than because it is supposed that what is done in heresy is a consequence of the power of the Church, which error cannot suspend. But if the profession of error cannot suspend the power of the Church, cannot the Church herself arrest her own power, and refuse to acknowledge as her work what has been performed out of her bosom ? The author maintains it, and I know not at what point it could be disputed. 2. If, according to Thorndike, these two things are equally Second, necessary, as it is certain that the omission of the Rite destroys the Sacrament, the want of the authority of the Church ought, by a necessary consequence, to produce the same effect. And this may easily be comprehended, by com- paring the case of Marriage, in which the matter and form are in vain made use of if the laws of the Church and State are violated, since in default of authority Marriage is null by the consent of all our Divines: Non Deo rite sciendum videri debet, quod non sit jure Ecclesice Deo consecratum, etsi servato ritu Ecclesice. [That ought not to be thought duly hallowed to God, which has not been consecrated to God by the right of the Church, even though the Church's ceremonial has been observed.] 3. He says that it is [thus] easy to be conceived how an Or- Third, dination that was invalid, may afterwards become valid, with- out any thing new intervening [therein]. For the essential Rite having been administered, the Church, which at first by refusing her consent hindered this Sacrament from having its effect, afterwards taking away this impediment by the consent she restores, causes nothing more to be wanting to render the Sacrament valid. Itaque si dubinm existed de auctoritate Ec- clesice, non de ritu Ordinandi, non est mirum, accedentc auctori- tate Ecclesice, valere Ordincdionem non jure factam, ad id ad quod valere earn vult accedens auctoritas Ecclesice. [Hence, if there be a doubt about the authority of the Church, not about the rite of ordaining, it is not wonderful that if the authority of the Church be added, an Ordination not performed with right should be valid for that, for which the added authority of the Church chooses that it should be valid.] 278 MR. TIIORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLE. chap. 4. b This maxim, according to this author, should be very '■ — proper to reconcile all the opposite facts before related. For, Fourth' says he, admitting as a principle, that the authority of the Church is as essential to the validity of the Sacrament as the use of the matter and form, it ought not to appear surprising, that some Ordinations have not been judged valid, and that others have been received ; the Church having been pleased, as a matter of condescension, to recognise the one, and as a matter of severity, or for reasons of prudence, not to admit the rest. Non est minim, accedente Ecclcsia uuctoritate, ratas Ordinationes evadere cas, quce non accedente auctoritate Ec- clesiai irritca erant. [It is not wonderful, that if the authority of the Church be added, those Ordinations become valid, which without the added authority of the Church were void.] On the contrary, if this principle be not admitted, the re- conciling of these facts is impossible. c Conciliandorum sibi invicem EcclcsicB decretorum et gcstorum rationem mibimus frustra, hac rcpudiata, qtuerendam. [In vain shall we en- deavour to find a plan, if we reject this, of reconciling to- gether the decrees and doings of the Church.] Fifth. 5. It is true it does not appear that in the case of the Baptism of the heretics they reasoned on this principle ; but then, as has been shewn before,, the ancients did not always argue in the same way as to these two Sacraments. " d I know," says he, " that it has been otherwise determined as to the Baptism of heretics, .... But this must not be extended to Ordination; .... It is not necessary to allow the Confirma- tion of heretics valid, whose Baptism is such ; much less their Ordination." And it appears in fact that St. Leo, in his Letter to Rusticus of Narbonne, left the validity of Ordina- tion to the good pleasure and authority of the Church. e Si qui autem Clerici, says this great Pope, ah istis pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quif ad proprios Episcopos per- tincbant, et Ordinatio corum consensu et judicio pra;sidcntium [b So Mr. Williams gives this sen- mationem concedere, quorum ratus sit tence. See note u, p. 275. and the Baptismus; multo minus Ordinationem. Editor's notes.] Thorndike, ubi sttpra. [p. 363.] [c Thorndike, ibid. p. 370.] e Leo Mag. Ep 2. inquis. 1. [p. d Scio alitor decretum esse de Bap- 404, 405. Ed. Quesnel. Paris. 1675.] tismo lncruticorum, ... Sed hoc ad Ordi- [f See Quesnel's note. Appendix to nationem trahendum non est; . . . Non St. Leo's Works, p. 7S7.] est necesse ratam hiercticorum Confir- MR. thorndike's principle. 279 facta est, potest rata habcri, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent. Aliter autem vana habenda est crcatio, quce nec loco fundata est, nec auctore munita. [But if in those Churches there have been ordained by those pretended Bishops any Clergymen who belonged to their proper Bishops, and their Ordination has taken place with the consent and approbation of the presi- dents, it may be held valid, so that they remain in the same Churches. But otherwise that creation is to be accounted void, which is neither founded in place, nor supported by an authority.] 6. This author even maintains that this principle alone is Sixth, sufficient to remove all ambiguity from equivocal Ordinations; and that the people in following it, are under no necessity to enter into a troublesome enquiry about the validity or inva- lidity of Ordinations, since they cannot err in yielding them- selves to the judgment of the Church upon this matter, and since her declaration will determine all their doubts. Statu- endum est non posse Jidelibus fraudi esse ea apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur Jidem Ecclesice. [We must determine that those things cannot injure the faithful with God, in which they follow the faith of the Church.] This is precisely the author's system, the solidity of which Summing I leave to the reader's judgment. What is most certain is, up' that if it appears not altogether unreasonable, and if it has some advantages, it has yet more inconveniences, and is absolutely destroyed by fact and by the practice of the Church ; and has never been made use of to explain the difficulty in question. For if those who have disputed the validity of some Sacraments seem to suppose it, the argu- ments of those who have opposed re-ordinations, and who have at last prevailed in the Church, have always supposed the contrary. So that the result of the whole is, that there has been little uniformity in the Church as to this matter; and that, if the principle now received in the Catholic Schools is adopted, we cannot dispute with the English the validity of their Ordination. CHAP. XVI. THE SUCCESSION OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS HAS NOT BEEN INTERRUPTED BY THE SCHISM. CHAP. This proposition is the consequence of all the rest, and the The^author natura^ conclusion of this Treatise. It is not necessary, before does not establishing its truth, to repeat what I have already frequently Improve 6 observed, that I do not undertake to prove that these Bishops can Bi gh" are lawiu% Bishops, that they still preserve their jurisdiction, shops le- and that they perform legitimately the functions annexed to their dignity and character. I have explained myself in terms so clear and so distinct on this head, that no one can impute to me without injustice an opinion which I disavow, and which does not necessarily follow from any of the princi- what is pies I have laid down. This proposition therefore is restricted ^make to proving that the Bishops who since the Schism, down to fu?BilaW~ our times, have successively filled the English Sees, have shops. been true Bishops, and that nothing is wanting to make them lawful Bishops, but to be united to the Catholic Church. gitimate. General This thesis, confined to these terms, is a necessary conse- argumen fmence Qf tjie prmciples aud facts which have been laid down in this Dissertation. For if, on the one side, there is nothing wanting to the matter and form which have been used in the Ordination of the English Bishops; and if, on the other, those who have administered this Sacrament were themselves validly consecrated, it follows necessarily, that notwithstanding the disturbances which have agitated that Church, and the novel- ties which have been introduced into the Rite of Ordination, the English Bishops are true Bishops, and that there is nothing wanting to them in respect of their character. This consequence is so certain, that it is not disputed by any of those who allow as valid the Ordinations performed according Grounds to Edward the Sixth's Ritual. And if Sanders, Harding, objectors. Stapleton, and other Divines would never allow as Bishops those who were such in the reign of Elizabeth, it was because FOUK EPOCHS OF DANGER. FIRST. 2 si their Ordination appeared to them null, and the succession consequently interrupted. Such in fact was the position maintained by the greater part of the Catholic Divines of the time of Elizabeth. But on what was it founded ? This they do not explain to us ; unless, at least, we accept declamations for reasons, and in- vectives and passionate prejudices take the place of solid proofs and convincing demonstrations. And to convince one's self of this, one need only reflect that the fable of the Nag's-head was not as yet born, and that the validity of the Ordinations of these Bishops was contested only on the opinion, now abandoned, of the necessity of the delivery of the instruments as matter, and of the prayers which ac- company them as form ; and because of the omission of all the ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Pontifical. But a position which has no other foundations, is evidently weak and incapable of being maintained, since it is now unani- mously agreed, that all this is but accidental to Ordination, and that imposition of hands is the only thing which ought always to have been regarded as essential. This opinion therefore of the English Divines does not at all disturb the validity of the English Ordinations, and conse- quently, does not prejudice the succession of the Bishops of that Church. But to shew this more at large, we may Four e- observe four different epochs at which the succession may jMigur?f have been interrupted; namely, under Henry the Eighth, under Edward the Sixth, under Elizabeth, and under Crom- well. There is however no one of these to which we can fix the interruption of the succession of the Bishops; and the proof of this is easy, after the facts we have given before. In fact, to begin with the reign of Henry the Eighth, there is i. Henry no one who ventures to maintain, that in that reign the succes- Acuity0 sion was interrupted; since hy the consent even of the Divines in.his r •> reign. most opposed to that Church, the whole Rite of Ordination was preserved, the unctions and the other ceremonies were retained, and all was then performed with so much exactness, that in the reign of Mary, in order to re-establish things in their former state, they did but restore what had been done up to the end of the reign of Henry the Eighth. Caremo- jiiam et solennvm unctionem, more Ecclesiastico, adhuc in Consc- 282 FIRST EPOCH. BISHOPS CONSECRATED AFTER THE SCHIS5I. CHAP, cratione Hid adhiberi voluit (Henricus Octavus), [The ceremo- p. ^ — nial and solemn unction, according to Ecclesiastical usage, he epoch.) (Henry the Eighth) chose still to have used in that Consecra- tion,] says Sanders a, who, noticing the change made under Edward, again repeats, that under Henry all the Priests and Bishops had been ordained in a Catholic manner. hPrimo loco sancicrunt, ut cum Episcopi ac Presbyteri Anrjlicuni, Ritu fere Catholico (exceptd Romani Pontificis obedientid, quam ornnes ab- negabant) ad Mud usque tempus ordinati fuissent, in postremum alia omninb forma ab ipsis prcescriptd Ordinationes fierent. [They determined in the first place that whereas the English Bishops and Priests had up to that time been ordained almost according to the Catholic Rite, (the obedience to the Roman Pontiff, which all abjured, excepted), for the future the Ordi- nations should be performed according to a Form altogether different, prescribed by themselves.] Accordingly the Parlia- ment held in the first year of Mary, directed that they should resume " °all such Divine Service and Administra- tion of Sacraments as were most commonly used in England in the last year of King Henry the Eighth"'. It ought there- fore to pass for certain that all the Bishops, and consequently the Episcopacy, subsisted entire and without interruption in the reign of Henry the Eighth, notwithstanding the Schism which arose under that Prince, and which was but strengthened BUhops afterwards. For there were a great number of Bishops con- crated secrated in this reign after the Schism. Cranmer's Register Schi-n)6 naS Preserve(l several f°r us; and among others, Rowland Lee Bishop of Coventry, George Brown Archbishop of Dublin, Robert Warton Bishop of St. Asaph, Robert Holgate Bishop of Landaff, Thomas Thirlby Bishop of Westminster, John Wakeman Bishop of Gloucester, John Skip Bishop of Hereford, Arthur Bulkcley Bishop of Bangor, Paul Bush Bishop of Bristol, Anthony Kitchin Bishop of Landaff, &c. All these Bishops were consecrated after the Schism, and or- dained according to the entire Rite of the Roman Pontifical, excepting the oath taken to the Pope. The Romans them- selves acknowledged these Bishops as validly ordained, since a De Schismate Anglicano, lib. 3. p. [c 1 Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2. (Statutes at 348. Large, vol. 1. p. 709.)] b Ibid. lib. 2. p. 243, 241. SECOND EPOCH. — TWO REMARKS. 283 at the time of the re-union under Queen Mary, several were (First continued in their Sees without its heing thought necessary epoch> to reiterate their Ordination, as Robert Warton, George Day, Anthony Kitchin, Thirlby Bishop of Westminster, &e. They were therefore convinced that up to that time the succession of the Bishops had not been interrupted in England, and that notwithstanding the Schism, the Episcopate had not been destroyed. The second epoch causes a little more difficulty. It is that II. Ed- of Edward the Sixth. It was under that Prince that the "an Form of Ordination was changed ; and Cranmer, who had a great hand in this change, was the first who authorized it by his example d, in the Ordination he performed on John Poynet as Bishop of Rochester, the twenty-ninth of June 1550. They afterwards followed no other Formula during that reign; and the Parliament made a Statute to abolish the Book of Ordinations which was used before the reign of Edward. They still continued however to ordain Bishops ; they preserved the imposition of hands and prayer; they retained even, according to Sanders, the ancient number of Bishops prescribed by the Canons for consecrating new ones. e Servata semper priori, dc numero prcescntium Episcoporum qui manus ordinando imponcrcnt, lege. [Preserving always the former law concerning the number of Bishops present to lay hands on the person to be ordained.] The difficulty then which may be made as to this epoch can arise only from the change made in the Rite of Ordination : but this difficulty is weak, and scarcely deserves to occupy our time, after all that has been proved in the course of this Dissertation. I shall content, mvself with making two remarks, which will Two re- nt , „ . , marks, suffice to put the matter out of dispute, rirst, that tlic Ordination of the new Bishops is sufficient of itself to assure the succession. The second, which ought to be still more de- cisive, according to the principles of those with whom I have to contend, is that even under Edward, the ancient Episco- pate subsisted, and always prevailed during that reign. I begin the proof with this last. England has in all twenty-six Episcopal Sees ; and during only six Bishops d Memorials of Thomas Cranmer, p. 0 Dc Schism. Angl. lib. 3. p. 348. 192. 284 BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY THE NEW FORM. THE NEW chap, the whole reign of Edward the Sixth, there were but six XVI - Bishops ordained according to the new Rite, to fill any of ted by the these Sees which were vacant either by death or by deposi- "second"1' ti°n- In fact) tne new Rite did not last three whole years, epoch.) since Poynet, who was the first ordained according to the new Form f, received Ordination June 29, 1550g, and Harley, who was the last, was ordained May 26, 1553h. During the interval of these three years, we find only four Bishops ordained for England according to the new Rite, namely, Hooper for Gloucester March 8, 155-^', Scory for Rochester, and Coverdale for Exeter, who received Consecration August 30, 1551 k; and Taylor for Lincoln, who was ordained June 26, 15521. So that as of the twenty-six Bishops necessary to fill up the vacant Sees of that Church, during the whole reign of Edward there were but six ordained according to the new Rite, viz. Poynet, Hooper, Scory, Coverdale, Taylor, and Harley, and as all the rest preserved still the ancient Ordination, is it not demonstrated that the succession sub- sisted during this reign, and that the new Rite lasted too short a time to interrupt it, and to change the nature of the Episcopate ? The new This remark alone appears sufficient to assure the succes- fau'i! s'on °f tnc Episcopate in that reign : but I add, that the Ordi- nation itself of the new Bishops would suffice to oblige us to own that the Episcopate subsisted under Edward, in spite of the change introduced into the Formulary of the Ordinations. For to confine myself here to an argument of which the practice of the Church and the consent of Divines makes the whole force, The Catholic Church receives as valid all those Ordinations performed in schism and heresy in which nothing Cardinal essential is omitted. Cardinal Pole himself acknowledged this irittedii in the power he gave to the Chapter of Canterbury January 8, 1555, to reconcile those who should be willing to re-unite themselves to the Church. m Quodque, irregularitate et aliis prcemissis non obstantibus, in suis Ordinibus etiam ab barotitis et schismaticis Episeopis, etiam minus rite, dummodo in corum collatione Ecclcsiastica forma et intentio sit sei-vata, per eos susccptis, . . . etiam in Altar is Minis terio ministrare, . . . valeanf. ' Memorials of Cranmer, p, 192. Ibid. p. 253. and 301. 1 " ' Ibid. p. 2~>i, 271, and 293. '" Ibid. Appendix, p. 188. FORM ADMITTED TO BE VALID. THIRD EPOCH. 285 [And that, irregularity and the other premisses notwithstand- (Second ing, in their Orders, even from heretical and schismatical e',och- > Bishops, even irregularly (provided only that in conferring them the form and intention of the Church were preserved) received by their hands, . . . they may minister even in the Ministry of the Altar.] But according to another principle now almost universally received in the Schools, and generally by all learned Divines, imposition of hands and prayer are the only essentials of Ordination, and the Ritual of Edward has preserved both : Therefore the Bishops ordained by this new Ritual are truly Bishops, and this new Ordination would suffice alone to assure the succession of the Episcopate. I do not see what can be opposed to this proof; the more because these new Bishops were consecrated by others of whose Consecration there was never any doubt; because Facts prov- some of those who had been employed in similar Consecra- have'been tions, as Robert of Carlisle, who had assisted in that 0fadmittcd- Ilarley11, were continued0 in Mary's reign ; Pand because in the sentences of deposition which that Princess caused to be pronounced against these Bishops, they did not at all assign as a reason against them the defect of the Rite in their Consecration, but the defect of the title enounced in their Letters patent, and the crimes with which they were charged in particular ; which proves evidently, that they did not doubt the validity of the new Form, and that consequently these new Bishops were qualified to preserve the succession, even though the ancient Episcopate had not existed : but it did exist still, and the second epoch is in every sense clear of damage. The third epoch, which is that of the reign of Elizabeth, in. Eli- is the most noted of all ; and it is on this that they insist za with the greatest earnestness, although it has scarcely a more solid foundation than that on which they rest to make out an interruption of the succession in the time of Edward. It is Old Bi- true that in this reign the Bishops consecrated by the ancient tireiy e"" Formulary were altogether wanting. For the Queen, in the wanting, first year of her reign, filled up almost all the Sees of England, vacant either by the death or by the deposition of the former n Memorials of Cranmer, p. 301. ° Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 335. p Ant. Harmer, p. 133. 286 DIFFICULTIES. DIFFERENCES AMONG CHAP. Bishops ; and excepting Barlow, Kitchin, and some others, : — who died a few years afterwards, this Church found herself (Third n i i i 1*1 • i epoch.) all at once made new, so that there did not remain so much as one Bishop consecrated according to the form prescribed by the old Pontifical. ' other dif- This is the first difference found between the time of faculties. Edward and that of Elizabeth ; but it is maintained that this is not the only one. The principal one according to some, is drawn from the uncertainty of the Consecration of the new Bishops. It is not that they did not receive a kind of Ordi- nation ; but it is maintained that it is very uncertain whether the person from whom they derive it was himself truly or- dained ; and that the uncertainty of this Ordination, joined to the novelty of the Bite by which they were consecrated, essentially damages the succession, and will not allow us by any means to believe that the Episcopal Ministry remained without interruption in the Church of England. This uncer- tainty is not found equally in the time of Edward, since there remained more than twenty Bishops certainly ordained, and even according to the Boman Pontifical. No inference, therefore, according to these Divines, can be drawn from the times of Edward to those of Elizabeth ; and even though it should have been demonstrated that the succession was not interrupted in the days of the former, it must be proved altogether anew, that it did not any more fail in the time of Elizabeth ; which is nothing near so easy, if regard be had to the alteration of circumstances. Condition- If the uncertainty of Parkers Consecration were clear, it ston*""8" would be absolutely necessary to abandon the defence of the succession. In things of this nature, it is necessary that the facts should be certain, in order that one may be able to draw from them a sufficient consequence. Differ- But on this there is an important observation to make. It among ls> tnat anionS those who dispute the succession and the vali- objectors. dity of the Ordinations, there is a great opposition of opinions and principles. Some agree that the new Formulary of Edward contains all that is essential to render Ordinations valid ; but they deny that it was used in Parkers Ordina- tion, or that the Consecrator who used it was a true Bishop ; and this opinion is the most common among those who, not- OBJECTORS. RECAPITULATION. 287 withstanding their ignorance of the facts, are better instructed (Third on the subject of Divinity. Others allow that Parker re- epoch-^ ceived an Ordination ; but they dispute the validity of the Rite, and this was the opinion of the Divines who were con- temporary with Parker. Others agree with the former ones, that the Rite was valid, and with the second that Parker was ordained by it ; but they maintain that the Consecrator was never consecrated, or at least, that there is no proof that he was ; and this is the refuge of those who confine themselves exclusively to the doubt. Others, lastly, deny the whole, both the validity of the Rite, and the Ordination of Parker ac- cording to that Rite, and maintain that he had no other than a mock Ordination, performed in a Tavern, and more proper to serve for the denouement of a comedy, than to establish the succession of a Church. Such is the opinion of Champ- ney, who first brought it into vogue, and who has since had so many defenders. All these opinions are refuted by one another, and it would be almost sufficient to establish the contested succession, to destroy the arguments of one party by those of another, and to judge of their want of solidity by their contrariety. Without however insisting too much on this contrariety, Recapitu we have but to call to mind what has been proved in the J1 ""' course of this Dissertation, to shew the weakness of all these different sides. 1. The ridiculousness of the charge, that the Ordination i. Nac's- was performed in a Tavern, has been demonstrated in the second chapter; and it has been proved evidently that this fable, invented as an afterthought, is inconsistent not merely with the Record of the Ordination which still remains, and which they in vain endeavour to prove supposititious, but also with all the other public documents, whether of the Tower or of the Ecclesiastical Archives, which concern the Ordination of Parker, and that of all the other Bishops, which must also of necessity be supposed forged : a supposition which no one hitherto has even attempted to prove. Even independently of this inconsistency, which of itself forms a demonstration, they have not so much as observed probabili- ties ; and all the circumstances are so ludicrous and so con- trary to good sense and likelihood, that the mere statement 288 RECAPITULATION OF WHAT HAS BEEN PROVED °xvi P' °^ a cmrnera °^ tms bind is its most convincing refutation, (Third — ar>d the only one it properly deserves. epoch.) 2. What has been produced in the third, fourth, and fifth truly con- chapters, proves not merely the truth, but even the notoriety, secrated. 0f Barlow's Consecration ; in such sort that the proofs do to that degree establish the truth of the fact, that they leave no room even for a doubt, as has been shewn in the twelfth chapter. But as the doubt is now become the last, and in a manner the only refuge of those who dispute the validity of the English Ordinations, this uncertainty being taken away, and the notoriety of Barlow's Consecration being fully es- tablished, there remains nothing more for those who in other respects acknowledge the truth of Parker's Consecration, and the sufficiency of the new Rite, than to confess that there is no longer any ground to deny the succession of the Anglicans Episcopate, and that the English are in the case of the of the Do- Donatists and other Sects, whose separation caused them to natists &c. jQSe ne^ner t]ieir Ordination nor their character, and who by returning to the unity of the Church recover all the rights and all the advantages they had lost by their schism, or from which they had fallen by their declared adherence to their errors. 3. The new 3. As for those who dispute the validity of the new Rite, valid" m order to defend an opinion which has no other foundation what must than the prejudice of a Scholastic theology, they must make to m'akelt it appear either that imposition of hands and prayer do not mvahd. make Up the only essentials of Ordination, or that all the ceremonies fixed by the long usage of a Church are inca- pable of being changed without destroying the Sacrament of which they make a part, although these ceremonies have been practised neither every where nor at all times ; or that these ceremonies may become essential otherwise than by the determination of holy Scripture, or a tradition equivalent to such determination, or at least by the consent and practice of all the Churches in the world ; or, lastly, that every alteration made by heretics or schismatics in the administration of the Sacraments, or rather in the non-essential ceremonies which accompany them, renders those Sacraments null and invalid. If all these positions are equally indefensible, it can not any more be maintained that the new Rite introduced by Edward WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD EPOCH. 289 the Sixth could render null the Ordinations of the new Bishops, and consequently interrupt the succession. But it has been proved that all these propositions are All these contrary to truth, and to all the theological opinions which tions false. have been held up to this time, as to what constitutes the nature and the validity of the Sacraments ; and I dare even affirm with some confidence, that one may well defy those who attack the validity of the new Rite to prove that any of these propositions, not merely are true, but even have any reasonable degree of probability. This is not the place to destroy and refute them in detail, or even to repeat what may relate to them. It is enough to observe, that on Result. the strength of the proofs which have been produced, we have a right to conclude that the new Rite is sufficient, and that it follows thence that the succession is certain, the one being an evident consequence of the other. For if it be agreed as to Parker's Ordination, this Ordination being once proved good, the chain of the succession is clear, since the new Bishops derive their Ordination from Parker, and Parker derives his from the old ones. 4. As for those who, allowing the validity of the new Rite, 4. Parker . , , T. . i • i ordained venture to maintain either that Parker was not ordained ac- according cording to that Rite, or that he was ordained by a man not Riband* consecrated, they have been refuted beforehand in what has '^j^"" just been said ; since, this hypothesis being founded only on Bishop, the Fable of the Tavern, or on the non-consecration of Barlow, the overturning of these two falsehoods entirely de- stroys the chimerical pretence of these authors, and assures to the Ordination of the English, and to their succession, a soundness which we cannot in justice contest with them. This third period then has nothing contrary to the succes- Summing sion of the Bishops. The two differences which distinguish "'' it from that of Edward, are either not real, or not solid. The uncertainty of Parker's Ordination is a chimera, and the pre- servation of the old Bishops becomes unnecessary, after we are assured that the Ordination of the new ones is valid, and consequently sufficient. Let the Episcopate subsist in Mi- nisters ordained according to the Roman Pontifical, or in others ordained according to a Rite in which what is essential has been equally preserved, it is still the same Episcopate. D 290 FOURTH EPOCH. . CROMWELL S PROJECTS CHAP. The succession of the doctrine, if you please, is no longer : — preserved ; the unity is altered, or rather broken, by the schism ; but the Ministry is continued ; and according to St. Augustine, it is still the Church that brings forth, whether it be by means of Sarah, or by means of Agar ; because even out of the Church the character which our Saviour has im- printed cannot be lost, but is preserved amongst the addi- tions or retrenchments which are the ordinary result of sepa- ration from the Church. IV. Crom- This epoch once cleared from danger, there remains no difficulty.' further difficulty for the remaining period ; and the inter- ruption which happened under Cromwell was too short to produce any change in the government of that Church. From Elizabeth to Charles the First, the succession continued from one to another by the Ordinations which were made of new Bishops, as they happened to be wanted. The Rite prescribed by Edward, and resumed by Elizabeth, was ex- actly observed. The government of that Church was always Episcopal, until Cromwell, having perceived that the Bishops were too much attached to the King, and that the Presby- terians were more favourable to the Republican Govern- ment he wished to establish, suspended the election of new Bishops, and would have entirely destroyed Episcopacy in that Kingdom, if he had lived long enough to see all the Bishops ordained previously to his elevation die before him. End of his But his tyranny had its times determined in the order of piojects. provi(jence- "q Cromwell was about to destroy all", wisely observes Pascal, " but for a little grain of sand which fixed itself in his ureter. But this little gravel-stone, which else- where was nothing, fixed in that place, we see him dead, his family abased, and the King restored " : let us add, and the Episcopate afterwards, since under Charles the Second the Bi- shops who survived Cromwell immediately ordained others, who repaired the succession which that rebel had wished to annihilate. Nine of In fact, in 16601' there still remained at least nine Bishops the old q Cromwel alloit tout ravager sans le voila mort, sa famille abaissee, et le un petit grain de sable qui se mit dans Roi retabli. — Pens. art. 2i. p. 127. son uretere. Mais ce petit gravier, qui ' Collier's Eccl. Hist., vol. 2. p. 873. n'etoit rien ailleurs, mis en cet endroit, CAME TO NOTHING. FRESH OBJECTION : ANSWER. 291 ordained before the great Rebellion; that is to say, the Bishops Bishops of London, Bath, Oxford, Rochester, Bangor, Ely, '^eo. " Salisbury, Chichester, and Coventry. In this year almost all the other Sees were filled, sand several of the new Bishops, as those of London, Durham, St. David's, Peterborough, Landaff, Carlisle, Chester, Exeter, Salisbury, Worcester, Lincoln, and St. Asaph, were consecrated by some of those who remained, and according to the Rite authorized in Eng- land from the time of Elizabeth. Thus if the succession subsisted under Elizabeth, it could not have been interrupted in the time of Charles the Second; and it is evident that if the Bishops fell, Episcopacy did not fall with them ; and that to make it legitimate, there needs only to renounce their schism and error. All these facts are clear, and I see only one reasonable General difficulty that can be objected to them. It is, that to continue want of the Episcopal succession, there must be not merely a valid ^"ht.'' Ordination, but also a lawful right in the Bishops who occupy the Episcopal Sees, without which they are intruders and usurpers. But, say they, the new English Bishops have no such right, 1. Because the greater part were ordained during the life of the true Bishops, without their consent. 2. Be- cause they occupied their Sees in virtue of a vicious title, that is to say, in virtue of provisions granted by a lay and excommunicated Prince. 3. Because they are themselves notoriously excommunicated and irregular. This succession therefore cannot be maintained; and even supposing the validity of the Ordination, there remains to the English no means of making it effectual and reinstating it'. This, as I said in speaking of the authority of national This a Churches, is a mere question about a name. I am willing to about a" suppose, with the authors of the objection, that the succession Aa^"s, is not regularly founded ; that it was formed contrary to the sion- laws ; that the new Bishops intruded into the place of the old ones, without a legitimate authority : this is not exactly the question. When we speak in this matter of succession, our What t ho proper business is only to ascertain whether there be among tjon jv * Ibid. [See the Editor's notes.] some measure in the Translator's Fre- 1 See these objections answered in face. [D. W.] u 2 292 WHAT IS ADMITTED.— CASE OF THE DOXATISTS COMPARED. CHAP, the English a succession of Bishops validly ordained, who — — -- have transmitted Ordination from hand to hand, and with whom we cannot dispute the lawful exercise of their Ministry as soon as the Church, by receiving them into her bosom, shall have corrected what is faulty in their vocation. Be they then intruders into their Sees, be their title faulty, be they excommunicated and irregular themselves; all this makes their calling and the exercise of their functions very unlawful, but it does not interrupt the succession of valid Ordinations, which preserves the soundness of the Priesthood and of the Episcopate, in spite of the faults and defects which schism or heresy may have mingled therewith. Other se- Such is the succession which has been preserved in all the bodies? Sects which have separated themselves from the Church. Case of When the Donatists made a schism, the succession of the tists^om- Episcopate was acknowledged in them. Yet they were guilty pared. Qf tne same intrusion with which the English are reproached. They had erected Altar against Altar ; they had put them- selves in the place of the Catholic Bishops; their title was altogether faulty, and they were equally excommunicated and irregular. Nevertheless the Catholic Bishops acknow- ledged in them the validity of the Priesthood, and far from disputing their succession, offered to yield them their place, provided they would by their re-union terminate the schism. We cannot refuse the English a succession of the same nature, supposing once the validity of their Ordination, which the authors of the objection are willing to admit. Their cause is not different, and is even more favourable, since in acknow- ledging them it is not necessary to displace any one. The variety so little essential, which is found in the Bite they have substituted for the old one, cannot be used as an argu- Cause of ment ; and the reiteration of the Sacraments is so contrary to tice adop- tne sPirIt of tlie Catholic Church, that I do not hesitate to ted at believe, that they would never have adopted it at Bome in the case of the English, if their prepossession had been corrected, with respect to the fable of the Nag's-head, which has always been believed true there, as the celebrated M. Fon- tanini acknowledges, in a letter written not long since to one of my friends. CHAP. XVII. CONCLUSION AND RECAPITULATION OF THIS TREATISE. I do not think I have omitted any thing that might he of General use towards clearing up the subject I proposed to examine, °ion. I have even given the difficulties more force than they commonly have, because having proposed to myself no other end but that of knowing the truth, I had no other interest but to clear it up, and was as ready to yield to the force of the objections as to that of the answers. It is for the public now to determine on which side the truth is found, and to decide whether there be the least reason for reiterating Ordinations whose validity, it should seem, ought to appear clear of damage. For to recapitulate in a few words all we have set forth in Reordina- this Work, re-ordinations have always been odious in the ,'!'." Church ; and it is necessary, in order to come to this, either dlous- that the nullity be evident, or that the doubt be solid, and founded on weighty reasons, or on facts of which the discus- sion is impracticable. But there is neither an evident nullity, nor a sufficiently solid doubt to oblige us to reiterate the Or- dination of the English. Parker is the source and stem of this new Ministry. It is Parker the on his Ordination that all the others depend, and the validity new ml* of this carries with it that of all the Bishops ordained since the nis,ry- Schism, and consequently the clear succession of the Episco- pate in England. The validity of his Ordination depends principally on two things : the person of the Consecrator, and the form of the Consecration. As to the first of the Consecrators, who is Barlow, (for as His Con- to the other three who were his fellow-ministers of this /^^J) Ordination there is no dispute,) we have proved in the "^.^'"f third, fourth, and fifth chapters, that he was consecrated himself, himself in the time of Henry the Eighth, and consequently according to the Roman Pontifical ; that, although the Record of his Consecration has not yet been found, yet we cannot 294 BARLOW CONSECRATED. THE NEW RITUAL. — NAG's-HEAD The con- The new Ritual does not differ in essentials from the Roman Pontifical. The Nag's- bead story utterly in- defensible. doubt that he was truly consecrated, because this omission is supplied by positive testimonies, by a number of Records which all suppose his Consecration, by a general admission on the part of his contemporaries, whether friends or enemies, who regarded him as a Bishop, or wTho never reproached him with not being such ; by the notoriety of the fact, which cannot be concealed, considering the number of persons interested therein ; in a word, by the example of similar omissions, which were never insisted upon, and by the little solidity found in the difficulties which are opposed to the reality of this Consecration. It is not then from the side of the Consecrator that persons can deduce the nullity of the Consecration of Parker, to whom in fact it was never made a reproach during his life, that he had been consecrated by a man who had not been consecrated himself. No more can it be from the side of the form ordained by the Ritual of Edward; since, as has been seen in the sixth and seventh chapters, this form does not diner as to essentials from that of the Roman Pontifical. For according to all our best Divines, what is essential to the form of Ordination is the invocation of the Holy Spirit, or the prayer by which arc desired for the Bishop elect the lights and graces which are necessary to him in order to acquit himself worthily of his Ministry. But this invocation and this prayer is found, though in different terms, in Edward's Ritual, as well as in the Roman Pontifical ; and by comparing one with the other, it is easy to convince one's self of it. We have shewn elsewhere, in the second chapter, that in the Ordination of Parker the Form in question was used ; that the ceremony of his Consecration performed in a Tavern, is a tissue of falsehoods of which it is hard to say which is most inconsistent with the rest; that the relation containing it agrees neither with itself, nor with the public Registers ; that there was no necessity nor any advantage in having recourse to such an Ordination ; that they were in want neither of Bishops nor of a place to perform this ceremony ; that although several Prelates had refused to be concerned in the affair, there remained more than enough to perform this function ; that this fable was unknown to the contemporary writers who STOKY. — OTHER ALLEGED NULLITIES. 295 were the greatest enemies to the new Ordinations, and the most disposed to decry them ; that the menace of excommu- nication, invented to serve as a pretext for this fable, has not even the probability necessary to colour a falsehood ; in a word, that however little we examine into this relation, with all its circumstances and the testimonies on which it rests, we shall only confirm ourselves in the opinion, that it is but a story forged as an after-thought, in order to make these Ordinations odious, which until then they attacked without success. It has therefore been evidently demonstrated, that there is The Or- not in the Ordination, considered in itself, any nullity which therefore can render it invalid. in itsdf In order to endeavour to find out some other nullity, the otlierai- adversaries have had recourse to exterior proofs. They have ntles. maintained that the alteration of the form was made without any legitimate authority ; that it was to the secular power that all the correction was owing, which was pretended to be made in the Roman Pontifical ; that even though one were obliged to admit that this decision was made by the Eccle- siastical authority, a particular Church like that of England, has no right to change by her own authority the forms of the Sacraments ; and that thus, on which side soever you take a view of this alteration, you cannot avoid meeting with nullities which render the Ordinations invalid, or which at least make them so suspicious, that the doubt thence arising is sufficient of itself to oblige us to reiterate these Ordina- tions, as if they were evidently null. But all these alleged nullities have not been difficult to Refuted, destroy. It has been seen in the eleventh chapter that it M as authority by the Ecclesiastical authority that the change was made in ]"n^"g" the Form of Ordination, and that the spiritual authority, which the laws give the Kings of England, regards only the exterior power. " We must know that in Bishops," says Archbishop Bramhall. Bramhall a, " there is a threefold power ; the first of order, the second of interior jurisdiction, the third of exterior juris- diction. The first is referred to the consecrating and ad- ministering of the Sacraments; the second to the regiment of ■ Bramhall's Works, p. 337, 338. 296 ECCLESIASTICAL GOVERNMENT. NATIONAL CHURCHES. CXVHP Christians in the interior court of conscience ; the third to the regiment of Christian people in the exterior court of the Church. Concerning the two former," says he, b' there is no controversy hetween the Church of Rome and us. Our only dispute is about the third; and it is of this last power that we place the origin in Princes; and it is in this sense that The or- they are heads of the Church.' We know further that Service the reformation of the Book of Ordinations was made by byEecle- BisnoPs and Divines nominated for that purpose, and that siastics. neither the King nor the Parliament did any thing else in this matter, but grant the Bishops the protection and autho - rity of which they have need, in order to have their regu- lations executed, and to maintain their observance. Powers of It has been proved in the tenth chapter, that a national Church.*1 Church may, without exceeding her powers, regulate herself the forms of the Sacraments which have not been determined by our Saviour, and on which there is no decision of a general Council, nor any clear and uniform tradition in the Churches: that the evident possession as well of the Eastern as of the Western Churches, is an undisputable proof of it : that this possession is founded on unanswerable reasons, that is to say, on the right which each Church has of forming her own dis- cipline ; on the independence of Churches with respect to one another in this point ; on the variations which the most con- siderable Churches have made themselves in their own form, so little did they think them unalterable ; in a word, on all the reasons which prove that each Church is free as to what does not affect the substance of the Sacrament, because the rest belongs properly to nothing but what is called its integrity, scii ism If there was some difficulty about this, that this power alter the ought not to be allowed except to those Churches which r;i?e- have not separated themselves from the Catholic Church, it has been shewn in the same chapter, that this distinction was unknown in the ancient Church, who did not regard as null cither the Ordinations or the Sacrifice, or the other Sa- craments administered by the Nestorians, the Eutychians, and the other heretics; that the alterations have seldom been made but in schism and heresy ; that the greater part of the forms themselves or of the Liturgies were not written ['■ Ibid. p. 338— 3H. See the Editor's notes.] SCHISM. RE-ORDINATION INDEFENSIBLE. 297 until after the birth of the heresy ; that when the re-union of these different Sects was treated of, there was no mention made either of re-ordinations, or of their renouncing their own Rites ; in short, that in the administration of the Sacra- ments the only thing ever attended to, was to ascertain for certain whether the substance was found in them, without examining whether the Rites were either introduced or altered during the change and separation. Supposing the truth of the facts such as we have given The nor- thern, there remained nothing more than to shew that the oftheEng- Ordination of the English being faulty neither as to the [{ferefore Consecrator nor as to the matter and form, the re-ordinations ^efen' of them are contrary to all the principles received by Divines ; that the examples which are made use of cannot even form an antecedent probability, much less be adduced as a proof; that what has been done of this kind has no other foundation than the fable of the Nag's-head, or the false notion that the true form of Ordination consisted, in part at least, in the delivery of the instruments; and that this foundation being without solidity, re-ordination becomes indefensible. This has been proved at great length in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth chapters. For after having shewn in the thir- teenth chapter, that the re-ordinations of them could be maintained neither by the practice of the contemporary Catho- lics nor by the opinions of the later Divines, we have given in the fourteenth chapter a detail of the principles contrary to re-ordination, and shewn that these principles apply no less to the English than to any other Church separated from the Catholics, because as soon as it has been proved that the substance of Ordination was preserved among them, there is no further difficulty as to the rest. In fact, schism or heresy does not of itself annul a whnt ai_ Sacrament. It has even been shewn in the ninth chapter make™ la- that the heretical opinions of those who might be employed erament on the form of the new Ritual did not influence at all the validity or invalidity of the English Ordinations ; because, according to the opinion of Divines, only the alteration of the sense of the form can destroy its substance : °Additio vcrborum qua; debiturn forma; Sacramrntalis sensum corrumpunt, tollit [c Natalis Alexander: sec p. 171.] 298 ALTERATION OV FORM.-DOUBT.-COMP ARISOX.-SUCCESSION. CHAP, veritatem Sacramenti: [The addition of words which destroy — — the due sense of the Sacramental form, puts an end to the reality of the Sacrament:] and it is not by the inward inten- tion and the opinions of their compilers, that we judge of the validity of a form and of a Sacrament. The doubt There is therefore no room for the doubt ; and as it was founda- shewn in the twelfth chapter, if there be many Divines who tluM' have really doubted of the validity of the English Ordinations, this doubt cannot any farther influence their Ordination than as it is supported by solid reasons, or by facts which form a kind of conviction. In this case, however, nothing of the kind is found. The facts resolve themselves either into fables, or into inductions so weak as to be evidently destroyed by the most authentic Records, by testimonies the most distinct, and by facts the least contested. The proofs which we have adduced of Barlow's consecration and of that of Parker, the comparison of the Roman Pontifical with Edward the Sixth's Ritual, the reading of various Acts of the Parliament of England, with abundance of other things of this nature, form in a matter of this kind demonstrations in favour of the English Ordinations, with which no reasonable doubt can subsist. Compari- As for the reasons which support the Ordinations, as they arniment are aU founded upon evident facts and authentic monuments, sides0 tW° ant* as °PPosite reasonings have no other foundation than mere possibilities in the air, and suspicions which aim at the annihilation of the most solemn Records ; it does not appear that any comparison can be made between the two ; and doubts which have for their foundation mere presumptions and prejudices, can never decide as to the validity or invalidity of a Sacrament, when these prejudices or these presumptions are destroyed by proofs which are convincing to all those, who seek less to dispute than to inform themselves. Siie-ccs- The Ordination being once ascertained, the succession was slon- easy to establish. The same principles concur to prove the validity of the one and the continuation of the other. All depends on the Ordination of Parker, who, taking his source in the ancient Episcopate, re-unites it in his person to the new, and leaves no void to fill up which can make us suspect the least interruption. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS. CONCLUSION. 299 Such, nearly, is the analysis of this Dissertation, which ap- General pears equally supported by the truth of the facts, and by that tiorfsTten- of the theological principles. If it has nothing new for the J^"^"^ English, it will be able perhaps to undeceive many of our Divines, who sincerely seek the truth, and who have been unable to inform themselves, from the want of works of which they could easily make use. All the fruit it can produce with regard to the English is, that they will perceive that we desire nothing less than to deceive ourselves to their disadvantage, and that we are ready to sacrifice to truth and charity preju- dices the most ancient and the most dear to self-love. It is in fact, according to St. Augustine, an indispensable duty on our part to love the truth equally whether she condemn us or caress us ; and whatever it cost the side we have undertaken to maintain, we must not hesitate to pay her the homage she deserves, and which we cannot refuse her. We ought to be the moi-e inclined to it, because the establishing of the English Ordinations turns entirely to the advantage of the Catholic Church. The acknowledgement of their validity facilitates to us the means of our re-union with the English, and there is nothing for which we ought to wish with greater ardour. Though separated from us, they are still our brethren; nor Conclu- is any thing foreign to us of that which is marked with the"'""' seal of Jesus Christ. I know there remain still abundance of obstacles to surmount : yet perhaps did we as much apply ourselves to overcome them as many do to perpetuate them, we should at length find the means to break down the wall of division which separates us, and to restore to the Catholic Church one of her most illustrious members. This is the sole end I have proposed to myself in this Treatise. What joy to me if the Lord, seconding my intentions, should make use of the weakest and most unworthy of His Ministers to co-operate in so holy a work ! But whatever the event may be, it is still good to desire and to labour for it ; and if the execution does not correspond to my wishes, I still promise myself the precious consolation of seeing my intentions approved by those who are well disposed. [AUTHOR'S APPENDIX.] PROOFS ESTABLISHING THE FACTS ADVANCED IN THIS TREATISE. ARTICLE I. [TRANSLATION OF A] LETTER FROM THE LATE M. J. BEN. BOSSUET, BISHOP OF MEAUX, TO DOM JOHN MABILLON a. Germigny, Aug. 12. 1G85. MY REVEREND FATHER, I received with joy the marks of your friendship, and you must not doubt that I value them as much as I esteem your virtue. I take virtue in all the senses of the country where you are1'. I was delighted to hear that they gave you freer access to the Libraries there than they had ever given to any one, which makes us hope for new discoveries, always very useful to confirm the ancient doctrine and tradition of the Mother of Churches. We await the event of the affair of Molinos, which has not a little surprised every one, and particularly those who had known him at Rome. I know some that are so zealous in his behalf, that they choose to think that all that is done against him is the effect of some secret cabal, and that he will come out with credit. But what we see has not this appearance. As to the business of England, besides the difficulty with respect to the first Bishops, the authors of the Schism, there is another great one at the time of Cromwell, when it is contended that the succession of the Ordination was interrupted. The English maintain the contrary ; and as to the succession at the beginning of the Schism, they maintain that there is no difficulty ; and in this they seem to be in the right. This depends on fact ; and the holy See will not fail to act in this matter with its usual cir- cumspection. This reminds me of a thing which, according to all the news we hear, might much facilitate the return of England and Germany ; which is [» See Preface, p. 21, 22.] D. Mabillou was then at Rome. 302 Letter of Bossuet. — Act declaring the King Head of the [appendix, the restoration of the Cup. It was restored by Pius the Fourth in Austria and Bavaria ; but the remedy had no great effect, because men's minds were as yet too much heated. The same thing granted at a more favourable time, as this in which every thing appears in agitation, might succeed better. Could you not throw in a few words, and sound their opinions a little on this subject ? For myself, I believe that by this concession, in which there is no inconvenience which we might not hope to surmount after an usage of thirteen hundred years, we should see the entire ruin of heresy. Already the greater part of our Huguenots explain themselves openly concerning it. As for our Articles c, it is a more delicate subject, and on this point I think we should be contented with liberty. I salute D. Michel with all my heart, and am with a perfect cordiality, My Reverend Father, Your very humble Servant, t%f J. Benigne, Bishop of Meaux. ARTICLE II. VARIOUS STATUTES [i. E. ACTS, OR PORTIONS OF ACTS,] OF PARLIAMENT OF WHICH MENTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS WORK. § I. Act of the Parliament held the twenty-sixth year of the Reign of Henry VIII. (A.D. 1535.) to declare (he King Head of the Church of England. [26 Hen. VIII. c. 1.] a Albeit the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the Clergy of this Realm in their Convocations, yet nevertheless, for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this Realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errours, heresies, and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same : Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament, that the King our Sovereign Lord, his heirs and successors, Kings of this Realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia ; (2) And shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preheminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, im- munities, profits, and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining ; (3) And that our said c This relates to the Four Articlesof the » Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 436. Clergy [f of France.] art. ii. § I.] Church. — Dispensations still to be given by Bishops. 303 Sovereign Lord, his heirs and successors, Kings of this Realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time, to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errours, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they he, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought, or may lawfully be reformed, re- pressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this Realm : Any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription, or any thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding. Rep. 1 & 2 P. & M. 8. St. 8. El. I. § II. ^Statute concerning the necessity of applying to the Archbishop of Can- terbury, or to some Bishop, to have dispensations. A.D. 1534. [25 Hen. VIII. c. 21. sect. 3.] c III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That neither your Highness, your heirs nor successors, Kings of this Realm, nor any your subjects of this Realm, nor of any other your Dominions, shall from henceforth sue to the said Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, or to the See of Rome, or to any person or persons, having or pretending any authority by the same, for Licences, Dispensations, Compositions, Faculties, Grants, Rescripts, Delegacies, or any other Instruments or Writings, of what kind, name, nature, or quality soever they be of, for any cause or matter, for the which any Licence, Dispensation, .... Instrument, or other Writing, heretofore hath been used and accustomed to be had and obtained at the See of Rome, or by authority thereof, or of any Prelates of this Realm : (2) nor for any manner of other Licences, Dispensations, or any other Instruments or Writings, that in causes of necessity may lawfully be granted without offending the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God. (3) But that from henceforth every such Licence, Dispensation, .... and other Writing afore named and mentioned, necessary for your Highness, your heirs and succes- sors, and your and their people and subjects, upon the due examinations of the causes and qualities of the persons procuring such Dispensations, Li- cences, . . . . or other Writings, shall be granted, had and obtained from time to time, within tliis your Realm, and other your Dominions, and not elsewhere, (4) in manner and form following, and none otherwise : That is to say, The Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, and his successors, shall have power and authority from time to time, by their discretions, to give, grant, and dispose by an Instrument under the seal of b This Statute proves that they did not spiritualibus [in things spiritual.] regard the King as Head of the Church in c Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 127. 304 Dispensations. — Consecration of Bishops. [appendix, the said Archbishop, unto your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors, Kings of this Realm, as well all manner such Licences, Dispensations, .... and all other Writings, for causes not being contrary or repugnant to the Holy Scriptures and Laws of God, as heretofore hath been used and accustomed to be had and obtained by your Highness, or any your most noble progenitors, or any of your or their subjects, at the See of Rome, or any person or persons by authority of the same : (5) and all other Licences, Dispensations, Faculties, .... and other Writings, in, for, and upon, all such causes and matters as shall be convenient and necessary to be had, for the honour and surety of your Highness, your heirs and successors, and the wealth and profit of this your Realm : (6) So that the said Archbishop or any of his successors, in no manner wise shall grant any Dispensation, Licence, Rescript, or any other Writing afore rehearsed, for any cause or matter repugnant to the Law of Almighty God. In the same chapter, Sect. IV. and V, the Archbishop is ordered to grant only the ordinary dispensations ; but those that are not in use he is prohibited to grant without the King's consent. And in Sect. XVII. it is said, that if the Archbishop refuses to grant the dispensation, the Chancellor or the Keeper of the Great Seal shall judge whether the refusal be just and reasonable ; that if it appear so to them, it shall be approved ; but if it appear to them unjust, [and owing to contempt of the Act], they shall order the Archbishop to grant the dispensation required ; in default of which he shall incur such penalty as it shall please the King [beforehand, in the Writ of Injunction,] to impose upon him, and the King shall appoint two other Prelates to grant the dispensation necessar}* ; a proof that they never pretended to act in things spiritual independently of the Ec- clesiastical authority. Statutes concerning the Consecration of Bishops. § III. Statute of the Parliament held the twenty-fifth year of Henry VIII. [Latter part of] chap. 20. A.D. 1534. [25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. § 5 — 7.] d V. And be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That whensoever any such presentment or nomination shall be made by the King's Highness, his heirs or successors, by virtue and authority- of this Act, and according to the tenour of the same : That then every Archbishop and Bishop, to whose hands any such presentment and nomination shall be directed, shall with Ibid. p. 42<3, 42(>. AIIT. II. § 3.] Consecration S,-c. of Bishops. 305 all speed and celerity, invest and consecrate the person nominate and pre- sented by the King's Highness, his heirs or successors, to the office and dignity that such person shall be so presented unto, and give and use to him Pall, and all other benedictions, ceremonies, and things requisite for the same, without suing, procuring, or obtaining hereafter any Bulls, or other things at the See of Rome, for any such office or dignity in that behalf. (2) . . . (6) And then after he hath made such oath and fealty only to the King's Majesty, his heirs and successors, as shall be limited for the same, the King's Highness, by his Letters Patents under his Great Seal, shall sig- nifie the said election to one Archbishop, and two other Bishops, or else to four Bishops within this Realm, or within any other the King's Dominions, to be assigned by the King's Highness, his heirs or successors, requiring and commanding the said Archbishop and Bishops with all speed and celerity to confirm the said election, and to invest and consecrate the said person so elected to the office and dignity that he is elected unto, and to give and use to him such Pall, benedictions, ceremonies, and all other things requisite for the same, without suing, procuring or obtaining any Bulls, Briefs, or other things at the said See of Rome, or by the authority thereof in any behalf. VI. And be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, That every person and persons being hereafter chosen, elected, nominate, presented, invested, and consecrated to the dignity or office of any Archbishop or Bishop within this Realm, or within any other the King's Dominions, ac- cording to the form, tenour, and effect of this present Act, and suing their temporalities out of the King's hands, his heirs or successors, as hath been accustomed, and making a corporal oath to the King's Highness, and to none other, in form as is afore rehearsed, shall and may from henceforth be trononised or installed, as the case shall require, (2) and shall have and take their only restitution out of the King's hands, of all the possessions and profits spiritual and temporal belonging to the said Archbishoprick or Bishoprick whereunto they shall be so elected or presented, and shall be obeyed in all manner of things, according to the name, title, degree, and dignity that they shall be so chosen or presented unto, and do and execute in every thing and things touching the same, as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm, without offending of the prerogative royal of the Crown, and the laws and customs of this Realm, might at any time heretofore do. VII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if the Prior and Covent of any Monastery, or Dean and Chapiter of any Cathedral Church where the See of an Archbishop or Bishop is, within any the King's Dominions, after such licence as is afore rehearsed shall be delivered to them, proceed not to election, and signifie the same, according to the tenour of this Act, within the space of twenty days next after such licence shall come to their hands ; (2) or else if any Archbishop or Bishop within any 306 Prtemunire. — Statutes concerning [appendix, the King's Dominions, after any such election, nomination or presentation shall he signified unto them by the King's Letters Patents, shall refuse, and do not confirm, invest, and consecrate, with all due circumstance, as is aforesaid, every such person as shall be so elected, nominate, or presented, and to them signified, as is above mentioned, within twenty days next after the King's Letters Patents of such signification or presentation shall come to their hands, (3) or else if any of them, or any other person or persons, admit, maintain, allow, obey, do, or execute any censures, excommunica- tions, interdictions, inhibitions, or any other process or act, of what nature, name, or quality soever it be, to the contrary or let of due execution of this Act, (4) that then every Prior and particular person of his Covent, and every Dean and particular person of the Chapter, and every Archbishop and Bishop, and all other persons so offending and doing contrary to this Act, or any part thereof, and their aiders, counsellers, abetters, shall run in the dangers, pains and penalties of the Estatute of Provision and Prtemunire, made in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward the Third, and in the sixteenth year of King Richard the Second." Statutes for the Book of Consecration of Bishops \_Sfc.~], made under Edward the Sixth in the Parliaments of 15-49 and 1552. § IV. — Act of the Year 1549, to order the drawing up of a new Form of Ordination. [3 8, 4 Ed. VI. c. 12.] [From Iiastal's Abridgment.'] e Such Form and manner of Making and Consecrating of Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Ministers of the Church, as by six Prelates, and six other men of this Realm learned in God's law, by the King to be appointed and assigned, or by the most number of them, shall be devised for that purpose, and set forth under the Great Seal before the first of April next coming, shall be lawfully exercised and used, and none other. § V. — Statute of the year 1552, to annex the Book of Ordination to that of Common Prayer. [5 # 6 Ed. VI. c. 1. sect. 5.] f V. And because there hath risen in the use and exercise of the afore- said Common Service in the Church, heretofore set forth, divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the minister and mistakers, then of any other worthy cause ; (2) therefore, as well for the more plain and manifest explanation thereof, as for the more perfection of the said Order or Common Service, in some places where it is necessary to make the same Prayer and fashion of Service c Ibid. c. 12. p. 674. f Ibid. c. 1. p. 67G. ART. II. $ 5.] the Ordination Service. 307 more earnest and fit to stir Christian people to the true honouring of Almighty God, (3) The King's most excellent Majesty, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, hath caused the aforesaid Order of Common Service, entituled, The Book of Common-Prayer, to be faithfully and godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect, and by the aforesaid authority hath an- nexed and joined it, so explained and perfected, to this present Statute ; (4) adding also a Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating of Arch- bishops, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, to be of like force, authority, and value, as the same like foresaid book, entituled, The Book of Common- Prayer, was before, and to be accepted, received, used, and esteemed in like sort and manner, and with the same clauses of provisions and exceptions, to all intents, constructions, and purposes, as by the Act of Parliament made in the second year of the King's Majesty's reign, was ordained, limited, ex- pressed, and appointed for the Uniformity of Service and Administration of the Sacraments throughout the Realm, upon such several pains as in the said Act of Parliament is expressed : (5) And the said former Act to stand in full force and strength, to all intents and constructions, and to be applied, practised, and put in ure, to and for the establishing of the Book of Common Prayer, now explained, and hereunto annexed, and also the said Form of Making of Archbishops, Bishops, or Priests and Deacons, hereunto annexed, as it was for the former Book. § VI. — Act of the Parliament held the first year of the Reign of Mary in 1553, for the repeal of the two preceding Acts made under Edward the Sixth. [1 Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2.] The Act is not given entire, but only in an abbreviated form, in these words. [From Rastal's Abridgment.] eA Repeal of the Stat, of 3 Ed. VI. 12. made for the Ordering of Ecclesiastical Ministers, and of the Stat, of 5 Ed. VI. 1 . made for the Uniformity of Common-Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, . . All such Divine Service and Administration of Sacraments, as were most commonly used in England in the last year of King Henry the Eighth, shall be used thorow the Realm, after the twentieth day of December A.D. 1553, and no other kind of Service, nor Administrations of Sacraments. § VII. — Statute of the year 1559, under Queen Elizabeth, for the restora- tion of The Book of Common Prayer drawn up under Edward the Sixth. [1 Eliz. c. 2. sect. 1—3.] h Where at the death of our late Sovereign Lord King Edward the Bramhall's Works, p. 1044.] ["Exemplar Cantuariense, WUBdmt "' Bramhall, p. 1051. Burnet, vol. 2. Barloc quondam."] Collect, of Records, p. 3(>S. [B. 3. No. 9.] [» Ex. Gant nunc eleclo Cices'.ren.] I" The title is worded rather differently ' Cant, nunc Ihrifordcn. electa. in the Canterbury copy: see the Editor's [r Ex. Cant. Coverdale quondam.] notes.] 1 I" Cant, deest Hodgskinne. AKT. VI. § 4.] relating to Parker. 333 suggestum consccndit, atque inde assumpto sibi in thcma, Seniores ergo qui in vobis sunt obsecro consenior, &;c. non ineleganter concionabatur. Finita concione, egrediuntur simul archiepiscopus reliquique quatuor episcopi sacellum, se ad sacram conimunioncm paraturi; neque mora, con- festim per borcalem portam 1 in vestiarium, ad hunc modum vcstiti redeunt. Archiepiscopus nimirum linteo superpelliceo (quod vocant) induebatur. Cicestrensis electus capa serica ad sacra peragenda paratus utebatur. Cui ministrabant operamquc suam pra?bebant duo arcbiepiseopi cnpellani,11 Ni- cholaus viz. Bullingham Lincolnias x arcliidiaconus, et Edmundus Gest Can- tuariensis y quoque arcliidiaconus, capis sericis similiter vestiti. Hereford, electus, et Bedfordiensis suffraganeus linteis superpelliceis induebantur. ISIilo vero Coverdallus non nisi toga lanea talari utebatur. Atque hunc in modum vestiti et instructi ad communionem celebrandam perrexerunt, arcbiepiscopo genubus flexis ad infimum sacelli gradum sedente. Finito tandem evangelio, Hereford, electus, Bedfordise suffraganeus, et Milo 2 Coverdallus (de quibus supra) archicpiscopum coram Cicestrensi electo apud mensam in cathedra a scdenti, hiis verbis adduxerunt : Rev. in Deo Pater, hunc virum pium pariter atque doctum tibi offcrimus atque prcesen- tamus, ut archiepiscopus consecretur. Postque hsec b dixissent, profere- batur illico c reginai diploma sive mandatum pro consecratione arcbiepiseopi, quo per (1 Rev. Thomam Yale legum doctorem perlecto, sacramentum de regio primatu sive suprema ejus authoritate tuenda juxta statuta primo anno regni Serenissimae Reginse nostra? Elizabethan e promulgata ab eodem arcbiepiscopo exigebatur, quod cum ille solemniter tactis corporaliter sacris evangeliis conceptis verbis pracstitisset, Cicestrensis electus f qua?dam prnefatus, atque populum ad orationem hortatus, ad litanias decantandas choro respondente se accinxit. Quibus finitis, post quaestiones aliquot archiepiscopo per Cicestr. electum propositas, et post orationes et suffragia quanlam juxta formam libri s antedicti parliament editi apud Deum habita,11 Cictstriensis, Herefordiensis, suffraganeus Bedfordiensis, et Milo Coverdallus, manibus archiepiscopo impositis, ' Accipe (inquiunt Anglice) Spiritum Sanctum, et gratiam Dei qua? jam per k impositionem manuum in te est excitare memento. Non enim timoris, sed virtutis, dilcctionis, et sobrietatis spiritum dedit nobis Deus. 1 His ita dictis, biblia sacra illi in manibus tradiderunt, hujusmodi apud eum verba habentes : m In legendo, hortando, et docendo ' Forte ingressi in vestiarium. In ex- cnipl. ecel. Cant, decst in vestiarium. [u Ex. Cant, (viz.) Nieholai/s.] * In ex. Cant, deest arcliidiaconus. i Cant, respective archidiaconi. b Cant, dixisset. [« Ex. Cant. Regium.] [•' Ex. Cant, per O. Thomam.] c Cant, edilu et prom. ' In Caut. desunt ha?c vetba quadam prcefatus atque. b Melius Cant, authoritate Pari. [h Ex. Cant. Cicestrcn., Hercfordcn., and Bed/ord.ii.] 1 In ex. Cant. hrec formula Anglice legi- tur. [dUerunl Anglice (videlicet) ToJce &C.'} [' Ex'cant'X'Z^] In ex. Cant, hsec formula Anglice legitur. 334 A Collection of Records [appendix, vide diligens sis, atque ea meditare assidue quae in hisce libris scripta sunt : noli in his segnis esse, quo incrementum inde proveniens omnibus innotescat et palam fiat. Cura quae ad te et ad docendi munus spectant diligenter. Hoc enim modo non teipsum solum, sed et reliquos auditores tuos per Jesum Christum Dom. nostrum salvabis. Postquam haec dixissent, ad reliqua com- munionis solennia pergit Cicestrensis, nullum arehiepiscopo tradens pastorale baculum : cum quo communicabant n una archiepiscopus, et illi episcopi supra nominati, cum aliis etiam nonnullis. Finitis tandem peractisque sacris, egreditur per borealem 0 orientis sacelli partis portam archiepiscopus, quatuor illis comitatus episcopis qui eum con- secraverant, et confestim iisdem ipsis stipatus episcopis per eandem rever- titur portam, albo episcopali superpelliceo, crimeraque (ut vocant) ex nigro serico indutus, circa collum ver6 collare quoddam ex pretiosis pellibus sabellinis (vulgo Sables vocant) consutum gestabat. Pari quoque modo Cicestrensis et Hereford, suis episcopalibus amictibus, superpelliceo P scilicet et crimera uterque induebatur. D. Coverdallus vero et Bedfordiae suffra- ganeus togis solummodo talaribus utebantur. Pergens deinde occidentalem portam versus archiepiscopus, Thomae Doyle i oeconomo, Johanni Baker thesaurario, et Jolian. Marche computo rotulario, singuhs singtdos albos dedit baculos ; hoc scilicet modo r eis muneribus et officiis suis ornans. Hiis itaque hunc ad modum ordine suo ut jam ante dictum est peractis, per occidentalem portam sacellum egreditur archiepiscopus, generosioribus quibusque sanguine 5 ex ejus familia eum praecedentibus, reliquis vero eum a tergo sequentibus. Acta gestaque haec erant omnia in praesentia Reverendorum 1 episcoporum Edmundi Gryndall u Londinensis episcopi electi, Richardi Cockes Eliensis electi, Edwini Sandes Wigorn. electi, Anthonii Huse armigeri, principalis et primarii registrarii dicti x archiepiscopi, Tliomae Argall armigeri registi-arii y Cicestriae praerogativae Cantuariensis, Thomae Willet et Joh. Incent nota- riorum publicorum, et ahorum z quoque nonnullorum. After this Record we find several certificates. The following is that of the Notary : Concordat cum originali in bibliotheca Collegii Corporis Christi apud Cantabrigienses. Ita testor Matth. Whinn Notarius Public, et Jan. 8. 1674. Acad. Cant. Registrarius Principalis. m Another Certificate. Camb. Jan. 11. 1674. We whose names are hereunto subscribed, having seen the original, " In Cant, deest una. 1 Cant. in Christo Patrum. Deest epi- " Melius Cant, orientalis. scoporum. P In Cant, deest scilicet. [u Ex. Cant. London.'] [i Ex. Cant. Iconimo.] [* So Cant. : Camb. Archiepiseopati.] r Melius Cant. eos. y Melius Cant. Curia. ' Cant. et. * In Cant, deest quoque. ART. VI. § 4.] relating to Parker. 335 whereof this writing is a perfect copy, and considered the hand and other circumstances thereof, are fully persuaded that it is a true and genuine record of the Rites and Ceremonies of Archbishop Parker's Consecration, and as ancient as the date it abeares. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, the day and b yeare above written. Hen. Paman, Orat. Publicus. Hen. More, D.D. Ra. Widdrington, S.T.D. et D. Marg. P. 'There is a second certificate in Burnetd : but we omit it as unnecessary. The Mandate of Barlow for the inthroning of Parker bears date the 31st of December. That of the Archdeacon of Canterbury to the Chapter for the same purpose is dated the 1st of January 1560. The Procuration of Parker, addressed to Edward Leades and some others of his Chaplains, to take possession in his name is dated the 2nd of January ; and the Act of Investiture the 21st of March. The three first Acts are given by Bramhall, p. 1047. & seqq. and the last by Rymer, vol. 15, p. 573. As these docu- ments are not essential, we think it enough to mention them, and refer thither such as may wish to consult them. In order, however, to leave nothing wanting on this subject, we shall give, in the next Article, Attestations which will furnish proof of the falseness of the Ordination of Parker in a Tavern. § V. Copy of a certificate sent to attest the verification of the Records given in Bramhall' s Works, among which is found the Record of Parker's Conse- cration, and whereof I have deposited the Original in the King's Library [at Paris] the ninth of May, 1722. We whose names are subscribed do certify, that we have collated and com- pared together the Records of the Most Rev. Matthew Parker's Consecration printed in the Booke intituled, The Works of the Most Rev. Father in God John Bramhall D.D. late Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh, Primate and Metro- politan of all Ireland ; printed at Dublin in the year 1677, in folio. "Which Records, with the exception of some passages hereinafter mentioned, we have found very conformable to the Original, which is preserved in the Archives of the Archiepiscopal Palace at Lambeth near London. Pag. 1025. lin. 8. Registrum legit: consecrandum et benedicendum fore. Pag. 1028. lin. 46. Registrum legit : directis. Pag. 1029. lin. 24. Registrum legit : opponere. Pag. 1033. lin. 29. Registrum legit : semel tantum in omnibus. Pag. 1034. lin. 29. Registrum legit : quo quidem die Martis, viz. [* b In Burnet bears and year.] omitted. — Ed.] [c In both Mr. Williams's Editions the [d Also in liramhall's Works.— Ed.] three following paragraphs were entirely [* In Courayer, intitule en Anglois.] 336 Cert ificutcs con cent inij [appendix. Pag. 1036. lin. 30. Registrum legit : quod comparerent et eorum. Pag. 1038. lin. 10. Registrum legit : jus et potestus. Pag. 1039. lin. 29. Registrum omittit : eligendi. Pag. 1042. lin. 24. Registrum legit : ad octavum dicit in vim. Pag. 1044. lin. 10. [p. 331. lin. 22.] Registrum legit: Regni Angliee. Ibid. lin. 19. [p. 331. lin. 30.] Registrum legit: merito pro meris. Ibid. lin. 44. [p. 332. lin. 8.] Registrum legit: rerum precsentium. [Pro e- orum pr Rymer, vol. 15. p. 109. [k So Rymer : Courayet has quam nos idoneam.'] ART. VIII. § 7.] Records concerning Barlow. 343 Episcopo prsedictum Episcopatum Bathon. et Wellen., ac eundem Williel- mum in Episcopum Bath, et Well, transferimus per prsesentes, ac ipsum Willielmum Episcopum Bath, et Wellen. ac Dicecesanum Bathon. et Wellen. praedictse nominamus facimus ordinamus creamus et constituimus per prsesentes, Habendum, tenendum, occupandum, et gaudendum prsedictum Episcopa- tum Bathon. et Well, eidem Willielmo, durante vita sua naturali, una cum omnibus dominiis, maneriis, terris, tenementis, hereditamentis, possessioni- bus, et juribus, tarn spiritnalibus quam temporalibus, ac cum omnibus aliis proficuis, commoditatibus, emolumentis, auctoritatibus, jurisdictionibus et praoeminentiis quibuscumque, eidem Episcopatui Bath, et Well, quoquo modo spectantibus, pertinentibus, sive incumbentibus ; Eo quod expressa mentio &c. In cujus rei &c. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium tertio die Februarii. Per Breve de private sigillo. In consequence of this nomination and investiture to the Bishop- ric of Bath, we find in the same volume of Rymer a deed of Bishop Barlow's ', signed in his Chapter, wherehy he exchanges several lands belonging to his Church, for others which are granted him by King Edward ; and Mason m on his part, has published two deeds of King Edward's, which answer to that of Barlow. As however there is nothing particular in these deeds with regard to the Consecration of this Prelate, which they merely presuppose by the proof they furnish of the possession he enjoyed of the tem- poralities of the Church of Bath, we shall content ourselves with having mentioned them, without transcribing them. § VIII. Conge' a" entire to the Bishopric of Bath, vacant by the resignation of Barlow, dated March 13. 155f. n Regina ddectis nobis in Christo Decano et Capitulo Ecclesise Cathe- dralis Wellensis, salutem. Cum Ecclesia nostra Cathedralis prsedicta, per liberam et spontaneam resignationem in manus nostras ultimi Episcopi ibidem, jam sit Pastoris solatio destituta ; Nos alium vobis eligendi in Episcopum et Pastorem 0 duximus concedendum ; Mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in Episcopum et Pastorem, qui sacrarum literarum cognitione ad id munus aptus, Deo devotus, nobis et Regno nostro utilis et fidelis, Ecclesiseque nostrae prsedictse necessarius existat. In cujus rei &c. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium, 13 die Martii. Per Breve de privato sigillo. 1 Vol. 15. p. 171. ■ ISook 3. c. 10. p. 307. " Rymer, vol. 15. p. 36f). [° For duxinuu concedendum, read or understand the regular form, licentiam per precsentet duximus concedmdam,] 344 Records^ concerning Barlow. [appendix, § IX. Commission of Queen Mary to consecrate the successor of Barlow in the Bishopric of Bath, dated March 28. 1554. i' Regina &c. Omnibus Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, vel aliis quibuscumque, quorum in hac parte intererit, salutem. Vacante nuper sede Episcopali infra Ecclesiam nostram Cathedralem Wellensem per deprivationem et amotionem ultimi Episcopi ibidem [WiL Barlow], Decanus et Capitulum ejusdem Ecclesiae (licentia priiis a nobis per eos alium eligendi in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem petita pariter et obtenta) discretum virum Magistrum Gilbertum Bourne, S. Theologiae Bachalareum, in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem "Jcanonice elegerunt et nominaverunt, sicuti per eorum literas, quas vobis mittimus pra?sentibus inclusas pleniiis liquet ; Vobis significamus, &c. Teste Regina apud West- monasterium, 28 die Martii. Per ipsam Reginam. A proof that no consequence can be drawn against the Conse- cration of Barlow from the words found in the preceding Com- mission, per deprivationem et amotionem ultimi Episcopi, is, that in the Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of Bath given to his successor, and after the date of this Commission, it is said that this See was vacant per liberam resignationem of Barlow. It is the same Rymer who gives this document which we shall here transcribe. § X. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of the Bishopric of Bath, dated April 20. 1 554. i Regina Escaetori suo in Comitatu Somersetiae, salutem. Vacante nuper Episcopatu Bathoniensi et Wellensi per liberam resigna- tionem ultimi Episcopi ibidem, Pecanus et Capitulum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Wellensis praedictag (licentia nostra primitus petita pariter et obtenta) dilectum nobis Magistrum Gilbertum Bourne S. Theologiae Bacalarium in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem elegerunt. Cui quidem electioni et persona? sic electa? Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus pariter et favorem, ipsi- usque Electi fidelitatem, nobis pro dicto Episcopatu debitam, cepimus, ac temporalia Episcopates illius, prout moris est, restituimus eidem, habenda et percipienda eidem Electo, a tempore vacationis Episcopates illius. Et ideo tibi praecipimus, quod eidem Electo, temporalia praedicta cum pertinentiis in Balliva tua sine dilatione liberes in forma praedicta; salvo jure cujuslibet. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium 20 die Aprilis. This Record proves clearly, that Barlow himself had freely re- signed his Bishopric ; that he did not wait to be deposed ; and that the sentence of deposition was a subsequent addition which came p Rymcr, vol. 15. p. 376. i Ibid. p. 381. art. viii. § 10.] Records concerning Barlow. 34.-. in only as an after-stroke, in order to deprive that Prelate of all hope of a return. § XI. Commission given to Parker to confirm Barlow in the See of Chichester, dated December 18. 1559. r Regina &c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri Dom. Matheo Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, totius Anglise Primati et Metropolitano, salutem. Cum, vacante nuper sede Episcopali Cicestrensis, per mortem Johannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi ejusdem, ad humilem petitionem Decani et Capituli Ecclesiae nostra? Cathedralis Cicestrensis, eisdem per literas nostras patentes licentiam concesserimus alium sibi eligendi in Episcopum et Pastorem Sedis praedictae, iidemque Decanus et Capitulum vigore et obtentu licentiae nostra? prscdictse dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum WiUielmum Barloo Sacra? Theologiae Professorem, ac nuper Episcopum Bathon. et Wellen. sibi et Ecclesiae Cicestrensi praedictae elegerunt in Episcopum et Pastorem, prout per bteras suas patentes, sigillo eorum communi sigillatas, nobis inde directas, plenius bquet et apparet, Nos electionem illam acceptantes, eidem electioni regium nostrum assen- sum adhibuimus pariter et favorem, et hoc vobis tenore praesentium signifi- camus : Rogantes, et, in fide et dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter praecipiendo mandantes, quatenus eundem Magistrum Will. Barloo in Epi- scopum et Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathedralis Cicestrensis praedictae sic ut prae- fertur electum, electionemque praedictam confirmare, caeteraque omnia et singula peragere, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt officio pastorah, juxta formam et effectum statutorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum, velitis cum eft'ectu. In cujus rei &c. Teste Regina, apud Westmonasterium 18 die Decembris. 1 Examinatur cum Recordo Jurat 19, A. D. 1721. per me Rohertum Sanderson. In this Record as published by Rymeru, after these words: electionemque pradictam confirmare, we read these : et eundem Magistrum WiUielmum Barloo Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesice prce- dictce consecrare ; but these last words are not found either in the Archives of the Tower, or in Parker's Register, and it is indis- putable from the Proofs which have been given, that this clause was transcribed by that Compiler only through inadvertence and oversight, as is attested" above by Mr. Sanderson, and by others who have consulted the original of this Record. > Pat [+ 14.] 2. Eliz. m. 5. Reg. Par- ker, foL 24. 40. [* Rynier has Cicestrensis. ] [« This Certificate is not in the French edition. — Ed.] u Vol. 15. p. 550. * So Mr. Williams : compare note t. The French has, " hy those who since his time have examined the originals of this Record." 346 Records concerning Barlow. — Fragments [aim'endix, § XII. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of the Bishopric of Chichester, granted to Barlow by Queen Elisabeth, March 27. I06O. y Regina Escaetori suo in Comitatu Middlesexiae, salutem. Vacante miper Episcopatu Cicestrensi, per mortem naturalem Reverendi in Christo Patris Joh. Christoferson ultimi Episcopi ibidem, Decanus et Capitulum Ecclesise Cathedralis Cicestrensis prsedictse, licentia nostra petita pariter et obtenta, dilectum Capellanum nostrum Willielmum Barlow Sacrse Theologiae Professorem ac nuper Episcopum Bathon. et Wellen. in eorum Episcopum ct Pastorem elegerunt, Cui quidem clectioni et personae sic electa; Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus pariter et favorem, ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Episcopatu recepimus, ac temporalia ejusdem Episcopatus (exceptis omnibus maneriis, terris, &c.) ei restituimus per prsesentes. Et ideo tibi pra?cipimus, quod prsefato Electo temporalia praedicta cum pertinentiis (exceptis prseexceptis) in Balliva tua, una cum exitibus et pro- ficuis inde provenientibus sive crescentibus a festo S. Michaelis Archangeli ultimo praeterito, sine dilatione liberes ; salvo jure cujuslibet. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium 27 die Martii. This Record is a new proof of the Consecration of Barlow ; for none of the new Bishops having received the investiture of their temporalities till after their Consecration, and the Queen's Com- mission having been only for confirming Barlow, it follows evi- dently, that they believed that he had been consecrated long before. ARTICLE IX. FRAGMENTS OF LETTERS aa WRITTEN TO THE AUTHOR. De Consecratione Barlovii nihil in Registro Cranmeri occurrere, et tu ipse observas, et ego, nisi saepius evoluto Registro illo maxime fallor, fidenter asserere valeam. In Archivis Assavensibus nullum Barlovii Regis- trum omnino invenitur ; neque aliquid ab illo in eo Episcopatu actum, quod in Registrum inseri debuit. In Menevensibus sunt quidem aliorum quorundam Episcoporum Registra ; sed uti major eorum pars dudum perierit, ita inter csetera illud Barlovii desideratur. Casu hoc an consulto factum, dicere nequeo : hoc tantiim ex instrumento publico comperi, a " Robertum " Farrar, Barlovii in Episcopatu Menevensi successorem, authoritate Regia " Sedis suae libros Ecclesiasticos, Martyrologia, Portiforia, Missalia, cum " Calendariis in quibus nomina Episcoporum tempusque eorum admissionis, 7 Vol. 15. p. 576. * Inquisitio facta 1 7. April. 4. Ed. VJ. de r«* See the introduction to Article vacatione Episcopi Menev. inter MSS. yilL] Wharton L. p. 239. ART. IX.] of Letters written to the Author. 347 " mortis, translationis inscribi solebant," flammis commisisse, ex quibus aliter baec tarn anxie quaesita consecratio fortasse probari potuisset. In Ecclesia Metropolitana Cantuariensi unde commissioncs pro conse- crationibus Episcoporum Provincial extra Ecclesiam suam Catliedralem con- cedi solebant, ex ruinis variis nuperoque incendio qucedam Registra evaserunt. In illis adhuc apparent commissiones quindecim pro conse- crandis Episcopis, ab anno 1506 ad annum 1531. Ab illo anno, usque ad 1541, Acta omnia periere. Caetera Provinciae Registra eo minus moror, quod ex more disciplinae nostrae, ubicumque demum consecratus merit Barlovius, sive in Ecclesia aliqua Cathedrali sive (quod potius crediderim) in sacello alicujus Episcopi, alteriusve cujusdam in dignitate Ecclesiastica constituti, et oratorium intra aedes suas habentis, Acta Consecrationis non in Rigistrum loci illius, ubi res gesta fuerat, referri deberent, sed in instru- mento separato inscribi, et ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, cujus com- missionis vigore res transacta fuerat, protinus transmitti. Et quid demum ipsum Champnceum impulerit, ut de consecratione Barlovii dubitaret? An fama publica ad ejus cognitionem hie defectus per- venerit, quae quamvis saepius mendax, aliquando tamen vera i-efert ? An aliquo idoneo authore rem didicit ? nec hoc quidem dicere potuit. Sufficit ei quod in Cranmeri Registro hujus consecrationis acta non occurrantb, ac proinde de consecratione ejus merito esse dubitandum. Fatemur libenter. Sed nec aliorum plurium Episcoporum, de quorum tamen consecratione, nec Champnaeus, si viveret, dubitandum censeret : im6 de quorum consecra- tionibus, ex aliis publicis instrumentis certo nobis constat. Foxius Herefordensis nullibi in illo Registro consecratus invenitur. Ex Rymeroc consecratum fuisse comperimus, idque 26 die Septembris anno 1535, uti in ipsius Registro inter nuperi Episcopi Eliensis Codices MSS. asservato, expresse refertur. d Sampson Cicestrensis, e Latimerus Wigorniensis, fHilsley Roffensis, omnes pro non consecratis habendi sunt, si quidem recte Champnaeus ex Registri Cranmeriani silentio ea in re concludit. At ex publicis tabulis plane aj)paret quemlibet eorum rite fuisse consecratum. De Reppis Norwicensi Episcopo, res adhuc manifestior. Acta consecra- tionis illius nullibi in Registro Cranmeri comparent ; et tamen ex eodem e Registro patet ilium a Cranmero fuisse sacratum ; certificante hoc Regi Arcliiepiscopo, et attestante, qui consecrationi ipsius interfuit, Notario Publico. Gardineri Episcopi Wintoniensis nec confirmatio, nec consecratio, in Warhami Archiepiscopi Cantuar. Registro hodie invenitur. Hoc eo magis b Champn. de Vocatione Ministrorum, c Ibid. p. 553. cap. 14. p. +S9— 191. 1 IWd. " Rymer, vol. 14. p. 550. s Regist. Cranm. fol. 212. 11 Ibid. p. 573. 348 Fragments of Letters [atpexdix, considerandum, quia consecrari quidem ab aliis potuit, confirmari nisi ab Archiepiscopo ejusve commissario non potuit : adeo tamen de hujus Episcopi et conftrmalione et conseeratione omnes tabulae publics silent, ut inter eruditissimos harum rerum investigatores, nec de anno conveniat, quo confirmatus ac consecratus fuit. h Quo igitur jure de Barlovii charactere dubitatur, eodem de Ordine Episcopali Gardineri, summi horum hominum antesignani, dubitare necesse est. Gardinerus primus fuit in commissione pro conseeratione Bonneri Londi- nensis Episcopi, proximi eorundem zelotarum post Gardinerum ducis atque signiferi. Ab illo, assistentibus sibi Cicestrensi atque Herefordensi Episcopis, sacratus fuit Bonnerus'K Si igitur Parkeri consecratio ideo pro invalida sit habenda, quod de Barlovii ordinatione sileant Registra, sequetur nec Bonnerum fuisse a Gardinero legitime sacratum. Infinitus essem si ad alios omnes ordine transirem , ab hujusmodi Episcopis sacratos. Unum omnino praeterire non possum, eminentissimum Parkeri pra?decessorem, Cardinalem Polum ; cujus benedictioni sex aderant Episcopi. Horum duorum, Nicolai Heath Eboracensis Archiepiscopi, et Thoma? Thyrleby Eliensis Episcopi, consecrationes in Registris extant. Bon- nerus, qui secundum in illo officio locum obtinuit, a Gardinero sacratus fuit, cujus consecratio nullibi in tabulis publicis reperitur. Et quanquam non adeo fidenter de cseteris pronuntiare libet, id tamen dicam, neque Patis Wigorniensis, neque Whiti Lincolniensis, neque Griffith Roffensis, neque Goldwelli Assavensis, consecrationes, quamvis diligenter qusesitas, adhuc a me inventas esse, adeoque de sex illustrissimi Cardinalis consecra- toribus quatuor sub eodem defectu cum Barlovio laborasse. Aut igitur Gar- dinerum, Bonnerum, et ipsum Reverendissimum Archiepiscopum Polum de suo ordine dejiciendos concedant hi cavillatores ; aut, si hos canonice conse- cratos fuisse contendant, non obstante Registrorum silentio, de quo nos minime dubitamus ; quod aequum, quod justum, quod verum est fateantur, neque de conseeratione Matthsei Parkeri dubitari posse : prsesertim cum constet non modo tres de quatuor ejus consecratoribus, certissime fuisse sacratos, sed et ipsum quartum, invictis probationibus, Episcopalem charac- terem habuisse ostenditur. Ex his tarn multis etvariisexemplis, apparet quam infirmum.quamincertum, quam plane nullum sitChampnaei argumentum contra Barlovii consecrationeni. Quod si a me quaeras, cur hujusce consecrationis Acta in Registrum Cranmeri aut nunquam relata fuerint, aut si aliquando in illo describerentur, postea ex- ciderint ; et mihi vicissim te rogare liceat, cur tot aliorum Episcoporum conse- crationes in eodem Registro non inveniuntur ? et prscipue illorum Episcopo- h Godwin de Praesulibus, an. 1534. sic pro ejus conseeratione emanavit 27 Nov. Wharton, Anglise Sacra? vol. 1. p. 519. at ejusdem an. ut ex Regist. Cantuar. patet. Rymer. vol. 14. p. 429. temporalia ei resti- 1 Reg. Cranm. fol. 259. tuta ostendit Decemb. 5. 1531. et licentia ART. IX.] written to the Author. 349 rum qui eodem fere tempore cum Barlovio consecrati fuerant : Foxii Here- fordensis, Latimeri Wigorniensis, Sampsonis Cicestrensis, Hilsley Roffensis, quorum omnium consecrationes infra annum factse, in Registro Cranmeri desiderantur ? Post ducentos et amplius annos, de hujusmodi defectibus vix aut ne vix quidem hariolari datur. Ego sane adeo longe absum ut quseram, cur qusedam consecrationes in illius Registro non appareant, ut potius miran- dum censeam tot adhuc nobis relinqui ; imo totum Registrum in eodem cum domino suo rogo non interiisse. Ut enim de privatis hujusmodi Actuum perditoribus nihil dicam, constat commissiones publice sub Regina Maria emanasse ad Registra aliaque ejus- modi Acta inspicienda; fidisque hominibus id negotii datum, ut quidquid invenerint, vel contra veterem Ecclesiasticam institutionem, vel contra Romani Pontificis authoritatem a se restitutam antea factum, penitus delerent. Quid hi fecerint cum Registro Cranmeri, quis hominum nunc viventium vel dicere vel hariolari potest ? Forte igitur etiam hujus con- secrationis Acta olim in hoc Registrum inserta fuerint, quamvis in eo frustra hodie qua?rantur. Certe suspicione non caret, quod tot Episcoporum conse- crationes eodem tempore factse ex illo exciderint ; quorum plerique notorie dignoscuntur Regio Suprematui et Reformationi Religionis impense favisse. Fortasse nec ab initio in illud referebantur. Ut enim de cscterorum conse- crationibus nihil amplius dicam, Barlovius confirmatus fuit Episcopus Assa- vensis 23 die Febr. an. 1535. Absens turn erat ab Urbe, in regiis negotiis extra Regnum occupatus. Hinc confirmatio ejus per procuratorem facta, et ipse verisimiliter vigore commissionis Archiepiscopalis ruri consecratus. Eo ipso tempore quo hsec facta fuerint, mortem obiit Ricardus Rawlins Menevensis Episcopus 18 die ejusdem mensis. In ejus locum substitutes est Barlovius tanta cum celeritate, ut decimo die insequentis Aprilis illius electio per Prsecentorem et Capitulum Menevense expedita fuerit, vigesimo primo confirmatio facta. Intra hoc tarn angustum temporis spatium, Bar- lovius ad duos Episcopatus, Assavensem et Menevensem electus, confirmatus, et, ut nos constanter asserimus, etiam Episcopus consecratus fuit. Quid mirum si in tot rebus tam brevi temporis curriculo faciendis, quredam negligerentur, quae ordinarie fieri consueverunt ? et consecrationis Barlo- vianse Acta vel ad Archiepiscopum non omnino mitterentur, vel ab Actuario in Registrum illius non inscriberentur ? cui forte absurdum videbatur con- secrationem Barlovii ad Episcopatum Assavensem illic inserere, qui antequam id fieri potuit, ad Episcopatum Menevensem a Rege nominatus, forte et a Capitulo fuerat electus. Atque hinc patet (ut etiam illud in transitu observem) cur Barlovius in litteris regiis totoque processu clectionis successoris sui Roberti Warton, dictus fuit Assavensis Electus. Cum enim certum sit, ilium nunquam pos- sessionem Episcopatus Assavensis habuisse, cum nec in sedem Episcopalem installatus fuerit, neque a Rege tcmporalia acceperit ; cum denique nec de 350 Fragments of Letters [appendix, confirmatione, nec de consecratione illius Capitulo Assavensi aliquo legitimo modo constiterit ; lit non solum ex Actorum Publicorum hac in parte silentio, verum etiam ex ipsa temporis brevitate inter confirmationem ejus in Episco- pum Assavensem, et electionem in Episcopum Menevensem, merito concludi possit ; sequitur eum quantumvis reipsa ut certo scimus confirmatum, et ut par est credere, etiam consecratum ; respectu tamen sedis Assavensis, nihil amplius quam Episcopum Electum jure dici potuisse, utpote cujus nec confirmatio nec consecratio illius Ecclesiae Capitulo in debita juris forma fuisset certificata. Neque hie considerare oportet illud temporis spatium quod intercessit inter Barlovii dimissionem sedis Assavensis, et successoris sui electionem, atque consecrationem ; cum omnia quaecumque dicta sint de Barlovio in illo elec- tionis et confirmationis Wartonianae processu, respiciunt solum illud tempus quo fuerat Episcopus Assavensis. Et vel intra illud spatium conseerari potuit Barlovius Episcopus Assavensis, ac nihilominus recti; appellari Episcopus Electus, si nec ilia consecratio Decano et Capitulo Assavensi rite sig-nificata fuerat, nec ulla installatio, aut temporalium restitutio exinde sit secuta, ut sane clare apparet nullam secutam fuisse. Atque in hoc consentientem no- biscum habemus ipsum Champnaeum k, ne quid dicam de Henrici VIII. Sta- tuto 1 de creandis Episcopis facto ; ubi omnes Episcopi tamdiu pro Elcctis habendi censentur, donee omnia qua? ad eorum perfectam constitutionem ea lege requiruntur, sint peracta ; quae in hoc Barlovii casu, respectu Sedis Assavensis, nunquam peragebantur. Quod ad titulum spectat Electi Assavensis, Barlovio, in processu electionis atque confirmationis Wartoni successoris ejus, attributum ; quoniam ea quae de eo antea scripsi, nondum tibi plene satisfecerint, rem ipsam paulo fusius clariiisque exponam. Atque hie ante omnia observandum, in m Statuto de electione, eonftrmatione, et consecratione Archiepiscopi sive Episcopi duos tantum titulos recenseri eorum, qui ad hujusmodi dignitates admitruntur : quorum alter est restrictior, dum processus adhuc incompletus manet, nec ad finem, modo lege ilia constituto, perducitur ; scilicet Domini Electi: alter generalis, Episcopi, sive Archiepiscopi Diceceseos, ad quam quis fuerat electus. Electione igitur Episcopi a Decano et Capitulo facta, Regique sub eorum sigillo communi certificata, exinde vigore illius statuti, qui sic eligitur nomine Domini Electi talis Diceceseos gaudere decernitur. Postquam verd authoritate Regia confirmatus et consecratus fuerit, virtute ejusdem statuti in omnibus accipi jubetur juxta nomen, titulum, gradum, et dignitatem Episcopi Diceceseos ad quam electus fuerat, omniaque rnunia quae ad suam dignitatem spectant, ut alius quivis Archiepiscopus, sive Episcopus, praestare permittitur. Haec summa est illius statuti : atque hinc apparet, Episcopum k Cap. 14. p. 506. Ira Stat 25. Henr. VIII. cap. 20. ART. IX.] written to the Author. 351 ante eleetionem factam, Regique certificatam, nullum omnino titulum de jure habere ; postquam hoc fuerit pcrfcctum, titulo Domini Electi insigniri : ubi vcro electio sic certificata etiam confirmata fuerit, ac (si opus sit) consecra- tio facta, turn demum jus illi dari ad nomen, titulum, gradum, et dignitatem Episcopi Diceceseos ad quam electus et confirmatus fuerat. Et ne de hac nostra illius statuti expositione dubites, confirmationem illius omni exceptione majorem tibi exhibel>it formula consecrationis Episco- palis ; quee cum statutis Regni ssepius stabilita fuit, etiam ipsa vim legis ob- tinere censetur. In hac forma primum Episcopus Electus a duobus Episco- pis Archiepiscopo preesentari jubetur, idque ut in Episcopum consecretur. Prsesentatus his verbis juramcntum obedientise canonica? Archiepiscopo pra3- stat : " Ego Electus Episcopus talis Ecclesire et Sedis, promitto, &c." In Litania, suffragium pro consecrando hoc niodo concipitur : " Ut DexxaFmtri Electa benedicere dignetur." Examinatione peracta, Episcopus Electus habitu se Episcopali induit. Et denique ceteris precibus finitis, cum jam ad ipsum actum consecrationis processuri sunt Archiepiscopus eique assis- tentes Episcopi, jubetur Episcopus Electus genua flectere, dum manus illi imponuntur. Quo peracto, et jam consecrato Electo, statim nomen Epi- scopi illi confertur ; et noviter consecratus Episcopus, cum reliquis praesen- tibus communicare de corpore et sanguine Christi mandatur. Adeo certo constat usque ad ipsum consecrationis articulum, nullum aliud nomen alicui de jure competere, quam illud Episcopi Electi; quamvis honoris causa Episcopi titulum absque aliqua ejusmodi additione, etiam in publicis instru- mentis, nondum consecratis quandoque attribui videamus. Quod idterius addis, nullum tibi exemplum adhuc occurrisse alicujus Episcopi, nisi solius Barlovii, qui ejusmodi Electi titulo in Brevibus Regiis nominatur ; si quidem id eodem sensu, quo Barlovius sic dictus est, intelli- gas, cum respectu scilicet ad priorem Episcopatum ad quem antea fuerat electus, ego sane id minime miror : Tres quippe solummodo Episcopos observavi, qui his ducentis annis proxime elapsis, ad secundas sedes transie- rint, antequam ad priores consecrati atque in eisdem installati fuissent. Horum primus est " Barlovius ille de quo hie agitur ; secundus Bonnerus, qui cum in legatione ultra mare diu detineretur, ad Episcopatum Herefor- densem absens electus ac confirmatus est, eumque uno fere anno tenuit non consecratus ; ac deinde ad sedem Londinensem transiit, nondum in patriam reversus. Postquam in patriam rediit, et jam aliquot post confirmationem ejus in alteram illam sedem suam mensibus consecrandus esset ; in Brevi Regio pro consecratione ejus, idem hie titulus Episcopi Herefordensis Electi occurrit. Et quia illud instrumentum a Rymero omittitur, non abs re fuerit, hie integrum apponere. Henricus VIII.0, Dei gratia Anglia; et Francise Rex, Fidei Defensor, Reg. Cranm. fol. 211, 243. 0 Reg. Cranm. fol. 2G0. 35 2 Fragments of Letters [appendix, Dominus Hyberniae, et in terra supremum caput Anglicanae Ecclesiae, Rev. in Christo Patri Thomae Cantuariensi Archiep. totius Angliee Primati et Metrop. salutem. Quia nos de gratia nostra speciali, ac ex mero motu nostro, electioni nuper de dilecto et fideli consiliario nostro Edmundo Bonner, Episcopo Ecclesiae Cathedralis Herefordensis Electo et Confirmato, ac jam in Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesiae nostra; Cathedralis S. Pauli London, per Decanum et Capitulum ejusdem Ecclesiae rite et legitime factae et celebratae P, prout per literas certificatorias eorundem Decani et Capituli sigillo suo sigillatas, nobis directas et deliberatas, plenius apparet, nostrum Regium Assensum adhibui- mus, prout per praesentes adhibemus ; Vobis per haec scripta mandamus, quatenus hujusmodi electionem et Electum cum omni celeritate accommoda in Episcopum London, confirmetis, ac munus tam consecrationis quam con- firmationis eidem, quando ad hoc ex parte sua fueritis requisiti, debite im- pendatis ; ac caetera omnia et singula faciatis et exequamini, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt officio. In cujus rei testimonium has literas nostras fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meipso apud Walden 26 die mensis Martii, anno regni nostri 31. TT , , . b H. Ass net on. In hoc Brevi ilia equidem crassa vel ignorantia vel neghgentia scriptoris observanda est, quod Regio nomine Bonnerum mense Novembri antea con- firmatum, nihilominus (pro more horiim instrumentorum) confirmari ac consecrari jusserit. Illud recte factum, quod eum respectu utriusque sedis, tam Herefordensis quam Londinensis, non simpliciter Episcopum, sed Elec- tum nominat, utpote nunquam illius, nondum hujus Diceceseos Episcopum. Tertius post hunc sequitur Rev. P. Guhelmus Juxon i, ad Episcopatum Herefordensem, uti antea Bonnerus, electus an. 1633, et ante consecrationem ad sedem pariter Londinensem translatus. In hujus Rev. P. processu omnia ad normam illius Wartoni expresse recensentur. Ipse Actorum titulus sic inscribitur : Acta habita et facta in negotio confirmationis electionis facta de persona" R. viri IV. Juxon LL. D. Herefordensis Episcopi Electi, in Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesia Cathedralis D. Pauli Lond. Nominati et Electi, die Mercurii, 23 viz. die mensis Octobris, A.D. 1633. In Brevi de Regio Assensu vocatur Herefordensis ElectusT ; in procura- torio Decani et Capituli ; in commissione Archiepiscopi ; in summaria petitione pro confirmatione coram judice exhibita ; in certificatorio de elec- tione Archiepiscopo misso, ahoque ipsi Episcopo oblato ; in instrumento de illius consensu electioni adhibito ; in sententia denique judicis definitiva, ubicumque nominis ejus mentio occurrit, semper eodem titulo Herefordensis [P "After the word celehratte add [Electa]; fence of the present Work, vol. IV. p. "although I believe this word is omitted ccxxiv.] " in the Register, for which reason it ought ' Regist. Laud. fol. 12. a. " to be within brackets." Courayer, De- r Ibid. fol. 13, 18. ART. IX.] written to the Author. 353 Electi insignitur ; etiam in actu consecrationis, consecratores dicuntur muiiua consecrationis Rev. viro Gul. Juxon Legum Doctori Herefordensi Electo, in Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathed. D. Pauli London, electo et con- firmato, impendisse : adeo nihil singulare in ilia designatione Barlovii fuit ; qui tamen in sua confirmations in sedem Menevensem, solo Episcopi nomine ubique appellatur. Sed ne te ulterius ofFendat titulus Electi Barlovio attributi, ad tuum te Rymerum remitto ; ubi in Brevibus Regiis pro restitutionibns temporalium centies inveniea Episcopos non solum confirmatos, sed et consecratos, eodein illo Electorum nomine appellatos. Cranmerus consecratus fuit 30 die Martii an. 1533. At nihilominus in Brevi pro restitutione temporalium suorum dato 29 die Aprilis proxime insequentiss, dicitur tan turn, Nuper Electus, et sub illo titulo, temporalia illi restituuntur. In restitutionibns temporalium plurimorum aliorum Episcoporum, consecratio eorum in ipsis Brevibus memoratur : attamen etiam hi eodem Electorum titulo designantur; licet non solum consecratos, verum etiam Episcopalibus insigniis investitos fuisse agnoscantur. En ipsa Brevium Regiorum verba : 1 Nos confirmationem et consecrationem Mas acceptantes, fidelitatem ipsius Electi et Confirmati cepimus. Et ideo tibi prcecipimus qubd eidem Electo temporalia liberes . Et mandatum est militibus, &c. tenentibus de Episcopatu N. quod eidem Electo tanquam Episcopo et Domino suo in omnibus qua ad Episcopatum pradictum pertinent, intcndentes si/it et respondentes. Atque ha;c de titulo Episcopi Electi respondisse sufficiat. Quod vero scribis a quibusdam excipi contra Barlovii consecrationem, ilium scilicet non tarn Episcopum quam usvfructuarium suorum Episcopa- tuum fuisse, adeoque nulla benedictione Episcopali opus habuisse, facile refellitur. uAd Assavensem quippe Episcopatum modo legibus nostris prascripto nominatus, electus, confirmatus fuit. Ha?c in usufructuario nequc fiunt unquam, neque fieri debent. Ut enim totum hunc processum pauld distinctius consideremus ; primo Capitulum Assavense Regi significavit mortem nuperi sui Episcopi Henrici Standisb, ac petiit licentiam alium in locum illius eligendi. De quo hie Episcopo agitur ? De usufructuario, an de Diacesano Episcopo ? aut qualem sibi petunt ebgendi facultatem ? Alium in locum defuncti Episcopi, id est talem qualis ille mortuus Episcopus fuerat, et qualem Ecclesia sua atque Dioccesis suo destituta Pastore, ipsius loco exoptabant. Rex votis Capituli annuit : licentiam eligendi Episcopum concedit : com- mendat Capitulo Barlovium, tanquam hominem idoneum ad munus Pastoris sive Episcopi exequendum. Quern credas hie Episcopum designari ? An aconomum, qui temporalia, utl vocant, Episcopatus administraret, et ex iis laute viveret ? an Pastorem, qui veri E])iscopi officium ad commodum Eccle- • Rymer, torn. 14. p. 156. ' Ibid. p. 487, &c. « Regist. Cranm. fol. 179. 354 Fragments of Letters [appendix, siae atque Dioeceseos exequeretur ? Capitulum, hac licentia a Rege obtenta, Barlovium sibi eligit in Episcopum # Pastorem : Archiepiscopus electionem confirmat : omnia fiunt ut in processu Dioecesani Episcopi et Pastoris, qualis et fuit et semper habitus est Barlovius. In altero illo Episcopatu Menevensi sumendo iisdem gradibus per omnia progressus est. Capitulum Regi significavit mortem sui Episcopi, vidui- tatem Ecclesiae, vacationem Episcopatus, et licentiam petiit alium sibi eligendi in Pastorem atque Episcopum suae Dioeceseos. Concessa est a Rege quam petierat licentia. Electio a Capitulo facta, a Rege accepta, ab Archiepiscopo confinnata est ; atque ha?c omnia prius quam proventus sive redditus Epi- scopatus (quos nos temporalia dicimus) illi restituti fuerint. Ex quibus omnibus plane apparet, Barlovium primo fuisse Episcopum factum, ac deinde ad usufructum sui Episcopatus admissum, per restitutionem scilicet temporalium, quae turn demum de jure fieri debet, postquam Episcopus per electionem, confirmationem, atque consecrationem, ad munus, sive ad offi- cium Episcopi et Pastoris suae Dioeceseos plene promotus fuerit, atque ad illud ritu legitimo admissus. Quam longe ab hoc processu in electione atque confirmatione Dicecesani Episcopi distet usufructuarii constitutio, ipsa? ejusmodi ceconomorum literae, quales apud Rymerumx plures occurrunt, satis per se ostendunt. Et ne hac de re ullatenus dubites, alio argumento, ex tabulis pubhcis, perspicue ostendam. In Summonitionibus ad Comitia Regni, quae nos Parliamenta vocamus, omnes Archiepiscopi atque Episcopi infra Regnum Angliae exis- tentes Brevi Regio summonentur. Si quis Episcopus extra Regnum fuerit, aut si forte Episcopatus aliquis vacare contigerit, loco Episcopi, Custos Spiritualitatis summonetur. Ut vero cognoscas, quis sit ille Custos Spiritu- alitatis, sciendum est quod quoties aliquis Episcopatus Pastore suo desti- tuitur, jurisdictio illius spiritualis ad Archiepiscopum Provinciae devolvitur, utl reddituum administratio atque ususfructus ad Regem. Et quemadmo- dum Rex ad temporalia recipienda et administranda certos suos Officiarios habet ; ita Archiepiscopus ad spiritualia exercenda gravem aliquem virum Legum Ecclesiasticarum peritum nominat, qui exinde Custos Spiritualitatis vocatur. Hujus authoritas infra Dioecesim vacantem, vigore commissionis Archiepiscopi tam diu durat, donee novus Episcopus eligitur, et ab Archiepi- scopo confirmatur; quo facto, jurisdictio spiritualis ad Episcopum confirmatum redit, et ab illo exerceri incipit. Ubi igitur aliquis Custos Spiritualitatis invenitur, qui jurisdictionem spiritualem infra Dioecesim administrat, ibi aut nullus omnino est Episcopus, aut Episcopus extra Regnum abiit, aut a juris- dictionis suae exercitio ob causam aliquam suspenditur : E contra, si sit aliquis in Dioecesi Episcopus legitime constitutus, ibi Custos Spiritualitatis nullus esse potest. Quibus sic expositis, clarissime patet quod Episcopus » Vol. 14. p. 268, 287, 8 ; [364 ;] 387, 8; [481, 2 ; 486.] ART. IX.] vritten to the Author. 355 ad Parliamentum summonitus nomine Episcopi cujusvis Dia-ceseos, necessario pro vero loci illius Episcopo habendus sit. At in Summonitionibus duorum Parliamentorum, quorum alteram fait anni 1536, statim post promotioneni Barlovii ad Episcopatum Menevensem, alterum anni 1541, Barlovius summo- nitus fuit sub titulo Episcopi Menevensis. Nec inter Custodes Spiritualitatis ad ilia Parliamenta summonitos, ullus Episcopates Menevensis Custos ejus- modi occurrity ; ac proinde certissime constat Episcopatum Menevensem eo tempore non vacasse, sed Episcopum suum Dioecesanum, quales alii omncs Episcopi iisdem Brevibus summoniti fuerant, habuisse. Hisce argumentis pro consecratione Barlovii adductis, et illud addere liceat, ipsum non solum ad regni Comitia, Brevibus Regiis, nomine Epi- scopi saepe fuisse summonitum ; sed et ab Archiepiscopo ad Si/nodos Pro- vinciates eodem nomine vocatum ; atque in iis cum caeteris Episcopis, tan- quam Episcopus, deliberasse, conclusisse, et conclusis cum fratribus sub- scripsisse. Hujus argumenti vim ut clarius percipias, notandum erit Archiepiscopos nostros ad Synodos suas Provinciales, literis suis mandatoriis, citare omnes suae provinciae Episcopos : absentium Episcoporum, si qui extra Regnum fuerint, Vicarios in spiritualibus Generates : Episcopatuum denique vacan- tium Custodes Spiritualitatis, de quibus paullo antea diximus. Aliquando etiam electi et confirmati, quamvis nondum consecrati, Episcopi ad compa- rendum in hujusmodi Synodis summonentur ; sed cum adjuncta semper restrictione electoram et confirmatorum. Cum igitur Barlovius absque aliqua hujusmodi nota, ad lias Synodos saepius et citaretur ab Archiepiscopo sub simplici titulo Episcopi, eoque nomine cum caeteris Episcopis earum Actis subscripsit ; quid aliud concludere possumus, nisi eum fuisse revera Epi- scopum Diacesanum, non Custodem Spiritualitatis ; Episcopum consecratum, non electum et confirmatum tantum, ciim nulla ejusmodi restrictio nomini ejus adjecta appareat ? Anno 1536, paucis post promotionem ejus ad Episcopatum Menevensem mensibus, Synodo Provinciali Londini interfuit, atque Articulis Religionis in illo Concilio editis, penultimus Episcoporum, tanquam Episcopus Mene- vensis subscripsit2. In eadem Synodo, declarationi ejus de Generalibus Conciliis eodem modo manum suam apposuita. Anno sequenti 1537, et Synodo interfuit, et libro de Institutione Hominis Christiani, cum reliquis Episcopis subscripsit, ut ex ipsa ejus praefatione apparet. y Rymer, vol. 14. p. 564, 737. " MSS. Coll. Bened. Cantab. Miscell. ■ Burnet, Hist. Ref., Appendix, p. VIII. fol. Ml. 31 1. 356 Fragments of Letters [appendix, Anno 1540, Nationali Synodo aderat, ac sententiaj ejus contra matrimo- nium Regis cum Anna Clivensi subscripsitb. Anno denique 1552, Synodo Provinciali tempore Edvardi VI. et praesens interfuit, et Articulis Religionis subscripsit0. In his omnibus, cum reliquis Episcopis, tanquam Episcopus egit ; neque alio quam Episcopi nomine perpetuo indigitatur. Quod ex his exemplis apparet illi in publicis Provincite Synodis fuisse tributum, etiam a privatis personis, iisque illi inimicissimis, concessum fuisse invenimus. Gardinerus in Epist. ad Protectorem Regni, Ducem Somersetensem, con- tra concionem quandam illius scripta, cum nomine appellat Domini Mene- vensis Episcopi, et Fratris sui Menevensis". Et cum postea, regnante Maria, religionis causa idem Barlovius in carcerem conjectus fuit, et coram Commissariis Regiis adductus, inter quos Gardinerus praesidebat, adeo causam suam egite, at non solum non ad rogum condemnatus fuerit, verum etiam e carcere dimissus j Episcopatu suo tantum, quern antea in manus Regias resignasse videtur, privatus. An sic credas illos hominem tractaturos, quem noverant per tot annos duos Episeopatus, absque aliqua consecratione tenuisse, etiam orficium Episcopi impie atque prophane, si quidem ita se res habuisset, exercuisse ; et peenam adeo tali flagitio condignam meruisse ? Quid vero ipsa Regina, zelo seu potiiis furore contra Reformatos usque ad insaniam percita ? Resignationem etiam ilia Episeopatus Wellensis a Barlovio accepit : eumque, in Lieentia Eligendi novum Episeopum, vacare pronunciavit per resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidemf. Et rursus in Brevi pro restitution temporalium successori ejus recitat Episcopatum vacasse per liberam resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem s. Fidem tuam appello, vir eruditissime, siccine Regina locuta fuisset, si Barlovius nunquam fuisset sacratus ? an non pothis contra ilium intonuisset, eumque ejecisset, tanquam invasorem nominis atque officii ad quod nullo jure, divino aut humano, rite fuisset admissus ? Sed hie obiter quaeris, quomodo Barlovius, qui in his Brevibus dicitur Episcopatum saum libere resignasse, in alio tamen Brevi, de signiftcavit, ponitur deprivatus ; et Episeopatus ejus per deprivationem et amotionem ejus vacasse declaratur ? Quamvis de hac re nihil extra conjecturas proferre valeam, dicam tamen quod sentio, eoque liberius, quod vel in illis Uteris, Barlovius tanquam verus Episcopus tractatur; atque sedes ilia vacare refertur per deprivationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem. Maria Regina sexto die Julii an. 1553 ad solium evecta, Barlovius pro- tinus captus fuit, et cum Joanne Cardmakero, Ecclesise sua? Pra?bendario in carcerem conjectus. Non diu illic detentus fuerat, cum timore mortis per- b Regist. Cranm. fol 141, 1+2. <: Heylin, Quinquarticular Historv, chap. XIII. §3. [See the Editor's notes.] d Fox, Book of Martyrs, vol. 2. p. 714, 715. e Id. vol. 3. p. 246. ' s Rymer, vol. 15. p. 369, 384. ART. IX.] written to the Author. 357 culsus, ut, si qua posset arte, salvus inde evaderet, Episcopatum suum in inanus Regias resignavit : quam resignationem Regina accipiens 1 3 die Martii proxime insequentis, ' Decano et Capitulo Wellensi Licentiam Eligendi alium Episcopum in Ecclesiam suam Cathedralem' concessit, 'per liberam et spontaneam resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem Pastoris solatio tfestitutam,' ut in Brevi Regio h recitatur. Quod si suae Ecclesiae, ipsa Regina testante, Episcopus ac Pastor fuit Barlovius, aut ego quid illis vocibus significetur omnino non intelligo, aut eo ipso fatendum est, eum revera fuisse in Epi- scopum consecratum, et pro tali a Regina publice acceptum. 'Eodem die commissio emanavit Episcopo Wintoniensi Regni Cancellario, et aliis quinque Episcopis, ad deprivandum Archiepiscopum Eboracensem, ac Episcopos Menevensem, Cestrensem, et Bristoliensem, ed quod nuptias de facto, cum de jure non deberent, contraxissent. In hac comniissione Barlovius omittitur, utpote qui jam antea Episcopatu suo ultro se spoliasset. kDuobus postea diebus, 15 die Martii, altera eisdem Episcopis commissio directa est, ad procedendum contra ties alios Episcopos, Lincolniensem, Wigorniensem, atque Herefordensem ; eosque (vigore clausula; in conces- sione Episcopatuum illorum ab Edvardo VI. Literis suis Patentibus insertaB, quod nimirum eos tenerent, quamdiu se bene gesserint) de sedibus suis ex- pellendos. 'Barlovius interim adhuc in carcere custoditus, ut a mortis periculo se liberaret, nullum non lapidem movit, nec dubitavit etiam cum conscientise jactura saluti suae consulere. Ilinc primo librum olim contra Lutheranos a se scriptum, dum adhuc Regularis esset Canonicus, Gardinero caeterisque Reginae Commissariis, ut videtur, exhibuit ; et vel ipse denuo imprimendum curavit, vel iis, ut ilium imprimerent, commisit. Certe ante finem an. 1553, liber iste rursus editus fuitm, cum Prasfatione nova Ad Lectores contra Reformatos, quos deterrimis coloribus Editor depingit, et furiosa rabie acriter perstringit. Neque hoc contentus, etiam petitionem Reginae exhi- buit, qua. omnes suos libros contra Religionem Catholicam scriptos ipse simul damnat ac revocat, Deoque gratias agit, quod ex infinita sua bonitate se a tenebris in lucem, ex ignorantia mortali ad vivam veritatis cognitionem perduxisset ; et sic denique Reginae misericordiam implorat, seque illius beneplacito in omnibus submittit. Dum haec aguntur, Bournius ad Episcopatum Wellensem electus soli resignationi Barlovii fidere noluit ; sed, ut ex Regio Assensu colligitur, etiam Episcopatu suo eum privandum duxit : hoc si revera factum sit (neque enim de deprivatione ejus aliquid alibi occurrit), turn ex tenore commis- sionum jam supra citatarum, turn ex toto processu Barlovii ante dcscripto, h Rymer, vol. 1 5. p. 3G!). ■ // Dialoge describing the original! [} Ibid. p. .S70.] ground of these Lutheran factions, and many » Ibid. p. 370, 71. of their abuses ; COmpyhd iff Syr William 1 Strype, MtMiiorials Ecelcsiiistical and Barlowe Citation, late Byshop of Bathe. Anno Civil, vol. 3. c. 18. p. 152—15+. 1553; 358 Fragments of Letters [appendix, sequetur eum vel conjugii sui causa", quod nullatenus dissimulare potuit, vel ob haereticae pravitatis crimen a seipso, ut ostendimus, recognitae, a dig- nitate sua fuisse amotum : neque enim in tota petitione sua Reginae oblata, aliud aliquid, nisi erroneae doctrinae confessio occurrit. Et cum coram Com- missariis Regiis una cum Praebendario suo Cardmakero comparuit, °et de fide atque doctrina sua ab iis interrogaretur, illeque adeo vel caute vel fals6 respondit, ut quasi Catholicus ab iis dimitteretur, — de immani illo facinore, atque ultimo supplicio eorum sententia digno, quod non consecratus, per tot annos officium Episcopi exercuisset, ne verbo quidem agebatur ; neque tale aliquod crimen illi unquam objectum fuisse, in eorum temporum Actis me- moratur. Haec igitur mea est sententia, Barlovium vel nunquam reipsa fuisse depri- vatum, sed, ut alia omnia Instrumenta Regia et Registri Cantuariensis authoritas plane astruunt, Episcopatum suum sponte sua resignasse ; vel si, ad corroborandum Bournii titulum, sententia aliqua deprivationis in ipsum ferebatur, earn ob confesste hareticce pravitatis crimen, et scelera atque peccata enormia ab eo commissa (scilicet quod Episcopus ac Presbyter, ac olim etiam Canonicus Regularis, uxorem duxisset) latam fuisse, non quod in Episcopum nunquam consecratus esset ; cujus nulla prorsus vestigia in illius hominis vita aut factis inveniuntur. Atque equidem cui bono scripta sua contra Catbolicos edita revocasset ; librum in Reformatos olim publicatum rursus in lucem emisisset ; errores tot annis a se rejectos pro veris fidei articulis denuo recepisset ; sed praecipue Episcopatum suum in Regias manus resignasset ; si tantum adhuc ac tam nefarium facinus sibi objiciendum cognovisset, quod nulla arte vel dissimu- lare poterat, vel excusare ? Aut quis credat Reginam resignationem Epi- scopates Wellensis ab illo accipere voluisse, ac Episcopatum ilium resig- natione ejus Pastore vacuum pronuntiare : si vel minimam suspicionem habuisset adeo capitalis defectus, quique eum non tam dignitate sua merit6 privandum redderet, quam nullo unquam justo titulo Episcopatum suum tenuisse ostenderet ; sed sub Episcopi nomine usurpatorem honoris, officii, et beneficii fuisse, cujus prorsus incapacem se, sua culpa praestitisset ? Sic igitur credo Barlovium, ut vitae suae consuleret, Episcopatum suum in manus Regias voluntarie resignasse, adeoque ilium vere, ut in aliis Brevibus recitatur, per illius resignationem vacasse : Bournium vero, qui illi succes- surus erat, non satis se securum putasse dignitatis illius, sic per resignationem vacantis, nisi Barlovius omnino ab ilia judicialiter amotus atque deprivatus foret. Hoc perfacile fuit Bournio obtinere, contra hominem uxoratum ; nec verebatur ne in eo Reginae displiceret, quae tales omnes, sive Episcopos, sive " Hoc innui videtur in illo Decani et nationcm Witt. Barlowe conjugati ; cui suc- Capituli Cantuar. Regfistro, ubi sic anno- cessit Gilbertus Bourne. tatur : Bathon. et WtttOus. vacavit per re.-ig- " Fox, Book of Martyrs, vol. 3. p. 246. ART. IX.] written to the Author. 359 Presbyteros, expresse deprivari mandaverat. Auxit proculdubio timorem Bournii quod eo ipso tempore accident Miloni Coverdallio Episcopo Exoniensi. PVoyseius, predecessor ejus, Episcopatum Exoniensem in manus Regis Edvardi VI. resignaverat. 9 Rex ilium Coverdallio concesserat 14 Augusti 1551. 1 Maria Voyseium ad suum Episcopatum restituit, Coverdallio absque ullo juridico processu ejecto ; eo praetextu, quod Voyseius 'propter justu.ni ' tam animce qutim corporis metum, rursum reddiderat et resignaverat Episco- ' patum suum Exon. in manus Regias ; ac proinde,' " Nos", inquit Maria, "... dictum venerabilem Patrem Johannem ad Episcopatum Exon. prae- " dictum restituimus." Vidit hoc et approbavit Bournius ; ac ne simili modo ipse aliquando sua dignitate privaretur, cavere statuit homo, et alieno periculo cautior factus, et in negotiis plurimum versatus ; ideoque, non con- tentus resignatione Barlovii, quam satis cognoverat eo metu, qui in con- stantem virum cadere potuit, fuisse factam, eum per Commissarios Regios privari curavit, et in ipso confirmationis atque consecrationis suae instrumento, in quo sola hrec deprivatio recitatur, expresse recenseri Episcopatum Wellen- sem per deprivationem ulthni Episcopi vacuum fuisse. Haec igitur, vir clarissime, mea quidem sententia, vera ratio fuit hujus- modi processus ; cui Barlovius et libertatem suam et vitam debuit. Resig- nato quippe primum sponte sua Episcopatu, et deinde ab eo deprivato, cum ex vita ejus nullum jam superesset Bournio periculum, neque aliud aliquod crimen illi objiceretur, dimittendum hominem censuerunt, quod haud- quaquam fecissent, si tam opportune illi objicere potuerant, sacrilege usur- patum, absque omni consecratione, ordinem atque orficium Episcopi ; quod nulli alteri, etiam ex illis quos fidei suae causa flammis tradiderunt, objectum legimus, aut etiam obiter imputatum. Sic igitur hunc hominem tanquam verum Episcopum tractarunt inimici ejus, ipsumque, etiam cum ab Episcopatu suo ejicerent, tamen pro Episcopo habuerunt. Quid de Parkero dicam, qui eum in consecratorum suorum numerum admisit, primasque illi partes in eo solemni officio concessit ? An ignoravit ilium, quamvis per tot annos pro Episcopo se gerentem, nunquam tamen fuisse ad ordinem munusque Episcopi sacratum ? At hoc vetat et aetas et conditio Paikeri, qui cum anno 1534 in familiam Reginae Annae admissus fuerat, eodemque tempore triginta ad minimum annos natus, et non tantilm in curia versaretur, ubi hae res agebantur, sed anno insequente coram Rege in Quadragesima concionatus est, id est eodem anno, forte et mense, quo sacrari debuit, et nos sacratum fuisse Barlovium contendimus ; quomodo ille id nescire potuit, in Aula Regia praesens, quod nec absentes latere credibile sit ? Novit itaque Parkerus quis homo fuerat Barlovius. Num igitur dicemus ilium scientem, prudentem, a non-Episcopo consecrari voluisse ? Quis talem amentiam viro et prudentissiino et cautissimo, impu- » Rymcr, vol. 15. p. 282, 28.'!. [ l Ibid. p. 288, Beqq.] r Ibid. p. 340. -.160 Fragments of Letters [appendix, taverit ? At forte necesse fuit illi talem consecratorem admittere. Scilicet non potuit a reliquis tribus, indubie Episcopis, canonice consecrari ; aut *Su.ffraganeum Thetfordenscm, Episcopvm Ossoriensem , Balaum, loco Barlovii snmere? De quorum1 ordinationibus nemo nobis unquam litem moverit, aut movere potuit. Atque hie imprimis observare oportet, neque Statuta Regni, neque Canones Ecclesiae Anglicanae, Henrico Octavo regnante, aliquem permisisse in Episcopum consecrari, nisi a tribus aut pluribus Episcopis. Hoc adeo certuni est, ut vel ipsi nostri adversarii libere agnoscant. Ha?c jura sub illius imperio unquam fuisse violata, nemo hactenus dixerit. Si igitur con- stet Barlovium etiam illis temporibus, non minus quam sub Elizabetha j)ostea manus suas Episcopis consecrandis publice imposuisse : si conse- crationes sic ab illo cum duobus aliis Episcopis facta?, ab Archiepiscopo accepta?, a Rege ipso approbatae fuerint ; quis dubitabit Barlovium, cum hoe fecerit absque omni controversia, fuisse consecratum ; neque aliter ei per- missum fuisse alios Episcopos sacrare, nisi ipse priiis fuerat sacratus ? Hie itaque llegistrum Cranmerianum appello. Consecrandus in Epi- scopum Bangoriensem Arthurus Bulkleius anno 1541, commissionem ab Archiepiscopo obtinuit, Johanni Sarisberiensi Episcopo datam, ad conse- crandum et benedicendum Dominum Episcopvm electum et confirmatum : u" Accitis," inquit, " vobis aliis qttibusvis Episcopis, sive Suffraganeis, " executionem officii sui obtinentibus, in numero competent i et requisito, vobis in " hujusmodi ministeriis assidentibus, et congrue opitulantibus, vobis tenore " prcesentium vices nostras committimus, et plenum in Domino concedimus " potest atem." Hujus commissionis vigore, die Dominica 19 Febr. A.D. 1541, "In " Capella infra a?des Venerabilis Viri Johannis Incent LL.D. Decani Ecclesiae " Cathedralis Divi Pauli London., Reverendus Pater Dom. Johannes Sarum " Episcopus, assidentibus sibi et comministrantibus Reverendis Patribus, " Dominis Rem0 Wilhelmo Menevensi (scilicet Barlovio) et Johanne Glou- " cestrensi Episcopis, munus consecrationis et benedictionis Domino Arthuro " Bangoriensi electo et confirmato impendebat, in forma Ecclesiae Angli- " canae sohta et consueta, in praesentia mei Anthonii Huse Notarii Pub- " lici, &c." Hanc consecrationem Archiepiscopus ratam habens, Regi certificavit, eainque Rex suo calculo approbavit. Alias ejusdem consecrationes post sacratum ab illo Parkerum praetereo, in Reverendissimi Archiepiscopi Registro extantes : sufficiat hoc tarn claro exemplo, ex actis publicis de- prompto, demonstrasse Barlovium alios Episcopos consecrandi jus habuisse (sic enim verba ilia Archiepiscopi plane affirmant : " executionem officii sui t Ucgist. Cranm. fol. 188. eis, p. 1 IS. t Warseus de Prsssulibus Hiberni- " Regist. Cranm. fol. 277. (». ART. IX.] loritten to the Author. 36] " ubtinentibus" ;) ac proinde ilium absque omni dubio fuisse in Episcopum consecratum. Fuit igitur Barlovius, turn cum Episcopum hunc Bangorensem sacravit, ipse proculdio consecratus ; ac proinde cum octo post annis ab xEdvardo Sexto ab Ecclesia Menevensi ad Wellensem transferretur, nullum Breve de significavit ad ilium consecrandum emanasse invenitur, quod in omnibus aliis non consecratis pro more illius temporis perpetuo fieri consuevit. Quod in promotione ejus ad Episcopatum Wellensem factum fuisse dixi- mus, in altera ejus translatione ab Elizabetlia ad sedem Cicestrensem adhuc clariiis apparet. yUndecim ilia graves atque eruditos viros ad varios regni Episcopatus simul eligi curavit. Hos omnes utpote adbuc in ordine tantum Sacerdotali constitutos, ab Archiepiscopo confirmari et consecrari mandavit. Et ex ipsis actis publicis constat hos omnes fuisse confirmatos primum, ac deinde in Episcopos consecratos. Duos alios antea Episcopos Barlovium atque Sconeum ad Episcopatus Cicestrensem atque Herefordensem electos, tantum confirmari jussit ; et ex iisdem actis patet, hos duos confirmatos solummodo, non consecratos fuisse. Quid de libro Brokesii scripserit (Thomas Warde), aut de Episcopis sub Rege Edwardo VI. sacratis, mihi nullatenus est compertum, Id scio, istum, quicquid sit quod scripserit, a Champnaeoz accepisse ; qui rem pro solita sua, in hac controversia, fide narrat. . . . Miraris, vir prudentissime, et merit6 miraris, aliquam hujusmodi senten- tiam (qualem narrat Champnaeus) a Judicibus Regni, sub ipsamet Elizabetlia Regina, ferri potuisse, aut etiam relationem ejus cum permissu publican. Sed salva res est ; neque hie ego tarn falli Champnaeum dico, quam ea retulisse, quse certo novit falsa omnino fuisse. Prim6 quippe, ut exinde incipiam, ait, 'Judices Regni sub ipsamet Elizabetlia Regina consecrationes Episcoporum sub Edvardo factas in dubium vocasse ; et unius eorum, Brookii nimirum, authoritate, hanc illorum dubitationem confirmat : cum e contra certissimum sit, venerabilem ilium virum mortem obiisse antequam Elizabetlia regnare coepit. "Testamentum quippe ejus insinuatum fuit 12 die Octobris an. 1558. Maria autem vixit usque ad 17 diem Novembris proxime sequentis, cui deinde successit Elizabetha. Secundo, Brookius in Casibus suis Novellis, si Champnceo fides, hoc de Elizabetha; Judicibus scripsit. At ipse collectionis illius titulus plane ostendit, Brookium illos Casus Novellos adeo non collegisse, ut fere triginta post obitum ejus annis, ab alio nescio quo authore, ex ejus libro excerpti fuerint. Liber sic inscribitur : Ascuns Novell Cases de les ans et temps le Roy ' Rymer, vol. 15. p. 1 69, 70 : coitip. p. 174. " De Vocalione Ministrorum, p. 132. ' Epist. de Succ. Episc. Angl. p. 18. 3 Wood, Athena; Oxonienses, Part. I. [See Courayer's Preface, p. 19.] col. 89. 362 Fragments of Letters [appendix, H. VIII, Ed. VI, et la Roygne Mary, escrie ex La Ground Abridgement, composed per Sir Robert Brooke Cliivaler &c. London. 1587. Atque bine denique apparet, quomodo tota hsec res se habuerit. D. Ro- bertas Brookius Capitalis Justitiarius fuit sub Regina Maria, vir in legibus nostris eruditus, sed pro ratione illorum temporum, contra Reformatos aritae religionis propugnator acerrimus. Librum hie utilissimum composuit, post mortem ejus hoc titulo editum ; La Ground Abridgment collect et escrie per le Judge tres reverend Sir Rob. Brooke Chivaler, nudgairs Chiefe Justice del Common Banke. In illo libro sub certis capitulis totam illam partem Legis nostrae Municipalis digessit, quae pendet vel a sententiis per Judices latis, vel a responsis et argumentis Jurisprudentum, quaeque turn demum rim legis obtinere censentur, cum nulla lex scripta occurrit, ex qua judicium in causa aliqua ferri possit. Opus laboris maximi, nec minoris utilitatis. Ex hoc corpore juris ab illo collecti Casus Quosdam Novellos excerpsit anonymus quidam temporibus Henrici VIII, Edwardi VI, et Mariae Reginae agitatos : et ne de annis, quibus ilia quae ab ipso referuntur, vel discussa, vel judicata fuerint, dubitetur, ad suos quaeque Reges et annos regnonim singula retulit. Casus hie allegatus sub Regina Maria collocatur, annoque regni ejus secundo, num. 463, ut vere a Champnaeo citatur ; qui tamen pro summa sua fide, ad Judices Regni sub Elizabetha Regina eum refert. In ilia Collectione nihil de suo profert hujus Compendii author : verba tantum Brookii exscribit ; sed neque ipse Brookius aliud egit, quam ea literis mandare, quae in actio- nibus coram Judicibus Regni, vel ab ipsis decreta fuerant, vel a Juriscon- sults allegata. Verba Brookii ita se habent : Dicitur que Evesques in tempore E. 6. ne fueront sacres, et ideo ne fueront Evesques, et ideo lease pur ans per dels, et conftrmc per le Deane et Chapter, ne lierb le successor. Car tiels ne unqties fueront Evesques. Contra de Evesque deprive que fuit Evesque in fait tempore dimissionis0 per confirmationem factatn. Nota diusitieA. (2 Marice. Atque haec, si Champnaeo credamus, fuit Judicum Regni eo tempore sententia. Utinam profect6 sic se res habuisset ! Invictissimum id nobis pvaeberet argumentum pro consecratione Barlovii tantopere controversy : Qui cum magnam terrarum partem Episcopatus sui Wellensis alienaverit, tamen neque locationes neque alienationes ejus successor ipsius Bournius (qui in recuperandis Episcopatus sui redditibus sedulam alias atque lauda- bilem operam posuit) in dubium vocavit. Neque credibile est Protectorem Regni Seymerum, cujus usui hae concessiones factae fuerint, debitam curam non adhibuisse, ut ab homine fierent, quern certo noverit jus alienandi atque elocandi habuisse. At ver6 plane apparet hanc non fuisse Judicum Regni sententiam. Nulla [bc Both editions of the Ataaa Novell present Woik,and the Editor's notes.] Canes read Hern and ei etmfirmnc' fuel' , i.e. [■' Read divertitie, i. e. difference; and see el confirmatio facta. See p. 131 — 134ot'the the Editor's notes.] ART. IX.] written to the Author. 3G3 hie ut in aliis illius relationibus nota occurrit, unde nobis constare possit, vel unum aliquem e Judicibus sic dixisse. Aliter omnino sese exprimit Brookius in iis casibus, ubi Judieum opiniones, aut Curiae sententiam refert. In hoc ipso titulo, Judieum sententias a Jurisperitorum opinionibus clare distinguit. Paucis exemplis rem manifestam efficiam. Nota, inquit, per Tibeh.e, Shelley, et Balduin Justices, n. 2. per totam Curiam, n. 1. per TibzJ et Brook Justic. sic; Pollard Justice et Brudnel Chief Justice, contra; n. 13. per touts les Justices de Banke le Roy, n. 15. per opinionem Curia, n. 18. per Curiam, n. 29. Curia concessit, n. 30. per omnes Justiti- arios, n. 58. per Hales Justice et plures alios, n. 62. At vero in casu alle- gata, prater unicum illud, Dicitur, nihil apponitur. Nullum hie Curia judicium, nulla vel unites Judicis opinio : etiam hanc rem prorsus indecisam fttisse relictam, ex iis quae de Ridleii locationibus contra eundem Champnaeum jam observare libet, mihi plusquam verisimile videtur. Illius causa sic se habet. sBonnero Episcopatu Londinensi per Commissarios Regios judicialiter ainoto, an. 1549, paucis post mensibus Ridleius Roffensis Episcopus in ejus locum successit. Maria rerum potita, ad Episcopatum suum Londinensem restitutus est Bonnerus, et sive cupidine vindictae inflammatus, sive pecuniae amore abreptus, locationes omnes a praedecessore suo factas, tanquam irritas, et de jure nullas, rescindere conatus est. hHac occasione inter Car et Letchmore de Manerio de Bushley orta lis est, quod priori concesserat Ridleius, posteriori Bonnerus. De consecratione Ridleii in tota actione nulla mentio. In eo causae momentum constituebatur, quod Bonnerus Epi- scopatu Londinensi injuste fuerat deprivatus ; quod Ridleius tanquam alieni juris invasor amotus fuerat, et Bonnerus in integrum restitutus ; ac proinde quicquid Ridleius, utpote malae fidei possessor, elocaverat, omni juris vigore destitueretur. Sumnia contentione causa utrinque acta est, Judicesque credebantur in Bonneri favorem propendere : sed re tandem ad Curiam Cancellarii perducta, ibique rursus audita, pro locationibus Ridleii decretum est : Et quamvis amici Bonneri sedulam operam navarent, ut suprema Parliamenti authoritate concessiones Ridleii irritae pronuntiarentur, nihil obtinuerunt, neque aliquid amplius ea in re factum fuisse comperimus. Atque hinc patet consecrationem Ridleii nulla sententia judiciali in Foro Civili (neque enim jam de censuris a Commissariis Ecclesiasticis in depriva- tionibus horum Episcoporum prolatis agimus) irritam vel habitam vel pro- nunciatam fuisse. Ad reliquos Episcopos quod attinet, illud imprimis certum est, omnes ab Edwardo VI. creatos post finem anni 1549, nostro [e Quaere, Fitzh. ? see the next note.] [' "Read Fitz., i. e. Filzherbert." Cou- n ayer, Defence of the present Work, vol. IV. p. cexxxv.] « Rymer, vol. 15. p. 222. h Strype, Memorials Ecclesiastical and Civil, vol. 3. p. 57, 58. 3G4 Fragments of Letters written to the Author, [appendix, art. ix. saltern more fuisse sacratos. Consecrationes eorum, ne uno quidem excepto, in Cranmeri Registro usque ad hunc diem inveniuntur. De mode- ac forma qua consecrabantur, satis alibi dictum. Nos utrumque asserimus, neminem scilicet Edvardo regnante ad munus Episcopi absque previa consecratione fuisse admissum ; eorumque consecrationes rite ac valide factas, neque ali- quibus adversantium exceptionibus ullatenus convelli posse. Quod ad consecrationem Barlovii spectat, jam ostendi quee fuit legum nostrarum cura, ne quis officium Episcopi usurpet, nisi prius ad illius exer- citium consecratus. Unicam adhuc hujus discipline nostrae confirmationem hie adjiciam, ut plane perspicias Barlovium haudquaqtiam potuisse ad Epi- scopatum Wellensem promoveri, si vel minimus eo tempore scrupulus aliquorum animos subierat, eum non fuisse in Episcopum legitime sacratum. Prodiit eo ipso anno quo Barlovius ad Episcopatum Wellensem transfere- batur, novum Pontificale Ecclesise Anglicana?, Regia authoritate reformatum. In illo, ante omnia, expresse declaratur, quod ab ipso Apostolorum sevo semper in Ecclesia fuerant hi tres ordines, Episcoporum, Presbyterorum, et Diaconorum : Quod hi ordines adeo sacri semper habiti fuerint, ut nemo alicujus eorum officium exercere ausus sit, nisi prius vocatus, probatus, examinatus, et sic denique per manuum impositionem ad id admissus esset . Ac proinde ab Ecclesia Anglicana requiri, ut nemini qui non antea conse- cratus fuisset, aliquod horum officiorum exequi liceret, nisi ad id vocetur, probetur, examinetur, et denique forma in eo libro prsescripta admittatur. Hoc jus fuit et Regni et Ecclesiae, cum Barlovius factus est Episcopus Wel- lensis. Quis credet ipsi soli hanc prserogativam fuisse concessam, ut absque ulla vocatione, probatione, examinatione, aut admissione, Episcopi officium usurparet ? Quisve sanus dixerit eum, si sic fecisset, a nullo mortalium, amico, inimico, fuisse correptum ? End of the Proofs. [MR. WILLIAMS'S APPENDIX.] N° l.a A Paragraph expunged by the Author's direction in the Third Chapter, because he believed the argument not conclusive : there is another inserted in the room of it in p. 62, 63. 2°. La liberte que se donnent quelque-fois les Rois d'Angleterre de dis- penser de la loi qui defend d'accorder aux Eveques l'investiture du temporel de leurs Evechez avant leur Consecration, nous empeche de regarder comme demonstratif l'argument qu'on pourroit tirer en faveur de la Consecration de Barlow, de ce que le temporel de l'Eveche de S. David lui a ete delivre des le 26 Avril 1536. Mais comme nous ne trouvons point qu'il ait ete sur cela dispense de la loi commune, on peut du moins tirer de cette concession un argument probable en faveur de sa Consecration. Car il est certain que la loi et l'usage ordinaire d'Angleterre est de ne mettre les Eveques en possession des biens temporels de leur Eveche qu'apres leur Consecration. Le Statut passe la 25 e annee de Henry VIII. pour regler l'election des Eveques, qui se trouvera dans nos Preuvesb,le suppose ouvertement. L'auteur de la Pobce de l'Eglise Anglicane le dit encore bien plus positivement, et marque meme dans quel ordre tout se faisoit a l'egard des Eveques, soit pour leur election, soit pour ce qui la devoit suivre. Postquam Regis licentid et mandato, dit cet Auteur, Episcopi in Anglid a Decano et Capitulo Cathedralimn Ecclesiarum infra Diaceses quibus prceficiendi sunt eliguntur, illius assensu electi comprobantur, comprobati confirmantur, confirmati consecrantur, et cum consecrati homagii juramentum Regi praestiterint, et Rex illis vicissim suorum Episcopatuum possessiones restituerit, in ipsd Republicd Anglicand, non aliqud a Christo delegatione . . . sed liberd Principum donatione his honoribus poti- untur. Polit. Eccles. Ang. cap. 5. p. 39. II y a dans le Recueil de Rymer cent preuves de ce qu'avance cet Auteur. On y trouve quantite d'Actes d'Investiture, ou la Consecration est ordinairement exprimee, ou du moins sous-entendue ; et cette riche Collection nous en fournit tres peu de la prise de possession du temporel avant la Consecration, ou l'installation, lorsque ce n'etoic qu'une translation. Or nous avonsc l'Acte d'Investiture du temporel de l'Eveche de S. David donne par Henry VIII. a Barlow des le 26 Avril 1536, ou nous voyons le certificat de son installation ; et nous ne trouvons point qu'il ait eu sur cela aucune dispense ou aucun privilege du Prince, pour se soustraire a la loi commune. II y a done beaucoup d'apparence qu' avant le 26 Avril 1536, il avoit ete sacre, comme le supposent Camden, [» By Mr. Williams himself, who had were headed N°» IX, X, and XI.] omitted" the third Article (or " N»", as he [" See p. 305.] translated it) of the Author's Appendix 11 Vind. Eccl. Angl. p. 365. [See p. (see p. 311, note a) ; these three Extracts 310.] 366 Cancelled passages [mr. williams's Godwin, Wharton, et tous les 6crivains qui ont touchy quelque chose qui ait rapport a cette histoire. [To this paragraph should have been added (see p. 62, 63, note o ; and the Editor's note to p. 63, L 13) the beginning of the next, as follows : 3°. Cet argument, qui seul pourroit ne passer que pour probable, devient tout autrement convaincant, si on le joint au suivant. Car after which followed "c'est un fait constant," &c. as translated p. 63. 1. 13.] N° 2. The Title of the Fifteenth Chapter was thus in the French Edition. Suite du merae sujet. On fait voir combien les principes rapportez ci- devant ont varie, et Ton examine a quoi on pourroit se reduire, pour avoir une regie certaine de conduite en cette matiere. N° 3. This following passage the Author has thought fit to expunge, and to insert another in the room of it [p. 27.5 seqq.], lest he should be thought to espouse Mr. Thorndike's principles about Re-ordination, which he does not. Rien n'est moins surprenant, si cette question est regardee comme une question de discipline, comme quelques anciens ont semble la regarder, et comme d'habiles modernes la regardent encore. Car dans cette hypothese, comme il n'y a rien de fixe sur cela, et que la discipbne varie selon les differentes conjonctures ou se trouve l'Eglise, il est aise de concilier toutes les contradictions apparentes qui se rencontrent ; et 1'on n'est point oblige\ pour tout rapporter a un systeme arbitraire, de forcer tous les faits, et de tout entendre dans un sens que la force des termes n'emporte point. Mais en supposant merae que cette question n'appartient point proprement a la discipline, il s'agit de scavoir, si on ne pourroit point trouver un principe qui servit de regie en cette matiere, en sorte qu'on put a la faveur de cette regie, decider tout d'un coup de la validite ou de l'invalidite d'une Ordina- tion. Or tel est, ce semble, celui, que nous propose un scavant Theologien Anglois, nomme Herbert Thomdike, dans un livre intitule : Origines Eccle- siastics, et qui emporteroit avec lui l'eclaircissement de toutes les difficultez. C'est aux lecteurs a en juger. Here followed a passage out of Mr. Thorndike ; which I omit, it being already inserted in chap. xv. in its proper place. Ce passage est un peu long : mais il etoit trop important pour etre abrege, et il m£rite bien qu'on y fasse quelques reflexions. 1°. II suppose avec S. Leond, que deux choses sont necessaires pour la validite de l'ordination, le rit prescrit, soit par J. C, soit, a son defaut, par l'Eglise, et l'autorite de Leo Mag. Ep. 2. inquis. I. [See p. 276.] APPENDIX, N° 3.] of the Original. 367 l'Eglise, auctoritatem ac jus Ecclesice—;tumConsecrationis solennitatem ; et cet article ne doit point paroitre extraordinaire, puisqu' en effet on ne croit qu'un sacrement confere dans l'heresie est valide, que parce qu'on suppose que ce qui se fait dans l'heresie, est une suite du pouvoir de l'Eglise, que l'erreur ne scauroit suspendre. Mais si la profession de l'erreur ne scauroit suspendre le pouvoir de l'Eglise, l'Eglise elle-meme ne peut-elle pas arreter son propre pouvoir, et ne point reconnoitre pour son ouvrage, ce qui se seroit fait hors de son sein ? L'auteur le soutient, et je. ne scais par ou on pourroit le contester. 2. Si selon l'auteur, ces deux choses sont egalement nScessaires ; comme il est certain que l'omission du rit aneantit le sacrement, le defaut de l'autorite de l'Eglise doit produire le meme effet par une consequence neces- saire ; et cela se peut comprendre aisement par la comparaison du mariage, ou en vain employe-t-on la matiere et la forme, si les loix de l'Eglise et de l'Etat sont violees ; puisque par le defaut d'autorite, le mariage est nul, de l'aveu de tous nos theologiens. Non Deo rite sacratum videri debet, quod non sit jure Ecclesice Deo consecratum, etsi servato ritu Ecclesice. 3. On concoit ainsi aisement, comment une ordination, d'invalide qu'elle £toit, peut devenir valide ensuite, sans que rien de sensible y intervienne de nouveau. Car le rit essentiel ayant 6te administre, l'Eglise qui d'abord, en refusant son consentement, empechoit que ce sacrement n'eut son effet, levant ensuite cet empechement par le consentement qu'elle restitue, fait que rien ne manque plus au sacrement pour le rendre valide. Itaque si dubium existat de auctoritate Ecclesice, non de ritu ordinandi, non est mirum, accedente auctoritate Ecclesice, valere ordinationem non jure factum, ad id ad quod valere earn vult acccdens auctoritas Ecclesice. 4. Rien ne semble plus propre a expliquer tous les faits rapportez ci- dessus, et les variations qu'on a remarqces dans l'Eglise sur cette matiere : car des la qu'on admettra pour principe, que l'autorite de l'Eglise est aussi essentielle a la validite du sacrement, que l'usage de la matiere et de la forme, il ne doit point etre surprenant que quelques ordinations n'ayent point ete jugees valides, et qu'on ait recu les autres ; l'Eglise ayant bien voulu par condescendance reconnoitre les unes, et ne point admettre les autres par severite, ou par des raisons de prudence. Non est mirum, accedente Ecclesice auctoritate, ratas ordinationes evadere eas, quce non accedente Ecclesice auctori- tate irritce erant. Au contraire, si Ton n'admet ce principe, la conciliation de ces faits est entierement impossible : Conciliandorum sibi invicem Ecclesice decretorum et gestorum rationem inibimus frustra, hdc repudiatd, qucerendam. 5. On leve par ce principe toute l'ambiguite, et il ne reste plus aucun scrupule ; parce que la declaration de l'Eglise sur le fait des ordinations con- testees, decidera tout d'un coup si elles sont valides ou non, et qu'on ne scauroit s'abuser en s'en rapportant a son jugement : Statuendum est non posse fidelibus fraudi esse en apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur fidem Ecclesice. 368 Cancelled passages of the Original. [ire, w.'s appendix, x°3. Cela suppose toujours qu'il est certain que la matiere et la forme n'ont point ete omises ; et en ce cas, on ne peut nier que la regie la plus certaine et la moins equivoque, ne soit de s'en rapporter a 1'Eglise. 6. II est vrai qu'il ne paroit pas que dans l'affaire du bapteme des here- tiques on ait raisonne sur ce principe. eScio uliter decretum esse de baptismo hcereticorum, . . . Sed hoc ad ordinationem trahendum non est ; . . . Non est necesse ratam hcereticorum confirmationem concedere, quorum ratus sit bap- tismus ; multh mintts ordinationem. Mais aussi est-il certain que chez les anciens on ne raisonnoit pas toujours de meme de ces deux sacremens, et que sur le fait de l'ordination, ils ne se seroient pas ecartez de la pensee de l'auteur. En effet il semble que S. Leon ait remis la validite de l'ordination au bon plaisir et a l'autorite de 1'Eglise, comme il le marque dans la lettre a Rus- tique de Narbonne. Si qui autem clerici, dit ce grand Papef, ab istis pseudo- ejjiscopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, quiz ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant, et ordinatio eorum consensu et judicio prtcsidentium facta est, potest rata haberi, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent . Aliter autem vana habenda est creatio, qum nec loco fundata est, nec auctore munita. C'est la precisement tout le systeme de l'auteur, et ce n'est que parce que ce principe n'a pas ete assez connu, qu'on voit si peu d'uniformite dans tout ce qui concerne cette matiere. Enfin, par ce principe 1'Eglise, comme il paroit fort raisonnable, suspen- droit ou arreteroit a son gre le progres et la succession de toutes les sectes ; puisque le ministere n'ayant point de validite sans son consentement, et aucune secte ne pouvant subsister sans Ministres, le refus qu'elle feroit de donner son consentement pour la validite du Ministere, sapperoit toutes ces sectes par le fondement, et les aneantiroit entierement. C'est aux lecteurs a juger si ce principe a autant de solidite qu'il paroit avoir d'avantages ; et s' il est permis de l'adopter, en voyant qu'on ne s'en est jamais servi dans 1'Eglise, pour expliquer la difficulte dont il est question. Ce qu'il y a de certain, c'est que tous ceux qui ont conteste la validite de quelques sacremens, ont semble le supposer : mais les raisonnemens de leurs adversaires en ont toujours suppose un contraire. Au reste, ce qui resulte de tout ceci, c'est qu'il y a eu peu d'uniformite dans 1'Eglise sur cette matiere ; et que si le principe recu jusqu'ici dans toutes les Ecoles Catho- bques a lieu, on ne peut contester aux Anglois la validite de leur ordination. J'ajouterai, en finissant, que l'adoption que Ton pourroit faire de cette maxime dans la suite, ne pourroit en rien deroger a la validite des ordina- tions Angbcanes, qui ont precede ; parce que ces sortes de maximes n'ont point de pouvoir retroactif, et que cela ne pourroit avoir lieu que pour la suite, si un Concile General, ou 1'Eglise en corps, s'accommodoit d un tel principe. [e See p. 278.] ' Leo Mag. Ep. 2. inquis. 1. [See p. 27S.] [« See p. 278.] [MR. WILLIAMS'S INDEX8.] {Concerning this Index see p. xiii. of the Editor's Introduction.) AN ALPHABETICAL INDEX. [It is alphabetical only as regards the initial letters: within each letter the order of the pages is followed.] A. — Abbe Renaudot's Memoire the cause of this Treatise - 18 Author's care to advance nothing without proof - - 22 Author's only view [in the historical sketch given in the first Chapter] is the English Ordinations - - - 31 Anthony Kitchin, Bishop of Llandaff, took the oaths - 40 Abbot, the Archbishop, took pains to convince Fitzherbert - 47 Archbishop, the present, (Dr. Wake,) very free to give any body admission to examine our Records - - 48 Agreed by all [who relate the Lambeth Ordination], that Barlow, Coverdale, and Scory, consecrated Parker - - 51 Answers to the reasons urg'd against Barlow - - 69 Author of Parker's Life says, that Scory and Barlow needed no Consecration, but were confirmed in their new Bishopricks 78, 79 B. — Bishops [nominal], their power enlarged in Scotland, An.\bl2 34 Bruce, a whimsical Scots Presbyterian, against all Ordination, excepting Elections - - - - ib. Bishops restored in Scotland - - - 35 Bishops abolish'd in Scotland - - - - ib. [■ This Index is not found in the Bodleian " clear'd from the aspersions lately cast copy : its style however leaves no reason- " upon them by Mr. Thomas Ward, a able doubt as to its author. On the back " Romanist, in his Book intituled The Con- of the last page is advertised, among other " troversy of Ordination truly stated, &c. "Books printed for W. and J. Innys, J. " By Daniel Williams, a Presbyter of the " Osborn, T. Longman, and C. Rivington", " Church of England." Mr. Williams's own Work, viz. : At the bottom of the same page is an- " The Succession of Protestant Bishops nounced as in the Press and speedily to be " asserted ; or the Regularity of the Ordi- published, the anonymous translation of the " nations of the Church of England justify 'd. Defence of the present Work, published the " Wherein the first Protestant Bishops are same year.] B b 370 Mr. Williams's Index. Bishops ordain'd for Scotland after the Restoration - 35, 36 Barlow ordain'd Parker at Lambeth - - - 39 Bluet, one of Champney's authors for his stories - - 43 Boner's threats of excommunication ridiculous - -45 Bramball's Works in the King of France's Library has (sic) a copy in it of our Registers collated [i. e. of the collation of our Registers] with the original - - - 48 Bishop Bourn not deposed till after the Commission for Parker's Ordination ----- 55 Barlow was consecrated : proofs of it in Chap. iii. - 58 Boner did not threaten Barlow as [it is said] he did Kitchin - 59 Bishops cannot sit in Parliament without Consecration - 63 Barlow not summon'd as Guardian of the Spiritualities, but as Bishop ----- 64 Barlow subscribes as Bishop of St. David's absolutely - 65 Barlow subscribes to the Institution, &c. [read to the Articles of 1536] before Warton of St. Asaph - - ib. Barlow present at several Synods as Bishop - - ib. Barlow one of Arthur Buckley's Consecrators - - 65, 66 Barlow, whether he was an Usufructuary only - 70 Bishop of Hereford [Juxon]'s Case the same as Barlow's - 81 Boner prosecuted by Horn Bishop of Winchester - - 116 Boner's Council [Counsel] plead Horn's Ordination null, and he no Bishop - - - - 1 1 7 C. — Champney's, an insufficient answer to Mason's book - 17 Ceremonies, none changed in Henry VIII. ['s] days - 31, 32 Ceremonies were alter'd by Edward VI. - - 32 Charles II. restor'd [the Anglican] Religion - - 33 Cromwell's alteration does not affect the English Hierarchy - 37 Commission the first for Parker's Ordination, to whom directed 39 Commission the second, to whom directed - - 40 Camden [" no doubt"] drew his account of Parker's Ordination out of the Registers - - - 41 Camden's account agrees with the Journal of Parker's Life - 42 Champney's account of Parker's Ordination - - 42, 43 Champney's inconsistency [rather, Champney's interpretation of Stow's silence in his Chronicle inconsistent with a fact related by that Chronographer in his Description of the Antiquities of London] ----- 53 Cranmer's Registers [Register] ; the silence of it is no proof that Barlow wanted Consecration - - 60 Mr. Willinms's Index. 371 Cranmer's Register does not mention several others' Conse- cration as well as Barlow's ... 00 Chapter cannot elect without a Conge-dc-eslire - - 03 Convocations meet [rather, The Convocation of 1536 met] the same time with the Parliament - - - 05 Canterbury Register proves Barlow one of Buckley's Conse- crators ..... 66 Camden says Parker only confirm'd Barlow - -78 Cranmer and Barlow erroneous in matter of Orders - 141 Cranmer and Barlow affirm that Consecration is not necessary, and that Designation only is sufficient - - 141, 142 D. — Discipline Presbyterian, when [fully] establish'd in Scotland 34 Durham, the Bishop of, not depos'd until 29th September 1559 54 Durham, the Bishop [of], Moreton's testimony a forgery of the Papists, which he disown'd - - - 57 E. — Elizabeth, Queen, put things upon the same foot as Edw. VI. 32, 33 F. — Fitzherbert had [or was to have] an account of our Registers from [four Catholics including] three [read tvrob~\ Jesuits - 47, 48 Forgery commonly the charge of all parties - - 49 Forgery in this case [that of the Lambeth Register] a mere chimera ib. Fasti Ecclcs. Anglicance : the author of it fixes the time of Barlow's Consecration ... 59, 60 Fox's Consecration not in Cranmer's Register - - 60, 61 Facts of Barlow's Consecration, in the Appendix [Art. VIII.] G. — Gardiner's Ordination not recorded in Cranmer's Register - 61 H. — Henry the Eight's alterations does not (sic) affect the English Hierarchy ... - 38 Heath, Bishop of York, deposed before [the] date of Parker's Commission - - - - - 57 Henry VIII's book subscribed by Barlow, and eighteen more Bishops - - - - - 05 Horn's Ordination valid, and Boner's pretence groundless 130, 131 J. — Journal of Parker's Life, written by himself, gives an account of his Consecration - - - - 42 Jesuits, three [read twob] of them [together with two other Catholics] examined the Register - 47, 48 K. — Knox's Articles of Polity presented to the Assembly of Scot- land, Anno 1561 - - - - 33, 34 ["b See the Editor's Further Notes.] B b 2 372 Mr. Williams's Index. King, Suffragan of Lincolnshire, his Consecration not mentioned in Cranmer's Register - - - -60 L. — Latimer's Consecration not in Cranmer's Register, as well as several others - - - - 61 Loss of one Instrument, no proof against a Consecration - 69 Landaff, [the] Bishop [of], named in both [the] Queen's Com- missions to consecrate Parker, but endeavours to elude it, observing all the Catholick Bishops resolved to do the same 90 M. — Mason, the first that vindicated the English Ordination - 17 Mason's Book dedicated to the Archbishop of Paris - ib. Mason's Second Edition in Latin, an answer to all his adver- saries [rather, to Champney] - - 17, 18 Mary Queen repeal'd all done in Edward's days - - 32 Mary, Queen, the Succession preserved in [i. e. up to] her time 38 Mandate from Queen Elizabeth, to consecrate Barlow, no proof that he wanted Consecration ... 71, &c. Mandate, the Words of, [a] matter of style : several instances of the like nature with regard to other Bishops - - 72, &c. Mandate not justly transcrib'd by Rymer - - 76, &c. Morinus proves that the Imposition of hands is the only essen- tial Matter of the Sacrament of Orders - - 94 N. — Neal [said to have been] sent by Boner, to forbid Kitchin of Landaff to consecrate Parker - - - 43 Neal makes [rather, said to make] Scory to be Parker's Consecrator 44 Nag's-head story false - - - - 57 Neal, a Man of no note0 - - - - ib. O. — Ordinal [the Anglican] first publish'd in 1549 - - 32 Objections raised against the Record of Parker's Ordination - 46 Objections of this kind answer'd ... 46, &c. Order that English Bishops be made [rather, Order of proceeding for making Anglican Bishops] - - 63, 64 Ordinal [the] new was drawn up by Bishops and Divines, and not by any secular authority ... 186, &c. [c Merely Bonner's Chaplain, Rector of in Sep. 1566, of receiving her especially Thentbrth, Regius Professor of Hebrew in marked thanks. For further particulars the University of Oxford from 1558* to respecting him, see Wood's Athena? Oxoni- 1569, and an author and Orientalist of enses, p. 576, Ed. Bliss, and Dodd's Church distinction; who had also the honour, on History, vol. 2, p. 109 a. See also the Edi- the occasion of the Queen's visit to Oxford tor's note to p. 43 B 1 of the present Work.] [• The Council wrote Jan. 16. 155§, to the Dean and Chapter of Christ-Church, "to pay to him " all such money as was due to him for the reading of the said lecture, and to continue the payment " thereof until they should receive further order from thence." Strype's Annals, vol. 1. p. 34.) Mr. Williams's Index. 373 P. — Parker's Ordination, the history of it - - 39, &c. Pole the Cardinal, died a few hours after Queen Mary - 39 Parker's Consecration, when perform'd - - 41 Parker not reproach'd with want of Consecration in his life- time - , v.-' - - - 46 Parker's Ordination not to be tax'd without destroying all Records - - - - 49 Proofs for want of positive, the adversaries have recourse to lies - - - - - - 53 Pool of Peterborough, not deposed until after the date of Parker's first Commission - - - - 56 Publick Instruments prove nothing against Barlow - 69 Parker consecrated eleven Bishops and confirm'd two [the first year of his own Consecration] - - -78 Parker's Consecration : [the] Bishops of Chichester, Hereford, the Suffragan Bishop of Bedford, and Miles Coverdale, laid their hands on him, and said in English, Take the Holy Ghost - - - - - 99, 100 Parker's Ordination ought to be judg'd valid - - 105 Parliament declared all persons ordain'd according to King Edward's Form, were truly Bishops - -116, 117 Parliament in 1566 made a solemn Declaration, that Horn and his Colleagues were truly Bishops, and legally ordain'd - 130, 131 Parker ordain'd Priest according to the Roman Pontifical before Episcopal Consecration - - - 227 R. — Reformation began in 1533 - - - 31 Rebellion against Charles I. destroy'd the [order of things established at the] Reformation - - - 33 Revolution destroy'd [the Anglican] Church Government in Scotland ... #6 Reformation, the Scots, must not be confounded with the English - - - - - 36, 37 Registers of Parker's Consecration kept at Lambeth, and at Corpus Christi College at Cambridge - - 41 Record of Parker's Investiture in Rymer - - 44 Reasons to prove our Records genuine - - 49 Registers always the same, tho' quoted differently by mistake - 51, 52 Refuge [" Resource"] the last in favour of the fable answer'd - 55, &c. Recapitulation of the whole Treatise in the last Chapter - 293, &c. S. — Scory, one that confirm'd Parker - - 40,41 Scory, one of Parker's Consecrators - - - 41 ••374 Mr. Williams's Index. Seory made Parker's principal Consecrator by Neal [rather, according to the story attributed to Neal] - - 44 Sanders says, that Queen Elizabeth had her Bishops consecrated 45 Stapleton's way of reasoning does not imply our Ordination invalid - - - - - 52, 53 Stow's silence, no argument against our Ordination - 53 Stow's testimony of no weight, as [to] the deposition of the Bishops [" because he does not say what they would have him say"] 57 Strype fixes [the date of] Barlow's Consecration - 60 Strype's mistake corrected by the Author - - 61 Strype, a marginal note [of Mr. Williams's] relating to him - ib. Sanders says the ancient Canons were observed in Henry VIII['s] time 66 Silence of Barlow's want of Consecration when accused of heresy, a proof that he was consecrated - - 68 T. — Thurlby depos'd in July 1559 - - - 57 Thorndike's principle to reconcile opposite practices in Ordi- nation ..... 275, &c. V. — Variations among writers about names, no mark of forgery 50 W. — Wake (the present Archbishop)'s answer about our Registers 48, 49 Wharton Henry, an exact writer - - - 59 Wharton's testimony of Barlow's Consecration [Confirmation] - ib. FURTHER NOTES BY THE EDITOR. (Concerning these Notes see p. xiii of the Editor's Introduction). TITLE-PAGE. Justifying] This word is retained by Mr. Williams in its French sense of proving or vouching for. Genevieve] Written also Genevieve: also Genevieve and Genevieve. Mr. Williams's spelling is supported by the Journal des Sgavans (Holland Edition: the present Editor has not seen the French one) and our author's " Relation " Historique et Apologetique des Sentiments et de la Conduite du Pere Le Cou- rayer (An Historical and Apologetic Relation of the Opinions and Conduct of Father Le Courayer), Amst. 1729, in two volumes. Also by Hardouin's answer to the present Work, p. 4 of his Preface ; and Gervaise's ditto, p. 3. Translated into English by Daniel Williams] See the Editor's Introduction, p. iii — xiv. Presbyter Sec] He was one of the Non-juring Clergy. Etsi hominum &c] In Optatus the et is merely copulative. See p. 247. mr. williams's advertisement. With this Advertisement compare pp. iii— xiv, and especially pp. ix — xi, of the Editor's Introduction. MR. WILLIAMS'S PREFACE. In this Preface, only the punctuation, orthography, and use of the capitals, have been corrected. The correction of the punctuation will assist, it is hoped, towards the understanding of a style which at best is anything but clear or correct. Note a. "The Succession &c."] In 8vo. pp. 156 + xx. (See more in the Editor's first foot-note to Mr. Williams's Index, p. 360.) There are copies in the Bodleian, Christ Church, and Exeter College Libraries. Page 6 C (i. e. paragraph 3), line 5. the author of the Nouvelles Litteraires] Father Des-Molets, who reviewed the present Work Dec. 1723. See more in the Editor's Introd., p. xix. 6 C 6. the compiler of the Journal des Sqavans] By publishing favourable Extraits, or Reviews, in Jan. and Feb. 1724. See more in the Editor's Introd., p. xix, xx. 6 C 8. M. 1' Abbe Des Fontaines] In both Mr. Williams's Editions it was printed M. V Abbe Fontaine. The right reading is given by our author in the " Relation &c." : see p. xix, xx of the Editor's Introd. 6 D 2. Father Le Quien] In both Mr. Williams's Editions this name is wrongly given as Le Quin. See more in the Editor's Introd., p. xxiv, xxvi, &c. 7 B 1. this learned gentleman] I. e. Father Le Quien. ii Notes by the Editor. 8, 5. this] I. e. such commendation. 10 A. This statement is confirmed hy our author himself, in his " Relation " 6ic." vol. 1. p. 16, where, referring to what he had said of Mr. Thorndike's system, he writes, "je reformat tout cet endroit dans la traduction Angloise;" / reformed this whole passage in the English translation. Also in his two Letters to M. 1" Abbe Des Fontaines (see p. 6 C 8. and its note), dated Jan. 12. and Feb. 5. 1724, inserted in the Journal des Scjavans the April (in the Holland Edition, the May) following, and reprinted by our author in the "Relation &c." (vol. 2. p. 24 — 35) from (p. 509 seq. of) the Holland Edition, in both of which he explains his meaning as to this part of his Work, denying any intention of adopting Mr. Thorndike's sentiments, and in the first (p. 27, 28), the more entirely to prevent mistake on this head, makes (in substance at least) the same alteration in the title of the 15th chapter as Mr. Williams has given. See more in the Editor's Introd., p. iii — xiv. 10 B 8. and inserted the original at the bottom of the page] This however he or his printer has frequently forgotten to do: leaving to the present Editor the business of transcribing and inserting both these and other more important omissions. See more in the Editor's Introd., p. xii. I.ETTRE DE L AUTEUB AU TRADCCTEUR (p. 11 13). In both Mr. Williams's Editions this Letter was wretchedly printed : — not to insist on the orthography, or the superfluous and omitted accents, there were no less than nine grammatical blunders, one of which affected the sense also. At the end of our author's Defence of his present Work, he has himself published a more correct copy, which has been followed in the present Edition wherever its readings appeared preferable. Not however that the above blunders were of a nature to require the authority of any second copy for their correction; but so it was, that of the above nine, all but one were absent from that copy. — The spelling (which even in this better copy was far from correct) has been rectified, and the accents supplied, according to modern usage, except where the orthography of the " Dissertation" was observed to differ from that usage. From this statement, however, must be excepted the plural terminations in h, which ought on the same principle to have continued to be represented by ez. In the Letter itself, indeed, not the plurals in is only, but both singular and plural nouns in es also, were spelt in both copies with ez ; a mode of orthography found also in other writing's of our author's. TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER (p. 14 16). The translation, besides amending the punctuation, See., has been carefully com- pared and made to agree with the original ; by which, with a few further alter- ations, the style has at the same time been made considerably clearer and more correct. In all, those corrections which contributed (more or less) to accuracy of rendering, and were not made for the sake of the style alone, were little short oififty. For Mr. Williams's renderings " Indeed", p. 14, 11, and "the rabble", p. 14, 22, read " In fact" and "the multitude". — For " the Church of England", p. 15 B 15, and p. 16, 1, read " the Anglican Church " : see the note to p. 17 B 15, &c. In Mr. Williams's Editions the translations and original are printed on opposite Notes by the Editor. iii pages, the former to the left, the latter to the right. This however would not have been convenient in the present Edition. v The real, value of this testimonial, as implying any sort of correctness in either of Mr. Williams's Editions, has been sufficiently explained in the Editor's Preface. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. P. 17 B (i. e. paragraph 2), 1. 6. A Defence cj-c] The title of the posthumous Latin Edition of 1625 (see line 1 1 with the Editor's note) was Vindicice Ecelesice Anglicarus ; that of the preceding English Edition, published at London in 1613, " Of the Consecration of the Bishops in the Church of England :" &c. — From the same author we have also " The Vindication of the Ordination of the Ministers " of the Keformed Churches beyond the Seas" &c. Oxford, 1641. 17 B 11. by one of his friends] Not by one of his friends, but by himself: see the title, and the beginnings both of the Editor's Dedication and of the author's own to the Bp of Paris (which follows one to James I). This enlarged Latin Edition was translated back into English by Lindsay, and so published again in 1728, together with a fac-simile reprint of the Ordination Service of 1549 as printed by Grafton, an English translation of the fragments of Latin letters to our author which make Art. 9 of the Proofs at the end of the present Work, an Index, a Preface including lists of the modern Anglican Succession, foot-notes, and a sermon of the author's. 17 B 15, 18 B 4, &c. &c. the Church of England] Quotations from Anglican writers excepted, read everywhere " the Anglican Church" ; the original having always "T Eglise Anglicane". Even this expression, our author was privately advised by one of his distinguished friends to abstain from, Rel. vol. 1, p. 35 (vol. 2, p. 45, 46) ; while Hardouin (in the 8th leaf of his Preface) declares plainly that he will never say the Anglican Church, " although this author always says " so," but sometimes the Anglican Nation, sometimes the Anglican Sect. 18 C 5. a Work &c] The Editor has not been able to see this Work. 18 C 6. The Doctor, who] Bead " the Doctor who". 19 B 13. De Vera frc] This Work also the Editor has been unable to meet with. 20 B 13. Read (according to a correction at the end of the French Edition), " and peace return, to the advantage of truth and charity." 21, 3. Omit " also", and for " Cromwell ;" read " Cromwell,". 22 B 4. are my vouchers for] Read " answer for". 24 B 1. the reasons that have retarded Sic. See the Editor's Introduction, p. xvii, xviii. 24 C 1. Omit the word " But". MEMOIRE OF RENAUDOT. 25, 1. that the surest way &c] This insertion appears in the French Edition. 25, 8. and is it not known that Queen Elizabeth &c. ?] This story about Creagh, as our author has shewn in book 2. chap. 2. of his Defence of the present Work, (vol. 1. p. 254—261 of the original French, vol. 1. p. 157 — 161 of the English translation) is altogether inconsistent with facts. At the time of Elizabeth's accession the See of Armagh was vacant, Dowdale having died at Notes by the Editor. London, Aug. 10. 1558. The next Roman Catholic Archbishop was Donat O'Teig, who appears to have been consecrated at Rome in February, 1560, but who certainly did not return to England till die latter end of that year, i. e. not till a year after the Consecration of Parker. O'Teig died in 1562, and it was to him that Richard Creagh succeeded as the next Roman Catholic Archbishop, having been consecrated at Rome in the year 1563, i. e. not till the fourth year after the Consecration of Parker. One Roman Catholic account indeed makes it even later, i. e. in 1564, but this appears certainly to be a mistake. His first com- mittal to the Tower, which was on his return from Rome, did not take place till Feb. 22. 1564, i. e. not till the fifth year after the Consecration of Parker. Richard Creagh " died in the year 1585 (as it is said) in the Tower of London, " having been imprisoned there by the State." Ware's Writers of Ireland, B. 7 , p. 97 Ed. Harris, as quoted by Haddan in his invaluable Edition (for the Anglo- Catholic Library) of Bramhali's Consecration Src. of Protestant Bps, p. 47, note e : see also the other authorities there referred to. 25 B 3. For " wished to have him consecrated" read " chosen to be crowned". A DISSERTATION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINATIONS OF THE ENGLISH*, &c. Chapteh I. P. 31 A (i. e. parag. 1). Add as a side-title " Separation of Henry VIII." 31 B. Add as a side-title " Changes in England." 32 and 33. The running title should be : " Historical account of the changes " in the English Ordinations." 32, (note) c. By " Statutes at Large, vol. 1." our author means the Edition of the Statutes at Large to the year 1680, which was published at London in 1681 by John Keble, Esq., of Gray's Inn. 32 B 4. in 1 549] It was ordered by the Parliament which sat from Nov. 4. 1549 to Feb. 1. 15g, in the 12th of the 24 Chapters of that Session, to be drawn up and set forth before the 1st of April following ; and was printed by Grafton in ' March 1549', i. e. before Lady Day 16|§. 32 f. Vol. (or Part) 2. begins with Mary's Reign and lasts to the end of the Work. In part, perhaps, of the Edition, the numbering of the pages was carried straight through. 33 i. History &c] Written by Laud himself: published by Henry Wharton, London, 1693. 33 B 4. in the House of Lords] It passed both Houses, and was presented to the King on Candlemas Day, and, though it did not receive the Royal sanction, was acted on, and is referred to in a subsequent Ordinance of both Houses of the 12th of J une the same year. Collier, vol. 2. p. 822, 823. 33 C 7, and 34 3. Ministers] In the French Prelres. It is clear from the authorities referred to, that what in the Articles of 1561 are called " Ministers" (Spotswood p. 152 — 174), — in those of 1578 — 81 (chap. 4: compare c. 2) •' Pastors, * So this title should be corrected : see p. lxviii. Notes by the Editor. v " Bishops, or Ministers" (Spots, p. 292, comp. p. 291. and Caklerwood, p. 105, OOmp. p. 101), are intended. It may be observed that the Book of Discipline of 1578 — 81 (chap. 2) mentions a 4th Office, viz. that of Doctors (Spots, p. 291. Cald. p. 104), whose especial business was to teacli doctrine " simply, without " such applications as the Ministers use", under which Office were comprehended also Academic teachers : see chap. 5: (Spots, p. 293. Cald. p. 100.) Also that Superintendents, as well as Exhorters and Headers, appear to have been considered as mere temporary Officers, arising out of the necessity of the times: see Spots, p. 158 and 156, and Cald. p. 25, 20. 34, 1. drawn up by John Knox.] In the Commission were named also "Mr. John \Yimani, Mr. John Spotswood, Mr. John Kow, aJohn Willock, and Mr. John Douglas." Caklerwood p. 24. We are told however by Spotswood that "it (the Policy) had been drawn up by John Knox". History &c. p. 173. 34, 2. Election and Ordination] " Election, Examination, and Admission" is the language of the Articles themselves. Spotswood, p. 154. 34 B 2. the power of the Bishops] I. e. of the Superintendents. See p. 33 C. 34 B 13. retained the name of Bishops] They would not, however, allow that " properly taken", the word meant any thing distinct from ordinary Ministers : see the note to p. 33 C 7 and 34. 3, together with chap. 1 1 of the Book of Discipline (Spotswood, p. 299, and Caklerwood, p. 112.) 34 B 15. for the Election of the Ministers] In the document itself (Spots- wood, p. 292. c. 3. § 11, 12) it is called Ordination. 34 B 16. be subject to the Presbytery] " Presbyteries" in the plural is the expression of Spotswood in the passage quoted, " Elderships" that of Caklerwood. Compare the rules for Superintendents in the Book of Discipline of 1561, by which each such Officer is required to " be subject to the censure and correction of the " Ministers and Elders of his Chief Town and whole Province over which he is " appointed." Spotswood, p. 160 ; Caklerwood, p. 27. 35 B 9. the Bishop of Ely] Bishop Andrewes. 35 C 3. In the Assemblies &c] In the Assembly of Glasgow, Nov. 21. 1638 (Collier, vol. 2. p. 784); in the Assembly of Edinburgh, Aug. 12. 1639 ; and in the Parliament, Aug. 31. 1639: (Collier, vol. 2. p. 788.) 36 z. A complete &c.] The full title of this work is "A Complete History of " England, with the Lives of all the Kings and Queens thereof," to the death of William III " by a learned and impartial hand". In three volumes, folio : Lon- don, 1706. 37, 12. having led to no succession] Our author seems not to have been aware of the existence even of that remnant of the Anglican Church in Scotland, which, in spite of the determined opposition of the Presbyterians, has since re- gained so considerable a position among the religious communities of that country. Chapter II. 39, 1. Queen Mary] She died'Nov. 17. 1558. 39 C 4 by way of compromise] See the process of his Election in the Extract from his Register mentioned in the note to p. 41, 3 and 9. Compromise is one a The omission of the " Mr." is pro- preceding words " Mr. John Row," are the bably a mere misprint, the more as the conclusion of a line. vi Notes by the Editor. of the three ways of Election, by which the Chapter appoint one of their number (in Parker's case, the Dean) as their Compromissary, to choose under certain laws and conditions for the whole, they promising jointly to aticept and ratify his Election so made. Life of Parker, p. 52. 40, 2. Barlow] In Rymer, Barlo. 40 B 3. Barlow] In Rymer, Barlowe. 40 B 15. Supplentes frc] Add as a foot-note : — [Translated, p. 136.] 41, 3. in Abp Bramhall's Works] In an Appendix added by the Editor (John Vesey Bp of Limerick, afterwards, i. e. from 1679 to 1716, Abp of Tuam) containing, 1. a long Extract from the Register of the See of Canterbury, occu- pying pp. 1022 — 1050, and 2. a copy of the Cambridge MS. referred to in the following paragraph of the text, occupying (with the certificates of its accuracy) three pages more. The whole is in four " tomes" (Dublin 1674 — 7) but with only one numbering of the pages, the second tome beginning with p. 491, the third with p. 645, the fourth with p. 905. Our author having begun with naming only the page, the same plan has been continued throughout this Edition ; but from this note the reader will easily understand to which vol. any given page belongs. 41 B 4. in Bramhall s Works] I. e. in the Appendix which has just been mentioned. 43 B 1. one named Thomas Bluet] Champney speaks of him as "a venerable " Priest", and " a grave, learned, and sensible man" (" viro gravi, erudito, ac " prudenti"). Cap. xiv. p. 498. Concerning Neal (or Neale), whom our author calls " an officer of Bishop " Bonner's" (compare also p. 44 D. 6, 7 and p. 57 B 10) see the truth in the Editor's foot-note to Mr. Williams's Index (p. 372). — It may be added that Champney (p. 498) appears to have supposed erroneously that he had ceased to be Professor of Hebrew at Oxford at the time in question, speaking of him as "a " most respectable (Iwnestissimo) and most learned man, formerly (olim) Professor " of Hebrew in the University of Oxford, but at the time when these things took " place, of the domestic circle (ex familiaribus) of Bonner Bishop of London." Both Mason (Vind. Eccl. Angl. p. 341) and Bramhall (Works, p. 461) make their adversaries suppose him to have gone up from Oxford for the purpose alleged. According to Wood he was " an able theologist, and admirably well skilled in " the Greek and Hebrew languages" ; but " his religion being more Catholic than " Protestant", and himself "always dreading his being called into question ", he ultimately resigned his Professorship, and " spent the remainder of his days in " study and devotion", — chiefly at Cassington, a village about four miles N.W. of Oxford, where also he caused a brass inscription to be put up for him in the Church, A.D. 1590, being then 71 years of age. From Dodd's Church History, however, we learn that "the Records of the English College at Douay and " Rheims give an account that one Thomas Neal, an ancient Clergyman who had " suffered much in prison in England, arrived at Douay June 1. 1578, and re- " turned again into England Jan. 7. 1580." The opposers of the Nags-head Story, it may be further observed, have been sadly ignorant of the real character and position of Neale; to which ignorance must in charity be attributed the con- temptuous manner in which they have thought proper to speak of him. Since Notes by the Editor. vii however it is altogether improbable either that Neale should have invented and circulated a deliberate falsehood, or that, if he had really related what is alleged, it should not have been noticed publicly, till more than forty years afterwards, the most natural conclusion is, that at the most some statement or observation of Neale's, if not altogether misunderstood at the time, was at all events so incorrectly transmitted afterwards, as in the end to have given rise to the fable in question. 44 B 8 — 10. In the additional Errata given at the end of the Defence of the present Work (which were forgotten at the time of printing this sheet) the author directs the following alterations: 1. For Five more read four more. 2. Omit two on the second of March. 3. For and two read and three. — The reason for omitting the two Bishops consecrated on the second of March is that they belonged to the Province of York, for which same reason they are not mentioned in the Latin Life of Parker given at the end of Strype's Life of him : they were consecrated moreover in loCy, not 15|g. His authority for giving the others as four and three instead of five and two he ought certainly to have given as a note: it is however the Register itself b ; and the origin of the mistake the Table which is mentioned p. 78, and which misled Strype. — It may be added that the four Bishops consecrated Jan. 21 were Jewel, Bullingham, Young, and Davies ; the three consecrated Mar. 24, Gest, Bentham, and Barcley. 44 B 12 and 15- false] I. e. forged, counterfeit, as indeed it might as well have been rendered. And so in several other places. 44 B 15. public] Read " the public". 44 D 6. unknown persons] See the note to p. 43 B 1 . 47 C 5. three whereof] Read " two whereof", according to the additional Errata at the end of the Defence of the present Work. 48 B 7. The Abp of Canterbury] Dr. Wake. 51 D 2. Bramhall] Not Bramhall himself, but his Editor after his death. See the note to p. 41, 3. 52 D 1 1 . Of Stapleton Bramhall says : " We look upon Dr. Stapleton as one of " the most rational heads that your Church hath had since the separation." P. 464. 53 u. Quis nescit, &c] This Latin (given by our author in the text) was omitted by Williams. 53 B 7. says he] Our author must not be understood as quoting the exact ex- pressions of Champney. His words are : " Hujus vero silentii, omnibus bene " ponderatis, alia probabilis ratio allegari nequit, nisi quia odium et indignationem, " veritatem dicendo, sibi parere timuerit." But of this silence, all things well weighed, no other probable account can be given, than that he was afraid to bring upon himself hatred and indignation by telling the truth. 54, 12. by Parker] In the passage cited, Stow does not say who consecrated Grindal. 57 B 10. an unknown person like Neal] Compare p. 43 B. 1,2 and 44 D. 6, 7 ; but see the truth in the Editor's foot-notes to Mr. Williams's Index (p. 372). 11 For this and other kind information Library Edition of Bramhall's Works, who the present Editor is indebted to the Rev. has certainly spared no pains in the ex- A. W. Haddan, M.A. Fellow and Tutor animation as well of original documents as of Trin. Coll. Oxford, the learned and in- of every other source of historical know- defatigahle Editor of the Anglo-Catholic ledge. viii Notes by the Editor. Chaptbb III. 59 D 7. For " really" read ", it is true,". 60 B 4. there are many others] Mason, in the passage referred to, speaks only of Gardiner. See however the Editor's Preface to vol. 3 of the Anglo- Catholic Library Edition of Bramhall's Works. 60 B 14. Suffragan Bishop of Lincoln] It should have been " Suffragan to the " Bishop of Lincoln", as Strype has it. (See the note to p. 72 D 4.) 60 B 15. in 1541] This is altogether a mistake, into which our author has inadvertently followed Strype, although Strype himself is corrected by Wharton in p. 258 of the Appendix to Strype's Work itself. Robert King, " first a monk " of Rewley, a Priory without Oxford, of the Cistercian order, — then Abbot of " Bruerne in Oxfordshire, — after Abbot of Thame, of which he was also called " Bishop, — and lastly of Osney" (Strype p. 95), was indeed made the first Bishop of Oxford in the year 1542 (not 1541), but being already Suffragan to the Bishop of Lincoln (ibid.), had of course been consecrated before ; and not only so, but the Bishopric of Oxford being one of the new foundations, it appears that he was not required even to be confirmed, but was simply put into possession by the same Royal Letters Patent by which the See itself was created, which Letters Patent, bearing date Sep. 1. 1542, are given iu Rymer (vol. 14. p. 754). In these he is called " Episcopus Rovensis", a mistake, apparently, for Bovensis, by which title he is mentioned in Wharton's list (see the note to p. 72 D 4), unless the reader should prefer translating " a roving Bishop" .' Strype in the place quoted calls him " Titular Bishop Reonen[sisy, and in p. 37 says that he resigned Osney and Thame under that title ; having however stated previously (p. 3(5, where he refers to the Register of Abp Courtney), that while Abbot of Osney he " was consecrated " Titular Bishop, and called Episcopus Roannensis, a See in the Province of the " Archbishopric of Athens". So Godwin : " Dum illi (Osneiensi) Coeuobio Abbas " praeesset, umbratilem Episcopatum adeptus, Archiepiscopo Atheniensi (si diis " placet) Suffraganeus in Episcopum consecratus fuerat". Whilst he presided as Abbot over that Abbey (the Abbey of Osney) having obtained a shadowy Bishopric, he had been, consecrated Bishop as a Suffragan (if it please the gods) to the Arch- bishop of Athens. De Praesulibus Angliae, p. 587. He died in 1557 (Strype, p. 95). — Compare the note to p. 72 D 4. 61 C 4. and 62, 7. on the twenty-sixth of September 1535] This is a mis- take. Strype in the page referred to dates the Act of Confirmation and Elec- tion of Fox and Barlow on the 15th of Sept.c, but with respect to their Consecra- tion says only, that it was " not inserted in the Register". c Strype himself in the Preface to vol. 3 of his Annals, where he notices both our author's correction and Mr. Williams's attack (p. 61, note /), denies that he has united Fox and Barlow under one date, but it is impossible for any man of common sense to read the passage, even as he has himself si/eulli/ altered the punctuation and type in copying it (": And" instead of " , and", as it really stood), and question for a moment what his words at least ought to mean. It may be added that a misprint in both Mr. Williams's Editions, viz. the want of a stop between " dispas- sionate author" and " D. W.", led Strype (apparently) to suppose that the criticism in the text was Mr. Williams's own, and the note some other person's. — Also, that Sep. 15 is the right date for the Confirmation and Sep. 26 for the Consecration of Fox, as appears in the former case from the Archiepiscopal, in the latter from the Dio- cesan Register. Notes by the Editor. 62 B 11. That it' any *vc ] This passage is given in Latin by our author, who nevertheless refers to the same page of the Statutes at Large from which it is here printed in English. 63 B 1. In short,] This connecting phrase does not seem very suitable ; but as it is not till the following words " it is an indisputable fact, &c." that the pub- lished French of Courayer is resumed, the natural presumption is that the words " In short,'' are translated (like the preceding paragraph) from the private correc- tions Mr. Williams professes to have received from the author ; and as he has not furnished us with his French original, we have no alternative but to leave his translation as we find it, however small our confidence in its correctness. 63 C 5. The Dean of the Arches never confirms &c] This will be best ex- plained by the passage immediately preceding this present quotation, a passage well worth transcribing on its own account : — " The first thing necessary to obtain a Bishoprick in England is the King's " Congi deslire : that appears in the Bolls. Next the actual Election : that " appears in the Records of the Dean and Chapter. Thirdly, the King's Accept- ation of the Election, and his Commission to the Archbishop, or four Bishops " in the vacancy, to confirm the Election, and consecrate the person elected and " confirmed legally : that appears in the Letters Patents enrolled. Fourthly, the " Confirmation of the Election before the Dean of the Arches, but by the Arch- " bishop's appointment : (this is performed always in Bow Church, except extra- " ordinarily it he performed elsewhere by Commission:) this appears in the "Records of the Archbishop. Fifthly, the Consecration it self by the Archbishop " and other Bishops, or other Bishops without him by virtue of his Commission : " this appears in the Records of the Protonotary of the See of Canterbury. Lastly, "the Restitution of the Temporalities'1, which appears in the Rolls, and his " Enthronisation, in the Records of the Dean and Chapter. Every one of these " takes another by the hand, and he who will enjoy a Bishoprick in England must "have them all." Bramhall, pp. 481, 482. 64, 13. Daniel Pulteney, Esq.] He was cousin to the celebrated statesman William Pulteney, who in July 1742 was created Baron of Heydon, Viscount Pulteney, and Earl of Bath. In the beginning of the reign of George II. he was (under his cousin) a leading member of the Whig part of the Opposition which finally drove Walpole from the helm. William Pulteney having died without issue July 7. 1764, Daniel's daughter's daughter (whose father had in the mean time succeeded to the Scotch Baronetage of his family) was afterwards " created " Baroness Pulteney, July 21st, 1791, and Countess of Bath, Oct. 4th, 1803. But " [she too] dying without issue in July 1808, the titles again became extinct." Collins's Peerage, vol. V. 657, and IX. 414. 65,1. Mason adds] From " the Journal Book." He states also that in the same Book he is mentioned, and was therefore consecrated, before the Bishop of St. Asaph : (see the next paragraph.) Compare the Parliamentary Writ given in the Appendix, Art. VIII. No. 4. (p. 341.) 65 z, col. 2. Read " before him, the present Editor has felt"]. 65 c. See p. 355, 356. 66, 20. After " canonum" add, [" in imitation of the ancient canons"]. rt In the Anglo-Catholic Library Edition (vol. 3, p. 157) Temporalties. X Notes by the Editor. Chapter IV. 70 C 1. But, says Champney, &c] These must not be understood to be Champney's own expressions, at least not in the passage referred to. 72 D 4. and of {omit of) Sidon.] Before the Act (26 Henry VIII. c. 14) for appointing twenty-six Suffragans in the several Dioceses of England and Wales which mentions itself that such had before " been accustomed to be had", the titles of such Suffragan or Titular Bishops were almost always nominal, such as those now conferred by the Church of Rome. A few of these previous Suffragans are enumerated in Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, p. 36, 37, as corrected by Wharton in the Appendix, p. 255 — 258 e, viz. 1. Underwood, Suffragan in Nor- wich, about 1531. 2. Thomas Wellys, Prior of St. Gregory's by Canterbury, Bishop of Sidon, and Suffragan to Abp Warham. He was Suffragan at the opening of St. Dunstan's tomb in April 1508, and survived the year 1511. 3. Christopher Bishop of Sidon, who, according to Strype assisted Cranmer in Ordinations, but according to Wharton "was not Suffragan to the Abps of "Canterbury"'. 4. Thomas Bishop of Sidon, and Suffragan to the Bishop of London, in the time of Cranmer. — As for William Bottlesham,a Episcopns Nava- " tensis", who was at the Convocation in 1382, the word Nacalensis is, it seems, a mere blunder for Landavensis, — or perhaps, which is the same thing (see the Life of Parker, App. p. 154), Tarensis. 5. Hubert King, concerning whom see the note to p. 60 B 15. 6. John Hatton, " Episcopus Negropont." 7. John Thorntons, Prior of Dover, "Episcopns Syrinensis", and Suffragan to Abp Warham, in whose time he died. He was the last of the seven Suffragans of the Diocese of Canterbury consecrated before Cranmer's time. 8. A " Bishop " of Hipp ditaiinmh", who assisted Abp Cranmer at his Ordinations. 9. Richard Martin, Guardian of the Grey Friars at Canterbury, ice, who in his Will, dated 1498, styles himself" Bishop of the Universal Church". — These however are but a few out of many. A copious and regular catalogue from Wharton's MSS is printed (after some other papers on the subject) in vol. 6 of Nichols's Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica. — Even the Henrician Suffragans were neither required?, nor made it a practice, until after the second Act on the subject, to take their titles from the particular Diocese in which they were to officiate, but only from some one of the 26 towns named by Parliament. See Wharton's note in Strype's Appendix, p. 256. 74 C 6. as the author of Whitgift's Life observes] This is a mistake : Strype (on the page referred to) records the fact of the Confirmation, but without note or comment. e See note g below. ' This Christopher does not appear to be contained in Wharton's list (see the latter part of the note). g In p. Ill, 120, 121, 304, and other places, — although not in p. 62, — Strype has confounded this John Thornton with Richard Thornden, Monk of Christ Ch -rch, Canterbury, who at the dissolution of that Monastery in 1539 or 15-10, was made first Prebendary of the College of Secular Canons substituted for it, and soon after succeeded Richard Yngworth (consecrated Dec. 1537) as second Henrician Suffragan of the Diocese, and Bishop of Dover, in which office he continued till his death, in the last year of Mary. See Wharton's Observations on Strype's Memorials, com- municated to and published by Strype himself, Appendix, p. 258 : compare also p. 255 and 257. h Which according to 'Wharton is Hippo, but Cranmer's Register appears to have Johannes Opolitanensis. Notes by the Editor. xi 77 C 2. whom some believe to have been Parker himself] " The probability " seems to be, that the actual composition of the book was the work of John " Jocelyn the Archbishop's Secretary, the collections for it being- made by Jocelyn, " Dr. Yale (the Abp's Chancellor), Ackworth (Public Orator at Cambridge, and " Chancellor of Winchester, but afterwards one of the Abp's antiquaries), and " others, the whole being carried on under the superintendence of the Abp, and " the book printed at Lambeth, although with the types of Day the Queen's " printer." Haddan, note d to p. 12 of the Anglo-Catholic Library Edition of Brainhall's Consecration of Protestant Bishops ; where may be seen also references to the authorities for both sides of the question. 77 C 3. was published first at London in the year 1572.] Properly speaking it was not published at all, having been printed for private circulation only, at the Abp's press at Lambeth in the years 1572, 3, 4, and with great variety in the different copies, which according to Baud (who writes in Ki03) were only fifty: in Drake's time (1729) only 21 were to be found (see the present Editor's Introd. p. xxxvii). It was reprinted at Hanau {Hanoi-ice) in 1605, from the worst and most defective copy, says Drake, of all he had examined. In 1729 it was edited with great care and in a very handsome form by Drake himself (Sam. Drake, D.D. Fellow of St. John's Coll. Camb., and Rector of Treeton, Yorkshire. See more in Haddan's note c to p. 11 of the above Work, on which page, how- ever, his side-note [Hanover.] should be [Hanau.]. 78, 2 with note o.] Concerning this extract see the note to p. 44 B 8 — 10. 80 k. Champney's next words however are " nisi forsan melius ac verius dice- " remus, neque etiam istos tunc consecratos fuisse, quod plus veritatis in se videtur " habere ": unless perhaps it would be better and truer to say, that not these either had then been consecrated, which seems to have more truth in it. 81 B 22. in Episcopum ibidem Electi] In the French, and in both Mr. Williams's Editions, it is printed Electum. 82, 1. Assaeensis] For this Mr. Williams has Menevensis, which is clearly wrong. 82 a. The instances given by the author, together with those which the Editor has added within brackets, are (if he mistakes not) all the Instruments of Inves- titure which occur between p. 487 and p. 716. 83 B 11. If the thing was unknown] I. e. his Consecration. 84 b. For "vol. 1. Appendix, p. 287. [p. 184. Ed. 1721,] and" read "vol. 1, " p. 287 and Appendix, p. 184, 5 (Ed. 1721). Also". 85 B 14. a learned Englishman] Archbishop Wake. 85 C 9. and that one] Omit that. Chapter V. 86 D. For the side-title " Neal's story." read " Neale's alleged story." Chapter VI. 94, 15. Durandus.] Or Durantus. So in Martene and the Bodleian Catalogue. 94 B 3. among the Greeks] To these words should have been added (toge- ther with the present Editor's addition in brackets at the end), the following foot- note of Mr. Williams's, which is found only in his Second Edition (compare his Advertisement, p. 2) : — c c xii Notes by the Editor. This passage is otherwise printed in the original than it is here translated : it is in the original que ehez les Grees, " hut among the Greeks" : whereas the word que is not in the author's MSS. and the fault was the printer's, as the author has been pleased to signify to me in a letter dated June 3. 1724. D. \V. [Besides the omission of que, the author afterwards (in the year 172S), in the additional Errata given at the end of his Defence of his present Work (vol. 4, p. ccxxxiii) directed the word point to be inserted after n'a in the preceding words et n'a ete en usaye ; a correction however which concerns only the style. Ed.] 95 g. Neque in hoc scandalizamur] These words, which our author here joins with what follows after, — in the quotation on p. 97, he has attached to what goes before. It must be observed, however, that what follows after is but a kind of paraphrase of what goes before ; so that what applies to one applies to the other also, and that these words are so suspended between the two, that they may be construed with either or both. 97 1. See the note to p. 95 g. 100, 2. authoritate~\ So our author has rightly corrected the reading of the Cambridge Record, as published by Burnet, and at the end of BramhaU's Works (p. 1051, &c.), viz. antedictii, from the parallel passage of the Record in the Register at Canterbury, which is also published at the end of BramhaU's Works, p. 1044—1047. Chapteb VII. 108 B 17 — 19. "or in public — omitted", and in note c, col. 2, 1. 2 — 5 "aut — " soleant"] This has been inserted from Morinus, instead of the marks of omis- sion which our author and Mr. Williams had given . 110 C — 112 A. The quotations from the Anglican Ordinal are given by Mr. Williams from Grafton's Edition of 1549, retaining tile old spelling and form of the words. In the present Edition the Edition of Cardwell has been followed. See however the notes to the Appendix, Art. III. Our author himself has quoted from a Latin translation of the last revision, which he says differs only in style, but which in reality differs sufficiently to remove some of the grounds on which he builds, although not to overthrow, his argument. 110 C 10. In which is inserted this prayer] This is true of the present Anglican Ordination Service, in which we have the words now to " be admitted to the Order of Deacons [or Priests']", but not of that of Edward VI., in which we find (for Deacons and Priests alike), " That it may please Thee to bless these men, " and send Thy grace upon them, that they may duly execute the Office now to " be committed unto them, to the edifying of Thy Church, and to Thy honour, " praise, and glory." 111, 15. the salvation of mankind] In Mr. Williams's Editions (see the note to p. 110 C — 112 A), "the salvacion of maukyndes." 111 B 15. "whether they will be faithful Sec."] This question occurs in the present Anglican Ordinal, but not in that of Edward VI. Compare the note top. 110 C 10. 112, 13. the Book of the Gospels] This is a mere mistake. Read " the Bible ". I The MS itself, however, has rightly auc'le. Notes by the Editor. xiii 113, 6. (compare note i). Accipe $-c] The words omitted after Accipe Spiritum Sanctum are " quam formam esse dicimus", which we say is the form. Chapter YIII. 116 C 3. He returned no other answer] Our author means only that this was the turning point of his defence: for this was hy no means his only allegation, see (besides p. 117 C) Strype's Annals, Chap. 34; vol. 1, pp. 377—382, Ed. 3 (1735). 119 B 18. For although he] Feckenham, late Abbot of Westminster, who according to Stapletou had partly from politeness and partly from prudence so addressed Horn. 120 C 4. In 1549] See the note to p. 32 B 4. 120 C 14. almost entire] Our author uses the word Statute for any Ordinance of Parliament, though it be not a whole Act. So what he has given here (in his own French) is an abridgment of the Fifth Section only (which is all that con- cerns the present question) of an Act consisting of six. In the present Edition, however, the Fifth Section is given entire, as being much inure sa lis factory to the English reader. Mr. Williams had given it with the exception of two short omissions ; but as the second of these (like the author's abridgment) altered in some degree the sense of the Act itself, it appeared decidedly best to give the whole. 120 k. This &c] In the text Courayer had given them in his own language. The words " [See the Editor's notes.]" may be erased. Having been obliged (see the note to 120 C 14) to give this Statute entire in the text, the Editor had thought of only referring to it in the Appendix, but this not having been adhered to, the words in question have become unnecessary. 122, 10. It is as follows:] " Le voici en Francois." The author had given as before a French abridgment of the first three Sections of the Act, which are all that concern the present question, the remaining twenty-four indeed relating chiefly to the punishment of offenders. In this extract the abridged form has been retained in the present Edition, but given rather more fully, and in the words of the Statute itself. • 123 B 5. this new Statute] See the notes to p. 120 C 14 and p. 122 10. Here again the abridgment has been made rather more full, especially in the Fifth Section, in order to give the substance in the words of the Act, which was not en- tirely the case in Mr. Williams's Editions. 125, 21. " The King's most excellent &c."] This abridgment is given (for the same reasons as before: see the notes to p. 120 C 14, &e.) in a fuller form than either in the French original or in Mr. Williams's translation. 126, 5. This business, he says, &c.] This passage is printed in the French in italics, and in Mr. Williams's translation with express quotation marks. It is not however a quotation, but only the substance of what Dr. Heylin says. 126 B 5. it was declared] It must be allowed that the Act rather implies than plainly states all this. 127 B 5. and everything therein contained, relating &c.] The words of the Act are " with the Order of Service, &c." (Sect. II. § 2.) which comes to the same thing. 128, 17. for making Bishops &c] This Act (1 Ed. 6. c. 2.), scandalous as it c c 2 XIV Notes by the Editor. was, did not pretend to do away with Consecration, but only with Election and Confirmation, as is clear from the Act itself. Stat, at Large, vol. 1. p. 623. 131, 15. Which favour was indulged . . .] The omitted words are "unto " them of the Laity". 131 B 8. Evesqes] Read Evesques. 132 h. After " lease." add : See also p. 362. 132, 2. liera le successour] In the Edition of 1604 lyera le successor. But see also p. 362. 132, 4. dimissionis,~] The Edition of 1604 omits the comma. But see also p. 362. 132, 5. " B."] I. e. " Brooke," : see more in the note to p. 362 C 5. 132, 11 with note j. "The Controversy of Ordination <§-c." by (Thomas) Ward, (London, 1719, posthumous,) was written in answer to Burnet's Work on the subject. Ward was also author of a poem, with notes, intitled " England's " Reformation ". 132, 12. It is said &c.] Here Ward evidently translates from Champney's Latin : in the notes to his " England's Reformation", Canto IV, p. 334, he has translated the whole decision in more literal accordance with the French. He professes however to follow Champney, while yet by using the following words he makes Champney's mis-statement even worse than it was of itself: — " He [i. e. " Champney] quotes Brook's Novel Cases, Placito 463. fol. 101. Printed in the " year 1604. By Thomas Wright with Privilege." 133, 26 — 30. This Work — was not unknow n to Champney, for he quotes it] It is from this extract that he has given the Latin passage printed on the preceding page, as appears from the figures he gives in the margin, " placito 463, fol. 101", though he falsely passes it off as Brooke's own Work: " Brokus in Casibus No- " vellis, placito 463, fol. 101." (Brooke in his Novel Cases, decision 463, fol. 101.) adding this note ; " Iste liber denuo impressus fuit Londini cum Privilegio anno " 1604." (This book was reprinted at London with Privilege in the year 1604.) Whence Ward (see above) in the place referred to (see p. 132, 11 with note j, improving the falsehood, quotes as follows : " Of those made in King Edward's " time, Brook, in his Novel Cases, printed cum Privilegio, anno 1604, writes thus: " It is said, #-e." 133 m. It was from this very Work, Sec] This appears clearly from his own marginal reference: see the note to p. 133, 26 — 30. 133,31. in ascribing to the Judges of Elizabeth's time] Champney's whole passage is as follows: "Judices Regni, sub ipsamet Elizabetha Regina, Ordi- " nationes Episcoporum factas sub Edvardo adeo in dubium vocarunt, ut eas nullas " fuisse existimasse videantur. Ista enim quidam eorum in libro de Casibus Juris " scribit. Dicitur tire." The Judges of the Kingdom, under Queen Elizabeth herself, so called in question the Ordinations of the Bishops made under Edward, that they seem to have regarded them as null. For thus does oxe of them write in his Book on Cases of Law . ' It is said &c.' De Vocatione Ministrorum, c. 13, p. 432. 134, 1. le Roy~\ In this dialect of French le often stands for du i. e. de le. 134, 2 and 3. Read " Abridgement" and " titles : mes icy". Notes by the Editor. xv 134 C 5 and 135 4. other beneficed persons] In the Act Deans only are mentioned. In the second passage Mr. Williams has translated " Deans". 136 s. et] Kead"ac". 136 B 21. And further £c] This abridgment is given as before (see the notes to p. 120 C 14, &o.) in the words of the Statute itself. 137 B 16. and declares positively] Bramhall seems rather to imply than to declare it positively in the passage referred to. 140 B 7. was never observed with so much exactness] "hath been — done — with as great a care—, or rather more". 8 Eliz. c. 1. § 2. (Stat, at large, p. 816). Chapter IX. 141 B 2. and the Formulary of Ordination] Barlow was on the Commission for reforming the Prayer-book, but it does not appear that he had anything to do with the drawing up of the new Form of Ordination. See more in the note to p. 143 D 10. 142, 4. that Consecration is not necessary, &c] " In the New Testament, he " that is appointed to be a Bishop, or a Priest, needeth no Consecration by the " Scripture, for election or appointing thereto is sufficient." Such was Cranmer's opinion. Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. 1. Appendix, p. 228. "The Bp of St. David's " saith, That only the appointing." (is sufficient). Such was Barlow's opinion. Ibid. p. 230. 142, 5. The thirteenth and fourteenth] Mr. Williams had given the 13th question in full from Burnet, and taken no notice at all of what came from the 14th. In the present Edition Courayer's abridgment has been preserved, but the 13th question added in full at the foot of the page; the 14th (as noted in the same place) is given in full in the text of p. 145. 142, 8. appoint Priests and Bishops] In the 13th question, which is the one that relates to the case of conquest, Bishops are not distinctly mentioned : see note d. 142, 10. Menevensis, #-c] Part of the 13th question (as may be seen at the foot of the page) was, whether in the case supposed the Prince and temporal men with him, being learned, might " preach and teach the word of God there or no ?" The administration of Sacraments, except that of Orders, was not mentioned; so that this additional Erastianism on the part of Barlow and his friends, of allowing the King and his learned men, " the power of administering the Sacraments " generally, was altogether uncalled for. 142, 20. of Sacraments having virtue] The question was : " What is found " in Scripture of the matter, nature, effect, and virtue of such as we call the seven "Sacraments ; so as although the name be not there, yet whether the thing be in " Scripture or no, and in what wise spoken of?" 143 B 7. among others] I. e. among other persons. The plural however must not be taken strictly, — as besides " one Talley", who " preached before the "Bishop of St. David's [Barlow himself] this doctrine among other things, viz. " ' That in times past there was none that did preach or declare the word of God " ' truly, nor the truth was never known till now of late' " (Collier in the place referred to, viz. Eccl. Hist. vol. 2, p. 135, col. 2), it does not appear that any other was accused together with Barlow of maintaining heresy. The Articles against XVI Notes by the Editor. Barlow and Talley were exhibited Jan. 11. 1536 (i. e. 15.3?), their sermons preached Nov. 12 and 19, 1536. Against Barlow's sermon four, against Talley's three items were objected. — See Collier ubi supra, and Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. 1. p. 287, 8 and Appendix p. 184, 5, Ed. 1721, — both already referred to : see p. 84 B with note b as corrected in these Notes. 143 D 10. Heylin (Hist. Ref. p. 57, 58) gives a much shorter list, consisting only of the Abp of Canterbury and the last six Bishops, and the six other Divines, and expresses a strong opinion (p. 82, 83) that these same, omitting Day, Bp of Chichester, were the twelve appointed to draw up the new Form of Ordination. But if Burnet is right in saying that Heath, Bp of Worcester, was one of these, and was called before the Council Feb. 8, 1520, and committed to the Fleet Mar. 4 for refusing to sign what the rest had agreed to (vol. 2. p. 143), Heylin must be mistaken in this opinion. And this is the less improbable, because the only reason he assigns is the coincidence of the numbers. The cause of Heylin's giving a shorter list appears to have been an error in transcribing, viz. that of omitting the Abp of York and the next ten Bps (which might perhaps make an even number of lines) all at once. Collier, to whom also our author refers, repeats Burnet's list with this observation : " The learned Bp " Burnet from a manuscript of Dr Stillingfleet gives a different list, on which " we ought rather to rely, for Heylin speaks only upon conjecture". Heylin is no doubt wrong, but it does not appear, from his own expressions at least, that he " speaks only upon conjecture" ; as he gives his opinion, not as to who the Com- missioners were, but only as to whether it was these same who revised the Com- munion Office before the revision of the Church Service generally. Concerning this latter point Burnet makes no doubt : see vol. 2. p. 64. 143 D 11. London] In both Mr. Williams's Editions Lincoln. 144, 2. Taylor] In Collier, " Taylor or Tyler". 144, 3 — 5. and a part — Liturgy] This clause has been corrected according to the additional Errata given at the end of our author's Defence of his present Work, where also he adds " V. p. 255." which (altering the figure) might have made a foot-note, could it have been known then that p. 187 of the present Edition would correspond to p. 255 of the French. See more in the Editor's note to p. 143 D 10. 144 B 11. nor do I find any one scarcely] Barlow, and apparently Barlow only, agreed with Cranmer. 145, 16. ut prills'] In the answers to the 13th question, where they say of laymen in such a case, " That not only they might, but they ought to teach". Burnet, vol. 1 . Records, p. 234. 146 C 3. " In Cranmer's paper",] It has been thought best, to give this passage in full, as Mr. Williams had done, rather than its substance as given by Courayer, who seems to have understood it not altogether correctly. 147, 9. in some writings &c] The declaration to which Courayer refers is signed by the Lord Cromwell, the two Archbishops, eleven Bishops, and a good many others ; but as its date was 1537 or 1538, i. e. two or three years earlier than that of the above answers, it cannot be regarded as of much weight in the present question. Further particulars concerning it will be found in Burnet's Hist. vol. 1. p. 365—367. Notes by the Editor. xvii 151 B 14. In fact, if the invocation &c] Elsewhere (p. 155 B) he is more cautions, speaking of Baptism and the Eucharist as Sacraments " whose matter " and form have been determined by Jesus Christ", though he thinks it is perhaps true that the forms even of these may be altered, and that by particular Churches. Chapter X. 156 B 7. John the Faster] In the French Jean le Jeuneur : in both Mr. Williams's Editions John the younger! 156 C 5. that though we see] In both Mr. Williams's Editions " it is asto- nishing to observe". 160 B 10. she may continue in] In both Mr. Williams's Editions " she ovght to maintain". This is not the only instance in which Mr. Williams has made his author speak in a style less accordant with the principles of the Church of Rome than the original warrants. With a similar feeling, no doubt, in his own mind, he has inserted the word Roman before Catholic, not indeed regularly, for there is nothing of the nature of regularity in his whole translation, but in a good many places. To a member, however, of the Church of Rome, which our author was, Catholic and Roman Catholic are one and the same thing. 167 C 1. But a still stronger proof — is] This is not quite logical. It should rather have been " But a still more satisfactory answer to the objection is". 167,1. ult. — 168, 2 Quare — permissam.~] Add, ["Wherefore it seems that we " must say altogether that the determination of these things has been left to the " decision of the Church."] 169, 2 and 3. a Latin — a Greek — of which he was a member ?] The astonish- ing Mr. Williams, in both Editions, translates this : " the Latin [Church] — the " Greek Church — whereof she is a member;"! The Latin or Greek Church a member of a nation or province ! ! ! 170 B 17. every thing persuades us] In both Mr. Williams's Editions, " we " are all persuaded". In the French, "tout nous persuade"! 170, 1. penult, and 171, 1. For as Father Alexander 8cc.] Father Alexander speaks only of additions. 171,2—5. Additio — Veritas.] Add, [" The addition of words which corrupt " the due sense of the Sacramental form destroys the reality of the Sacrament;... " But if an addition of that kind be made, which does not take away the due " sense, the reality of the Sacrament is not destroyed."] 171, 8 — 14. Quamvis — Cap. 25.] Add, ["Although further anything be " added contrary to the truth of the faith, yet if it does not affect the form, and docs " not overflow upon it, or vary its sense, it does not destroy the reality of the " Sacrament.... But that prayers containing heresy do not render the Sacrament " null, when they are adjoined to the Sacramental form, and yet do not affect or " corrupt it, St Augustine teaches, Book 6, Concerning Baptism, against the " Donatists, Chap. 25."] 171 B 2. by inattention, or by fraud] An error of Mr. Williams's which has beeu overlooked : — read, " by inattention or oversight,". 171 B 10. After sensum insert, [" the due sense of the Sacramental form"]. 171 C 8. "The emendation &c."] This passage was left in the Latin by Mr. Williams. xviii Notes by tlie Editor. 172, 25. namely — generally] The present Editor has thought it hest to insert these words themselves, rather than a n.ere mark of omission, as our author has done. 172 h. part 2. de Ordine, qu. 4. p. 233] In Mr. Williams's Editions " ubi " supra". 173 E 5 — 7. the possession of &c] Read, "the possession and practice " which the heretical Churches have had of composing — raised against tht-in w ith '■ regard to the validity" &c. 175 C 8. the great Collection] In both Mr. Williams's Editions " the Greek " Collection". 176 E 4. which do not fail to deserve some attention] In both Mr. Williams's Editions "which do not deserve the same attention"! 177, 3. Thy holy Disciples and Apostles] I. e. Thy Apostles to whom the name of Thy Disciples was also in an especial sense given : roh ayiois 5ou anooTi- \ois teal /ict07)Tais, in which the single article shews that both terms apply to the same thing. 177, 12. if people have not thought themselves bound] In both Mr. Williams's Editions " if one is not confined ", though it is an historical fact that is spoken of. 178, 1. But even though this were not an agreed point] Instead of this Mr. Williams has in his First Edition " But when this does not appear", in his Second " But though this should not appear". 184 B 16. the Sacramental stamp] Called by theologians, the character. Chapter XI. 188 B 5. that such is the practice &c] I. e. that they did but follow the practice &c. 188 C 22. any manner spiritual authority] In the language of this date any manner ike. form a kind of adjectives. Compare p. 191 B 17, &c. 191 B 17. all manner her subjects] See the note to p. 191 B 17. 191 B 24. any authority than]. I. e. any other. 191, L ult no other foreign Power] The word foreign must be understood as explanatory of the word other. 192 B 1. For further read farther. 192 B 5. "I thought good &c."] The Works of James I were published both in English and Latin. In the Table of Contents of the English Edition the Apology and Premonition are mentioned as follows : " An Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, first set out Anonymfis, and after- " wards published with the Premonition under His Majesties owne name. P. 247." " A Prsrnonition to all Christian Monarches, Free Princes and States, written " both in English and Latine by his Majestie. 289." Of the above passage the present Editor has given His Majesty's own English: our author had given his Latin, which is as follows: " Visum itaque e re esse, ut hujus jusjurandi Apoloyiam ederem, in qua susci- "piebam probandum, nihil in en conlineri, nisi quod ad obedientiam mere civilem " ac temporalem special, qualis sinnmis Principibus a subditis debetur." Jac. I. Opp., p. 289. Notes by the Editor. xix The Apology was written originally in English, and afterwards translated into Latin, as we learn from its Royal author in the Premonition, Wurks, p. 293. That it was first published anonymously (see above) is also stated in the same paper, p. 21)0. The Premonition ends on p. 338. 196 C 4, &c. For " the Church of England" read (as elsewhere : see the note to p. 17 B 15, &c.) " the Anglican Church". 197 C 10. That Bishops &c] The Latin of this passage (see p. 192) is as follows : " Episcopos esse in Ecclesia debere, tanquam institutionem Apostolicam, " ac ordinationem proinde divinam, semper sensi". Jacobi I Opera, p. 304. 198 B 12. that they have so abased &c] Here might be cited "The Pro- " tector's letter to Gardiner concerning the points he was to handle in his sermon" (Burnet vol. 2, Records Book 1, No. 28), and " The Commission which the Abp " of Canterbury took out for his Archbishopric", in which the King (Edward VI) professes to give him authority to ordain (Ibid. No. 2). (PART OR VOLUME II. OF THE ORIGINAL.) Chapter XII. 201, title of Chap. XII. of Divines, who] Read, "of the Divines who". 201 A, 12 — 13. Quod — iteratum.] Add, [" What is not shewn to have been " done, reason does not allow us to regard as repeated."] 201 B, 8 — 15. Ordinath) — indubitata.~\ Add, [" An Ordination which is only " probable, or which is but probably sufficient and valid, constitutes only a pro- " bable Bishop, or one who is but probably a Bishop, — is not validly and sufficiently " constituted in the Episcopal degree and power, — and has no true Episcopal " calling. For the true and valid Episcopal power and calling is not merely pro- " bable, but certain and undoubted."] 202 B, 8 — 10. Utrum — nescientis.'] Add, [" Whether there be no one at all, " who by his testimony can help the ignorance of him who does not know."] 202 B, 12, 13. Si nulla — ricinos.} Add, [" If there be no means of informa- " tion amongst the connections and friends, amongst the Clergy and neighbours."] 203. In the heading, for " proved to be without" read " has no reasonable". 205,16. justifies it] Read " proves it". 205, 22 — 25. Dumrrwdo — chaiactercm.] Translated on the preceding page. 208. To the first side-title add, " — The Form good." In the last for " frivo- " lous" read "insufficient". 211 C 10. For " parcels" read " particles". 211 C 11. They had no doubt] I. e. the Anglican Reformers had none. 214 B 11. For " Father Martin" retained in this place through oversight from Mr. Williams's translation, read " Father Martene". 214 B 28. For " was" read " has been", twice. 217 C 7. you other Anglicans] all who have been ordained Priests since the disuse of the Pontifical, by which the first Anglicans were made Priests. 219 B 8. Read "or at least does not then receive both Ordinations at the " same time." 223 B 2. Quid *tc] The present Editor has corrected the Latin given by XX Notes by the Editor. Courayer to that of the Benedictine Edition wherever the latter appeared more correct. 226 p. Reg. Gen. p. 78.] In the English translation by " E. S. [Edward Sheldon11] Esq.", Paris, 1660, — p. 65, with which however should he compared an explanatory observation, pp. 67 — 69. Chapter XIII. 237. In the side-titles, for " First" read " Second", and for " Second" " First". 238 B 5. Qui fkc.~\ Harding's work was written in English ; and as the second reference given hy Courayer (" fol. 234") agrees with the English Edition, it seems most probable that his Latin was taken from some preceding writer who had had occasion to cite, and had for that purpose translated the passage. If the English was before our author, why not translate into French rather than Latin ? If a Latin translation, how came the passage to occur on the same leaf as in the English? — It should be observed that the first reference ("fol. 231') was given by our author as 129 : a manifest error. 240 B 13. After "juridical" add " and solemn". 241 B 17. annulled all that Stephen had done] In the Council of Ravenna, A.D. 904. Stephen VI. and Sergius III. were invaders of the See, detestable characters, and personal enemies of Formosus ; their violent and irregular pro- ceedings against whom were legitimately annulled by the Church and the lawfully appointed Pontiffs. Ibid, who succeeded John] Not immediately. After John IX. were the excellent Benedict IV. A.D. 905, Leo V. 907, the invader Christophorus the same year, and the invader Sergius III, a man of infamous character and the former rival and personal enemy of Formosus, A.D. 908. 242, 7 — 10. De Episcopis — Episcopi Mi] These words, which our author had abridged as in p. 273 B, the present Editor has given in full. He has also corrected the whole passage to the text of Muratori in his Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, with which, excepting the form placibilis (see below), the other Editions agree. The following are the differences found in our author's Edition : 1. reverterentur, from Baronius's Annals and the Reg. and Maz. MSS. : in which however (see below) the preceding clause is also in the plural. 2 and 3. susciperenl and consecraret, from Baronius alone. How little Baronius can be adduced as an authority for the very words, much less forms of words, of Anastasius, will be best shewn by merely transcribing the whole passage as Baronius gives it. " De Episcopis vero atque presbyteris et diaconibus quos ipse Constantinus " consecraverat, ita in eodem Concilio promulgatum est : Ut qui Episcopi ex " presbyteris sive diaconibus ab eo ordinati fuerant, in pristinum honoris sui " gradum reverterentur. Et si placibile fuisset omni populo civitatis suae, denuo " facto decreto electionis more solito, cum clero et plebe ad Apostolicam venissent " Sedem : ab eodem sanctissimo Stephano Papa benedictionis susciperent con- " secrationem. Presbyteri vero illi et diacones ab eodem Constantino consecrati, " simili modo in ilum in quo prius existebant habitum reverterentur. Et post- k Bodleian Catalogue and MS. addition in Bodleian copy. Notes by the Editor. xxi " modum si qui eorum placibilcs extitissent, antefatus beatissimus Pontifcx presby- " teros eos aut diacones consecraret [aZ. conciliaret]." An. 769, § v. torn. 9. col. 373 A: Ed. Col. Agr. 1601). It is clear tbat Baronius, though for the most part he uses Anastasius's words, has made no point of giving more than his sense : on the contrary he has evidently introduced alterations for the sake of making the sense clearer. (The only diffi- culty he has left arises from his either having put cum elero for quumcum clero, or (keeping Anastasius's idiom of venissent for venirent) omitted the conjunction at the beginning of the following clause, using ab eodem for el ab eodem.) This idiomatic use, therefore, of the pluperfect for the imperfect should by no means be removed on the supposed authority of Baronius, in opposition to the MSS. Courayer however in giving this same passage again on p. 273 has further altered advenissent into advenirent, apparently on conjecture. 4. placibiles twice. So in the Moguntine Edition of 1602 (p. 137). In Fabroti's, — Paris, 1649 (p. 95), reprinted with the Byzantine historians Ven. 1729 (p. 51, col. 1), — the i is left in the text, but the glossary adopts placabiiis (the reading of the Keg. Maz. and Thu. MSS), from the various readings at the end. Du Fresne's Glossary gives placibilis. It may be added that the Thu. MS. reads fuerat : the Reg. and Maz. ul ipsi illi, si qui presbyteri aut diaconi fuerunt, in pristinos honoris sui yradus reverte- rentur. Chapter XIV. 245 A 7. For " It is certain" read " It is true" ; and to the side-title " Former " doubts", which should begin opposite this line, add " on the general question". 248 B. The side-note " Peter Lombard." should be marked as a parenthesis. 248 B 12. Capuensi] Otherwise Capsensi (see Ed. Paris, and Ed. Col. Agr. 1538, fol. 251 B) or Carpensi (see Ed. Col. Agr.) Both Capse and Carpi are mentioned in Cyprian's Council of Carthage, torn. 2. pp. 118 and 111, Ed. Wit. ceburgi 1782. 248 B 13. et reordinationes] The canon proceeds vel translationcs Episco- porum. Nam Cresconius fy-c. ; the remainder being occupied with that Bishop's self-translation. 249 D. Morinus goes farther {plus foira)] Farther than these principles admit of, or than Divines in general. One should rather have expected trop loin, " too far". 250, 4. In ritu &c.] The first section of the ninth Chapter runs as follows : I. Prima (distinctio) esto : In ritu . . . inepta. Ills autem tarn spectare possunt Ordinantem quam Ordinandum. Ecclesia enim [see p. 257 t] meo judicio . . . iteranda. .-. . Hinc sequitur [see p. 257 s], Sacramentorum . . . consecutus. 251, 252. Add the side-title "No sufficient doubt.", beginning opposite the last line of p. 251. 253, 4. the crime of reiteration] St. Leo's words in iterationis crimen venire (see p. 249) should rather perhaps be rendered "be accused of repetition". 253 C 17. moment, . . .] the words 'so long as they are not revoked or abro- ' gated by the Church' should not have been left out here. xxii Notes by the Editor. 253 D 1. alternative] I. e. proposition containing two alternatives. 254 B 10. all, according to him, &c.] Morinus does not say this, but that some things are in their nature essential, others made so while the Church requires them. 255 B 15. can render &c] I. e. render the Sacrament null if conferred w ith- out them. 258. Add as side-notes, " At all events it does not apply to the case." and "Argument.", beginning opposite lines B 5 and C 1. 262 A 3 — 5. reordinations — of the Bps ordained since the Reformation] "the " Bps ordained" appears to have been written by a slip of the pen for "those or- " daiiied by the Bps consecrated". — For " the Reformation" our author had " the " revolution", in the same sense. Chapter XV. 263, title] This title has been altered by the author's direction : see the Appendix, p. 366. Jbid. 1. 1. Continuation] "A continuation" D.W. So elsewhere, where the French omits the article. Ibid, instead of the colon put a full stop. Ibid. 1. 2 — 4. reflections on— has hitherto] "reflections upon- — hitherto has" D.W. See the note to p. 275 u. 264 B 11—13. ubi — matron] The present Editor has given Cyprian's own words: our author had given the sense, not the exact words. 265, 6. the Council of Carthage which he caused &c] The decision of the Council having been afterwards reversed, it is not reckoned among the regular Councils. 265 B 1. Felix] This is St. Augustine's reading: St. Cyprian has Pritnus. It is possible that Primus was first added in St. Cyprian as a note, to distinguish the first mentioned Felix from the rest, and that this note, being taken afterwards for a corrected reading, was substituted for the real name. 265 B 21. not merely by the Africans] I. e. And it was contested not merely by the Africans. 265 C 2. St. Athanasius Sec] These Fathers appear to speak of those heretics only who did not rightly hold the doctrine of the Trinity. See the reasoning of St. Athanasius, in his Third Oration against the Arians, about the danger of nullity in their Baptism, Opp. p. 219 A 4 — E 6, Ed. Commelinianje, A.D. 1601. As for St. Basil he expressly distinguishes, in the Epistle referred to, between heretics, who denied the faith itself, meaning apparently what related to God Himself; schismatics, who broke away on account of Ecclesiastical questions, i. e., as it would seem, questions relating to His. dealings with His Church ; and irregular assemblies, separated on private grounds; — and, rejecting the first altogether, leaves the second to the decision of the authorities, and receives the last without hesitation. It must be observed, however, that, although in stating the opinions and practice of others he does not withhold his own ideas, he yet propounds them with evident caution and doubt. — In the words quoted by Courayer he is speaking of the Pepuzeni, whom he accuses of baptizing into the Father, the Son, and Montanus or Priscilla, to which two persons they presumptuously gave the title of Notes by the Editor. xxiii the Paraclete. Tit/a oZv \6yov «Xel> sa)s ne' T0 T0VTWV Paimar/ia iyKpi6ijfai, ray $a.Trri(iivTwv e('s Tlarcpa, Kal Tlhu, Kal Movravbv TlpioKiWav \ (" How then is it " reasonable that the Baptism of these should be received, who baptize into the " Father, the Son, and Montanus or Priscilla ?") ou yap &c. as in the latter part of Courayer's quotation. With respect to St. Cyril see the commentators on that author. 266 B 15. auferre] In Courayer, as in Morinus, aufert. 267 B 7. aceeptam deniw beiiedictioneni] In Courayer acccptd denuo bene- dictione. 268 B. 6. /leraTaGTa &c] Of this passage our author had given only the Latin translation as follows: "Secundum luce, ut egregii Laid, ad eum gradum ordi- "nantur in qua prills apud swis erant, sin' Presbi/teri, sive Diaconi, Sec." The present Editor has given here as elsewhere the original with an English translation. 268 B 8. k. t. A..] eiVe iiroSiaKovoi, eire tyaXTavayvuaTai. sire subdiaconi, sive psaltanagnnsta\ " or subdeacons, or psaltanagnosts." Book 4 is the 2d of Synodal Sentences and Pontilicial Sanctions, and the above passage is under the head a.hr)\wv irarpidpxa>v a {Of uncertain Patriarchs 1), which begins on p. 290: com- pare note r as corrected above. 268 B 12. An Sacerdos &c] This question being given obliquely, and its answer not very correctly abridged by our author, it appeared best to have the Latin as he had given it in the text, and transcribe the Greek question and answer entire in these notes. 'Ep»T7)v robs e| eOviKOv filov trpoatkOo'i'Tas rrj 6p6o56£w Tri0enj ou p.6vov UpariKOu a^Lu/j.aTOi, a\\a Kal eiriffKOiri/foD, 8ia tuiv ''^> which Joseph of Egypt (whose Arabic exposition of the Four first General Councils is given at the end of Beverege's Synodicon) interprets similarly of re-ordination. Neither Balsamon nor Zonaras, however, mention any such thing ; and Aristenus, whose shorter Scholia follow theirs in the above Collection, distinctly explains it of Confirmation ; which is the more probable, because in speaking of Ordination farther on in the same Canon (which relates to the Cathari or Novatians) the verb XtipoTovtTiv is employed. 270 B 16. the words of the Canon] The Canon itself is as follows : 5. riepl Ma^tfiov rov KvvtKov, teal tt)s ko.t avrbi/ ara^las rijs eV Kwv(navTivovir6K*i ■ytvojiivt\s. Scrre /U7)T€ rbv Ma|i^oy i-KiaKoirov i) ytviaQai t) elvai, /nvre tovs Trap' avrov X*ipoToi/r)8evTas eV oi'y S^itotc fjaBfuy K\i)pov Trav-rwv «al tuv Trepl avrbi/ Kai twv Trap' avTov ytvoixivuv a.Kvpw6evTuv. Cone. torn. 2. col. 947 C, O. "4. Concerning Maximus the Cynic, and the disorder which took place in " Constantinople in his case, (they determined) that neither Maximus either had " been or was a Bishop, nor those ordained by him in whatever rank of the Clergy " (were such) ; all things which had been done either with respect to him or by " him having been declared null." 271, 2. Quia Photius Maximo &c. In the Greek- Latin Edition of the Council, which is considerably shorter than that of Anastasius, this passage does not occur. See Cone. torn. 8. columns 1296 and 1295, E. 271,24. Ignatius] The Patriarch whose rival Photius was. 271, 27. which proves] I. e. (apparently) because Photius would not be likely to re-ordain first. The clause however appears of no great use. 271, 29. in his letter to the Emperor Michael] Bather, in one of his letters to the Emperor Michael. 272, 2. nihil habuit, nihil dedit, &c.] So Morinus also (part 3. exerc. 5. cap. 4, § 4) gives the passage. In the Anastasian Edition of the Eighth Council (torn. 8. col. 1012 D. Ed. Paris. 1671) we find only nihil habuit, se sequentibu* propinaverit ; (which, if the reading be right, must mean, " had nothing, communi- " cated to his followers nothing but himself" :) — in the Greek-Latin (Ibid. coll. 1296, 5, E) merely ou5ev co-xt", ouSec tSwKev : nihil habuit, nihil dedit : " had nothing, " gave nothing." With Morinus's reading compare the expression of Innocent I : Damnationcm utique,(juam habuit, per pravam ynanus imposiiionem dedit. " Dam- " nation indeed, which he had, by the wicked imposition of his hand he gave." Ep.22. § 3 (Cone. torn. 2. col. 1274 A, B.) Also that of Formosus : ovShv TiSuWjflTj Sowu ♦avrios ckt!>s KaraKpia-fws, fis eVx« 8ia tJjs eViOeVews tt)s o-koKiUs xflpb*> «a\ iyKa-raKpuriv Se'SoiKc, Photius nihil dare potuit prceter damnationem, quam per impice maniis impitsitionem habuit, damnationemque dedit. " Photius could give nothing ex- " cept damnation, which he had by the imposition of the perverse hand, and " damnation he gave." (Ibid. coll. 1412, 11, C.) 272, 6. and that it is for this reason] To make sense of the whole passage we must understand this to mean ' who says also that it is for this reason'. 272, 8. Quos idem Ikc. In the Greek-Latin Edition, otj avrbs iv olvS-hiroTi Notes by the Editor. xxv &a6/i<£ Trpoef3d\eTO, cupopl^o/iev e'ira£/a>s. quoscunque ille in quocunque Clerieorum gradu eolloeavit, merito exortes communionis faeimus. " Those whom lie ordained to " whatever degree, we deservedly excommunicate." (Ibid. coll. 1296, 5 ; D, E.) 273, 4. Eos . . .in (Eos generaliter in) &c] In the shorter Greek-Latin Edition we have only, xpw^ Sex"')"'" Keyo/iev, reeipiendos dicimus, " we say should " be received". (Ibid. coll. 1297, 8, A.) 273 B 23. isdem] So the Editions and Maz. 273 B 24. iterata fuissent] So in Muratori's text, to which the present Editor has corrected the whole passage. The Reg. and Thu. Maz. read iteranda essent, which our author adopted. Baronius has iterari debuissent. Iterata fuissent is probably to be construed as iterarentur : iterari debuissent (if meant as Anastasius's words) as iterari deberent. The pluperfect however in the sense of should have been is not inadmissible in this author's Latin. (See more in the note to p. 242, 7—10.) 275 u] This note of Mr. Williams's was wrongly attached in his own Editions to the beginning of the last paragraph of p. 276. The correction of his trans- lation of the remainder of this Chapter has been, of course, a delicate business, and one requiring very particular care, Mr. Williams alone having been in possession of the corrected French. His usual blunders, however, — going even to the destruc- tion of the argument, — made it absolutely necessary ; and as most of the original matter remained, (the greater part of the alterations being merely transposition and abridgment,) the necessary corrections, after a little search, were sufficiently certain. In order however to satisfy every reader, in the following notes are given all the differences between Mr. Williams's and the present Edition, not excepting even mere corrections of style. The French as originally published by Courayer, is added by Mr. Williams at the end of his Editions, and continued (as all his other matter is) in this also. It is only to be regretted he did not give rather, or also, the French as corrected by the author, instead of confining us to his own wretched version of it. 275 C 3. After Ecclesicc insert " [On the method and right of finishing the " controversies of the Church]". Ibid, has proposed] Quaere, " proposed"? (See the note to p. 275 u.) 275 C 5. Though somewhat] Though it be somewhat D.W. (Daniel Williams.) 275 C 7. and well deserves] and that it very well deserves, D.W. et il merite bien (and it well deserves) P.F. (Printed French.) 276 a. This note is omitted by D.W. 276 B 2. the validity of Ordination] a valid Ordination D.W. la validite de l'Ordination P.F. r 276 B 3. either by our Saviour, or in default] by Christ or for want D.W. soit par J. C, soit a son defaut P.F. 277, 1. point] article D.W. article P.F. 277, 2. in fact] in effect D.W. en effet P.F. Ibid, it is not thought] it cannot be imagined D.W. on ne croit P.F. for any other reason than because] but for this reason that D.W. 277, 4. a consequence] in consequence D.W. une suite P.F. Notes 'by the Editor. 277; 5, 6. error cannot — error] an error does not — an error D.W. l'erreur ne sgauroit — l'erreur P.F. 277, 7. cannot the Church herself arrest her own power] the Church herself cannot put a stop to her proper power D.W. a rendering so absurd as to destroy his authors whole argument. 277, 8. as her work what has heen performed] for her own work (in Ed. 1 operation) what was performed D.W. pour son ouvrage ce qui se seroit fait P.F. 277, 9. maintains it] asserts it D.W. le soutieut P.F. 277, 10. at what point it could he disputed] how it can he disputed with him D.W. par oil on pourroit le contester P.F. 277 B 3. want] defect D.W. defaut P.F. 277 B 5. by comparing the case of Marriage, in which the matter and form are in vain made use of] hy a comparison of it with Marriage, where the matter and form would be in vain made use of D.W. par le comparaison du Mariage, ou en vain employe-t-on la matiere et la forme P.F. 277 B 8. in default of authority] by a defect of authority D.W. par le defaut d' autorite P.F. 277 C 1. He says that it is [thus] &c.] Ou conceit ainsi aisement P.F. 277 C 2. that was invalid] More exactly, perhaps, as in the P.F. "from " invalid, which it was, (d'invalide, qu' elle etoit,)"- 277 C 3. without any thing new intervening [therein].] More probably, as in the P.F. " without anything visible intervening anew therein (sans que rien de " sensible y intervienne de nouveau)". The word therein ought clearly to be added as in the P.F., being necessary to the sense, and Mr. Williams's omission or insertion of such words being, as may be seen through his whole version, and not least in these altered pages themselves, a mere matter of chance. 277 C 4. the Church, Sic] " the Church, which at first in refusing her consent hinders this Sacrament from having its effect, but afterwards, taking away this incapacity, by her consent, she redintegrates what at first was done ; " and that nothing more is wanting Sec." D.W. Such is the "translation" (!) which Mr. Williams continues unchanged in his second " corrected" (!) Edition, and which he has the assurance to tell us "is " sufficient for the English reader" ! (See his Preface p. 10.) To the present Editor it appears better calculated for puzzling a Sphinx. He has therefore translated according to the Printed French, the whole difference between which and the above unmeaning jargon, — if one may judge from past experience of Mr. W.'s random blundering — is most probably all his own. 278, 3. as a principle] for a principle D.W. 278, 4. of the Sacrament] of a Sacrament D.W. du Sacrement P.F. 278, 6. and that others (or, the rest) have been received ;] and that the Church has received others: D.W. et que on ait re$u les autres ; P.F. 278, 8. as a matter of condescension, &c] So the P.F. to condescend to recognise these, and not to admit the rest, either upon the account of severity or prudence D.W. 278 ; 11, 12. For auctoritate Ecclesia read Eeclesice auctoritate. 278, 15. the reconciling of] the reconciling D.W. 2/8, B 1. that in the case &c] So the P.F. Mr. Williams, most ridi- Notes by the Editor. xxvii cufotw/y, "that the heretics reasoned upon this principle in the business of " Baptism ;" ! ! ! 278 B 3. as has been shewn before] as it is shewn before D.W. Ibid, did not always argue in the same way] have not always argued the same way D.W. 279 B 2. maintains] pretends D.W. There can be no doubt that the French w as pretend, i. e. maintains. 279 B 5. in yielding themselves] in abandoning themselves D.W. en sen rap- portant P.F. 279 C 3. and if it has] and that if it has D.W. in his First Edition. 279 C 5. by fact and by the practice] So in Mr. Williams's Second Edition. In the First, by the facts and the practice. 279 C 6. and has never been made use of to explain the difficulty in question.] and which can never serve to explain the difficulty in debate. D.W. This clause, making neither grammar as connected with what goes before, nor good sense as applied to the subject, is no doubt one of Mr. Williams's usual random renderings. The P.F. has the following: "en voyant qu' on ne s'en est jamais servi dans " l'Eglise, pour expliquer la difficulte dont il est question" j from which, and the following sentence it appears most probable that the corrected French was, ct qu on ne s'en est &c. 279 C 1 1 . of the whole] of this affair D.W. de tout ceci P.F. 279 C 13. now received (received at this time D.W.)] jusq' ici (up to this time) P.F. : compare however the title of Chap. 14. 279 C 14. is adopted] Read "holds good". Mr. Williams has "takes " place" : the P.F. "a lieu". Chapter XVI. 281 B 8. the validity of the Ordinations of these Bishops was contested only on the opinion, now abandoned, &c] This is decidedly incorrect. Sanders says distinctly (book 3, p. 348, 349.), that whereas their own laws required that the Ordinations should be performed by three Bishops with the consent of the Metro- politan, and that none otherwise ordained should be recognized as a Bishop, " they had neither three (or even two) Bishops among them, nor any Metropolitan " at all of their perfidy who had been ordained before by other Bishops" ; " and " so, being commonly said to be destitute of any legitimate Ordination, and by the " English laws themselves truly proved not to be Bishops"1, they were forced to " invoke the secular arm" to pardon any irregularity or deficiency, and confirm them in their Office after they had held it for some years " without any Episcopal " Consecration". It is the more remarkable that our author should have made this mistake, because he has quoted from p. 348 on each of the next two pages. 281 C 2. For " EnglisV read " Anglican" : compare the note to p. 17 B 15, &c. 282, 18. "all such, <^c."] Courayer had given this quotation in Latin: " Mam "demiun Divina Officio et Sacramcnta celebrandi formulam, qua vltimo Henrici " VIII anno, vulgari in usufuit." m So in the Edition of 1610, of which " Ordination, when they were commonly Courayerhimself makes use: intheEdition " said, and by the English laws themselves of 15H5 the expression is still stronger, viz. " were truly proved, not to be Bishops, &c." " being therefore destitute of any legitimate (fol. 166). d d xxviii Notes by the Editor. 282, 27. For " lias preserved several for us" read "has preserved us many". 284, 285. In the headings, instead of " The new Form frc." read " Admissions " in favour of the new Form." 284, 3. For " these" read " those". 284, 4. did not last] I. e. was not actually used : it was in legal force longer. 284 B. The second side-title should be " Admission of Cardinal Pole." 290 C 2 — 4. Cromwell — ureter. (Cromwel — uretere).] In this awkward way has our author abridged what Pascal had written as follows: "Cromwel alloit " ravager toutc la Chretiente : la famille Royale etoit perdue, et la sienne a jamais " puissante ; sans un petit grain de sable qui se mit dans son uretaire. Rome meme " alloit trembler sous lui." Cromwell was about to lay waste all Christendom : (he Royal family was destroyed, and his own powerful for ever ; without a little, grain o f sand, which fixed itself in his ureter. Home herself was about to tremble under him,. § 14. pp. 159, 160. Ed. Paris. 1725. 291 1. that is to say, &c] " And here it may not be improper to observe, " that nine of the Bishops surviv'd the Rebellion, and recover'd their Sees at the " Restoration, viz., William Juxton Bp of London, translated this year to Canter- " bury, William Pierce Bp of Bath and Wells, Robert Skinner Bp of Oxford, trans- " lated afterwards to Worcester, John Warner Bp of Rochester, William Roberts " Bp of Bangor, Matthew Wren Bp of Ely, Bryan Duppa Bp of Salisbury, from " whence after the Restoration he was remov'd to Winchester, Henry Kiug Bp " of Chichester, Accepted Frewen Bp of Coventry and Litchfield, and this year " promoted to the Archbishopric of York." Collier in the place referred to. 291 s. Collier's words, continuing from those just quoted, are : " Besides " these, there were six Bishops consecrated on the first Sunday in Advent, viz., John " (Cosens) Lord Bp of Durham, William Lord Bp of St. David's, Benjamin Lord " Bishop of Peterborough, Hugh (Laney) Lord Bp of Landaff, Richard (Stern) " Lord Bp of Carlisle, Bryan (Walton) Lord Bp of Chester, and John (Gauden) " Lord Bp of Exeter. When Juxton was translated to Canterbury, Gilbert " Sheldon was made Bp of London. (See Abp Sancroft's Life and Sermons.) " The other Bishopricks were quickly fill'd with well qualify'd persons." Chapter XVII. 293 D 3. there is no dispute] I. e. none with any show of reason. 294. In the first side-title, for " his" read " Parker's". 296,3. 'there is no controversy &c] Bramhall's words (p. 338) are: Con- " cerning the two former, I know no controversy between the Church of Rome " and us but one, Whether the Bishop of Rome alone do derive his jurisdiction " immediately from Christ, and all other Bishops do derive theirs mediately by " him ? Yet I confess this controversy is but with a part of the Church of Rome : " For many of them are of our mind, that all Bishops hold their jurisdiction "immediately from Christ, as well as the Pope. Q-e." "The third power of " Bishops," he defines (p. 339) as "the power of exterior jurisdiction in the Court " of the Church, whereby men are compelled against their wills by exterior " means. This," continues he, " the Apostles had not from Christ, nor their Suc- " cessors from them, neither did Christ ever assume any such power to Himself in " the world." Notes by the Editor. xxix The present Editor has distinguished (as in other places) the direct words of Uramhall from what is but Courayer's statement of his meaning. Mr. Williams attempted to give the whole in Bramhall's words, as follows : " Concerning — but " one, 4'c. But we have a controversy with some others $ c. The third power " of Bishops, . . . This — world." These words, it is plain, do not contain all Courayer intended to adduce. 29(> C, 5 — 8. in the ancient Church, who did not regard as null &c] Instead of this erroneous version, retained by oversight from Mr. Williams's translation, read, " in the ancient Church ; that neither the Ordinations, nor the Sacrifice, nor " the other Sacraments administered by the Nestorians, the Eutyehians, and the " other heretics have been regarded as null ;". 297, 2. Instead of Mr. Williams's rendering " there was no mention made ", read " nothing has been said to them". — In line 5, for " was" read " has been". 297 B 21. For "it has been" read " one has". (AUTHORS APPENDIX :— PROOFS.) 301 , Art. I, title. For " [Translation " read " [f Translation ". 301, 3. in all the senses] In Italian, not virtue only, but also a taste for the fine arts and for curiosities, is expressed by the word virtii, in which Italian form the word is adopted by ourselves in the same peculiar sense. See Dr. Johnson's Dictionary. 302, 9. heresy.] Read " the heresy." 302, Art. II, title.) in this Work] The original adds "avec la version Fran- " goise a la cote (with the French rendering at the side)", which words together with the rendering itself are of course omitted in the English Editions. In these Statutes have been retained the more remarkable of the old spellings, or rather old forms of words, which appear in Keble's Edition ; but as the spelling of that Edition is clearly not that of the original Statutes themselves, but (generally at least) that of Charles II, it has not been thought necessary to make any point of doing so. It may however be added here, that only is spelt oneh/ ; Majesty's, Majesties ; supreme generally supream ; and that virtue in p. 302, § 1 (not in § 2), also in p. 309, § IV, is spelt vertue ; privileges, p. 302, with a d ; tranquillity, p. 303, § 1, with but one I; Highness in the middle, and do at the end, of p. 305, § VI, with a final e ; pains, p. 306 A (not p. 307), and joined, p. 307, with the diphthongs ei and oy ; and merely, p. 311 A, with ee (meerly). 303, 10. Rep. 1 2 P. 6; M. 8. St- 8. El. 1.] This memorandum of the Editor of the Statutes at Large, which our author has in this single instance retained, is intended to advertise the reader that this Act was repealed by 1 & 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8 ; and to refer him also to a Statute of the 8th of Eliz., c. 1, in which also it is mentioned. §11, title, I. 1. "Statute concerning the necessity &c."] Rather "Statute " shelving the necessity &c." The reader must remember the object for which this Act is adduced, viz. to shew that though the Government of Henry VIII assumed to itself the right of ordering, and if possible compelling, the Primate to giant such dispensations as they thought reasonable, they nevertheless did not attempt to grant them with their own hands, but only by menacing him, and d d 2 XXX Notes by the Editor. in case of his continued refusal, finding other Bishops who were willing to give them. Ibid. 1. 2. or to some Bishop] This is not very accurately expressed. By Sect. XV the rights of the Abp of York and the other Bps to grant such dis- pensations as they could lawfully grant before this Act, were preserved, but the Papal dispensations were to be granted, — regularly indeed by the Primate him- self, or, in case of the vacancy of the See, the Guardian of the Spiritualties (see Sect. XVI), — but in case the Primate (or Guardian) refused, and the Chancellor (or Keeper of the Great Seal) thought such refusal contemptuous, then by any such two " spiritual Prelates or persons" willing to comply as should be appointed by the King for the purpose. Ibid. § 1, 1. fi enormities] I. e. irregularities, from e out of, and nnrma rule. 304 B 7. [and owing to contempt of the Act,] It is remarkable that our author should have overlooked the words " of wilfulness in contemning the due " execution of this Act" (Sect. XVII, § 3), and " in contempt of this Act" (§ 5), which are really very much to his purpose, as they shew that in this instance at least the object was less the bringing the Church under the power of the State than the forcing the English Clergy themselves by the secular arm, to resist the See of Rome. So long, therefore, as the Ecclesiastical authorities themselves were willing to do this of themselves, the Government was satisfied ; but as the con- trary might happen, and the Primate refuse to grant Papal dispensations, it became necessary for the carrying out of their plans, to appoint some Court by which, in case of the Primate's refusal, it might be ascertained whether such refusal sprang in reality from his regarding the dispensation itself as improper, or merely from an unwillingness to use a power which before had been peculiar to the Pope. It would seem, therefore, that the business of the Chancellor (or Keeper of the Great Seal) was not so much to examine into the nature of the dispensation for its own sake as with a view to determine the character of the Primate's refusal ; and that the lay authority was under no necessity, to say the least, or rather had no right by the terms of the Act, to sift the details of theological questions, but merely to examine sufficiently to enable it to determine whether the Primate was acting in contempt, or not. Of course it is obvious that in practice such a power would easily be made absolute, and besides being an important engine towards the extensive changes so shortly to follow, would tend in a very important degree, even if ever so moderately used, to elevate the Civil and depress the Ecclesiastical authority. 305, 1. nominate] L e. nominatus, nominated. The more usual way is to turn the Latin participles, nominate, corrupt, fkc. into new verbs, signifying to make nominate, to make corrupt, &c. 305 B 7. a corporal oath] I. e. an oath taken by one's self, tactis cnr- poraliter Sanctis evangeliis, touching the holy gospels with one's own body, and not by proxy. 305 C 2. Chapiter] In the next page the word is spelt without the i, as we may suppose it was pronounced in later times : we find at all events in ^Vhit- churche's spelling chapter for what in Grafton's (which is generally of an older fashion : see the second paragraph of the second note to p. 312, latter part) is chapiter or chapitre, which could not have been if the i had been commonly pronounced,— Notes by the Editor. xxxi the custom being, not to drop letters in writing before they are dropped in reading, but on the contrary to retain them long after. — It would seem therefore that the retention of the form chapiter as an Architectural term in the modem English Bibles is an inconsistency on the part of those who have had the management of the privileged presses ; it being a mere question of spelling, which (right or wrong) it has been their principle to modernize. At least they should prove that as an Architectural term, in which sense alone they retain the i, the word made three syllables at the date of the last revision ; though at the same time it cannot be doubted that in very many other instances the alterations they have made are alterations, in reality, not merely of the spelling, but of the forms of the words themselves. See more in the second note to p. 312, latter part. 306", 15. Praemunire] In Keble Premunire. The reader must understand that in those times, both in Latin and in English, the diphthongs ce and ce were written as well as pronounced as the single vowel e. 306, § IV. Such Form &c] This, as the reader may see, is but an abstract or extract of an Act of Parliament. 306 § V. then] In the older language then is used for both then and than, "this is better than that" being in reality " this is better, then that". In the Anglo-Saxon both particles took a as their vowel. 308 i.] This mistake must have been corrected in part at least of the Edition, as in the copy before the present Editor, which is that of Worcester College Library, " Edward" is printed very plainly. 310, 1. Consecrate] I. e. Consecrati, Consecrated. See the note to p. 305, 1. 312 B. It has been thought better here, as in the text, to give the English reader, — not a mere Latin translation, which, however "authorized in the llealm", we cannot suppose was ever really used in ordaining, — but the actual English Service by which the Ordinations have been performed. The prose has been given as before from Dr. Cardwell's Editions (concerning which, however, see the following notes), except in one instance, in which his reading was both worse in itself, and found in but one, the right reading existing in the other five, of the Bodleian copies : see the note to p. 317, 9. Concerning the verses see the following- notes. — The Epistles and Gospels it has not been thought necessary by the present Editor, any more than it was by the author, to print in full. 312, latter part. The Form &c. — retained.] This portion of the Office is thus not altogether correctly abridged in the Latin given by our author : " Forma sive Rhus Ordinandi Presbyteros. Post Exhortationem, qualis " describitur in Ordinatione Diaeonorum, sequatur statim S. Cecil cb administratio. " Epistola verb preeleyatur ex Act. cap. 20. a verm 17. ad 36. vel si forte eontingat " eodem die et Diaconos et Presbyteros ordinari, totum cap. 3. 1. ad Timoth. " Postea legatur etiam pars Evanyclii extrema secundum Matth. a versu 18. ad "finem ; vel Mud Joan. 10. a versu 1. ad 17. vel Joan. 20. A versu 19. ad 24." In which it is clear that the insertion of the words si forte eontingat eodem die et Diaconos et Presbyteros ordinari, — besides being out of place here, this case being correctly provided for (both in the Latin and in the English) in the concluding Rubric of the Ordering of Priests (p. 317, end), — limits wrongly the reading of 1 Tim. iii to this particular case. Ibid. The Form &c] The reader must understand that the difference in xxxii Notes by the Editor. what is carelessly called spelling is so great between the Service as really published in 1552 and the reprint which Dr. Cardwell professes to give of it, that the latter is in reality better entitled to be called a translation than a reprint. As however what is here given is but an extract, and the difference, though in reality far more than one of mere spelling, does not in the slightest degree affect the theological purpose for which the extract itself was reprinted by our author, and especially as he was satisfied with a mere Latin translation, it appeared needless, for this Appendix, to undergo the labour of re-writing the whole. At the same time it cannot but be much regretted that the learned Editor in question should not have given the public his two books of King Edward in the same old language in which they were originally published, and not treated as mere matters of spelling such differences as emonges and amongst, vouchsaufe and vouchsafe, &c. Sec. In his own Editions indeed he has allowed the printer so far to modernize the " spelling" as in one instance (p. 313, 30) to destroy altogether the metre, by substituting unto the worlds end for unto [unto] the worldes end, as it was printed in the old Editions. The spelling of Grafton's impressions, it may be observed, is on the whole more antiquated than that of Whitchurche's, and retains in it some letters which it appears from Whitchurehe had ceased to be actually pronounced, as the t in chapiter (see the note to p. 305 C 2), and the c in appoinct. So too, elles (in some impressions) for els (else), and aune for own. This last indeed may have been more than a mere difference of spelling, as vouchedsaufe for vouchsaufed clearly is. Of the same nature are thende, thothe, tharchbis/wp, which however are not used regularly nor in all his impressions. John is spelt by him Jhon ; Timothy, Timothe by both. On the other hand Whitchurehe retains to geve, &c, which in Grafton's impressions are to give or gyve, Ike. Grafton has also in some instances (perhaps by mistake) ministric, which in Whitchurche's, and elsewhere in his own impressions, is ministerie (ye, or y). The spelling indevor, which occurs once at least in two of Grafton's impressions, seems to shew that the word was pronounced then as now. 312,313. As in the case of the hymn Veni Creator, — all the innumerable beautiful and devotional effusions which the old English Breviaries contained, and of which (including the Officium Parcum of Our Blessed Lady), in the Ordinary Prayer Services alone, sixteen were said daily, the only one which the Compilers of the Anglican Prayer-book thought fit, within the whole range both of Ordinary and of Occasional Offices, to retain, — the Latin is the original, the present Editor has given the reader the opportunity of comparing the translation with its beautiful source : which before the Reformation was said in the Pentecostal Service (as the Tierce hymn on Whit Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday), and in the Preparation for the Mass. Instead of Paraclitus and Paraclitus, our author had incorrectly Paracletus ; instead of spiritalis, spiritualis. — For perpcti is read otherwise perpetim. At the end of the hymn, " Amen. ", forgotten in our author's Edition, should be added within brackets. In Paraclitus, derived from the Greek IlapdKKirros, first the e became i by inta- cism (a particular case of a general principle which, though hitherto unuoticed by grammarians, has had the most extensive and important influence on the develop- Notes by the Editor. XXXII] ment and progress of language, but of which this is not the place to speak more particularly), and secondly, in order that the retention of the Greek might not be inconsistent with the rules of the Latin accent, the I was shortened where possible into i; where the metre forbad this, the place of the accent was changed. — Of the same iotacism other instances are acidia (or accidia), lor aKijUa, sloth, — eleison for c'AeVov, have mercy, — first e-le-i-son, then shortening the i and uniting it in a diphthong with the preceding e, e-lei-son ; which when most convenient was joined by apocope or erasis to the preceding Kyrie (Lord) or Christe (Christ), so as to make the whole Ky-r'i i-lei-son or Ky-ri-P-lci-son, Christ' e-lei-son or CAris-te-leir son ; as we gather not merely from the frequent ancient spelling Kyrieleyson (or Kyri el.) and Christeleyson , but also from the musical notation in ancient books, and especially the actual division of the syllables in the Salisbury Gradual. — It may be added that the frequency of the iotacism in pronunciation (without altering the writing) gave at length an additional sound to the vowel e, whence not merely the modern Latin Lctania and (thence derived) the old English Letanyiox Litania and Litany, but also in the English of the present day it has become the law of the language to iotacise the c as a matter of course when long or closing an unaccented syllable. In the English, the present Editor has marked the divisions of the double verses; which, together with a few accents, added to point out some of the differences in this respect between ancient and modem pronunciation, and the diffi rences of the "spelling" so far as they appear to affect the metre, will, it is hoped, considerably assist the reader. Of the same nature is the addition of the dia;rcsis in dissension. The syncopation in enmy, is on the direct authority of the particular copy from which Dr. Cardwell reprinted in opposition to the metre enemy, (" I. 2. 0. Med." of the Bodleian Library, one of Wliitchurche's,) which in this respect is more accurate than the rest, reading enmie. Heavenly is to be counted as a dissyllable, i. e. (as we should now write it) heavnly ; in which kind of words, as the insertion of the e adds nothing to the souud, but only marks that the n (I or ») is viewed as forming with the preceding consonant a distinct syllabic, so its withdrawal takes nothing away, but merely shews that what might other- wise be reyarded as two syllables is then to be considered as but one. So in devil and evil, the insertion, which one sometimes hears, of an actual is highly incorrect ; and though the few who insert it, do so no doubt from pure mistake, they certainly run no small risk of being accused of one of those affecta- tions of precision which overshoot themselves into egregious mistakes, the pro- nunciation in question being contrary in fact not merely to general custom, Quern penes est arbitrium et jus et norma loquendi (Hor. De Arte Po. v. 72), but also still more to etymology, there being nothing in the derivation of either word to require a real i, the former having o in the Greek and u in (lie Saxon (dioful), and in the German both words having only a mute e, — the forms in that sister language being Teufel (pronounce nearly ToijT) and Ucbel, — pronounce nearly Eebl ; or, to be quite exact, ubl with the Freueh u ; but the German ue or it (French it) becomes ee in English in the regular course of etymology; just as the Greek v (//) has now become a mere i (y-grec, i. e. Greek y or i) as well in the rest of Europe as in modern Greece itself. Devil was formerly divel, so that it may possibly be only to some strange transposition that our present irregular spelling xxxiv Notes by the Editor. is owing. Evil is in the Saxon yfel, so that even if the present spelling does in this case represent the real pronunciation of any intermediate age, still as custom has now restored the older way of pronouncing, if it were correct in any case to have a pronunciation of one's own, it is douhly incorrect to resist at once the re- ceived pronunciation and the etymology. The word devil it will he ohserved occurs in these verses, and that prohably as a monosyllable, which way of scanning we commonly express (see above) by writing dev'l. It is possible, however, that a spare syllable (especially so short a syllable) might not be objected to at the division of the verses ; although, it mast be ob- served, we do not find it elsewhere in these verses, either at the division or at the end. Spirit is everywhere except in the fifth verse from the end, a monosyllable, Spirt, or rather perhaps Sprit (i. e. Spreet) : compare the French Esprit and our spriyh t. 313, 0. spir'tnall. Or sp'rituall. See the preceding paragraph. 313, 22. Christen is so written in the original Editions themselves, and as this agrees better with the metre, the original form has in this instance been retained: see above. 313, 30. Wurldes end] In Dr. Cardwell's (as also in Reeling's) Edition this was mutilated into world's end, to the utter destruction of the metre. The apostrophe is never used in the original Editions, es being always written in full, whether so pronounced or not. If therefore persons choose to introduce the modern " spelling", which may well be protested against, — at least wherever it is not sufficiently ascertained that the difference is one of spelling only, — they should at least spare those passages in which the modernizing of the " spelling" is the destruction of the metre. 313 B 5. Diaconattts] Add, [ With questioning and answering as in the Order of the Deaconship]. 317, 9. thy benefits] In both Dr. Cardwell's Editions " the benefits", which is a mere misprint in the copy he selected to print from (see the note to p. 312, 313), the other five of the six copies in the Bodleian", all reading (what the sense evidently requires) thy. So too the Edition of 1549, of the existence of which and of its important differences from that of 1552 Dr. C. appears to have been equally unaware. 318, 6. "1 Tim. iii" is wanting in Whitchurche's Editions, from one of which Dr. Cardwell copied, but is supplied in those of Grafton. So too for " John xxi" in the Editions of Whitchurche we have "John iiii", but in those of Grafton rightly " Jhon xxi". 318, 15. touching the knowledge] So Whitchurche. Grafton has hnow- legying : the present Form acknowledgment. 318, 27. forth] in the old Editions furtk. 321, Art. IV, 1. 2. the ceremony begins with the reading of the Epistle and Gospel] To see the incorrectness of this statement, the reader has only to turn back to p. 312. ■ Dr. C. says there are four, but there General, and two (both Grafton) in the are really six, copies there, viz. four (two Douce, Collections. Whitchurche and two Grafton) in the Notes by the Editor. XXXV Ibid. 1. 10. which are different 8ec] Neither is this altogether correct. In the old service a choice of three, in the new a choice of two, Gospels is allowed ; the second Gospel being the same in both. 323, Art. V, title of the Bull) PP.] I.e. Papa; an abbreviation taken from the MSS. 324, 37. arbitrio tuo] So the present Editor has corrected what in Courayer is arbitrio suo. 325, 35. seu bonorum] The seu seems too much. 325, 43. ecclesioe] In Courayer ecclesia. 32(5, 2. qua; in] In Courayer in qute in. 327 ; 3, 4. eorum] Read earum, as our author has given it on p. 232. 327, 27. promovere] If this is the right reading, it must be taken in a neuter sense, — advance, as the present Editor has rendered it in the text of Courayer (p. 235, 11), and as Terence has used it, Eun. V. 3. 4. It cannot however be reason- ably doubted that the right reading is promoveri, be promoted. 335, § v, 1. 4. For " [at " read " [f at". 335, § v, 1. 5. We whose names &c] This Certificate is translated from the French, in which alone it appeals in our author's Work. 330', 17 — 21. These two paragraphs should evidently be reduced into one, (of four lines,) and the full stop after Cantuariensis changed into a semicolon. Lines 17, 18, IS) should be continued to the margin, and 18, 19, 20 begin a little farther to the right. — In Mr. Williams's Editions the two paragraphs are reduced into one, but altered and abridged as follows : — " D. Wilkins, S.T.P., Rev. in Christo Patri " Guil. Archiep. Cant, a Sacris Dom." — " D.D.", it may be as well to add, stands for "Domino Domino (Lord Lord)", a sort of Hebrew superlative applied to Bishops. 330, Art. VII, title. Attestations against the fable &c] Rather, "Attestations " against the statement that Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham had asserted in Par- " liament a modified version of the Nag's-head story." 338, § II. The Bps who signed this Certificate were, as we learn from Bramhall, all the then surviving ones except the Bp of Bangor, " whose absence in Wales", says he, " is the only reason why he is not a subscriber with the rest." p. 433. 33!), Art. VIII, 1. 6. a learned English Bishop] Archbishop Wake. For further particulars see p. xvii (with note c) of the Editor's Introduction: also p. lxxxv of the Epitome. 340 c c. This note should have been within brackets. 340, § III, and 341. § IV.] In both lists, both that at p. 504 and that at p. 737, before "Episcapo Meneven." UT." is put by mistake for "IF." 340, aa. To this note add, " with the Editor's note". 340 B 1 — 11. This suspicion as applicable to the case in question, will be negatived by an inspection of the Register itself, unless indeed we are to suppose that the old documents were destroyed and new ones written, for which no adequate cause can be assigned. 350 C (Quod ad &c). A little more space should have been left before this paragraph. 352 p. After the word cekbrata] Not after the word celebrata; but after the word London, in the preceding line. XXX VI Notes by the Editor. Ibid. Read, — [Electa], — and for this reason it is thai it ought p. exxxiv. 354 B 6, 354 C 12, and 362 D 6. See p. 340 d. 354 x. On p. 268, 9 Henry VIII grants to Cardinal Wolsey the custody of the temporalities of the Bishopric of Winchester, of which Bishopric in p. 287, 8 the Pope grants him the perpetual guardianship hoth in spirituals and temporals. On p. 387, 8 Henry VIII grants to John Stokesley Bishop Elect of London the custody of the temporalities of that See ; and at the places inserted within brackets similar grants are made, — to Cuthbert (Tonstal) Bp of London of the temporalities of the See of Durham to which he had been elected and translated, to Rowland Lee of those of Lichlield and Coventry, and to Thomas Goodricke of those of Ely. It must be observed, however, that on pages 457 — 9 and 785 similar grants are made to Cranmer of Canterbury aud Day of Chester, when already Bishops, — in the case of Cranmer indeed three days after the date of the Order for the restitution of the temporalities of his Archbishopric ; — as also on p. 780, I to Hethe (Bp of Rochester), with an Indemnity for having already entered into possession ; — so that these grants appear to have been regarded as necessary for Bishops themselves, if not already received. 356 c. "Chap. XIII § 3" does not relate to the subject. In Chap. XII §3. (p. 74) we have a list of fifteen Bishops who both were present at the Convoca- tion of 1543, and also present and consenting to the Articles of 1552, but Barlow is not of the number there given. 361 E 10 insinuatum fuit] Was registered, proved. 361 end and 362 beg. Compare 133 end and 134 beg. 362 C 1. Verba Brookii £c] The author of this Letter appears to have trans- cribed the following passage not from the Ascuns fyc. but from the Grand Abridge- ment itself, which the present Editor has unfortunately been unable to see. This will account for some slight differences of reading noticed at the foot of the pages. 362 C 2. tids] Or tielz as in Courayer, where however it is spelt tiels in the following line. 362 C 3. With Iter (if we so read) we must understand dicitur from the be- ginning of the passage. — Concerning tiels see the preceding note. 362 C 5 with note d. Instead of Nota diversitie we have in the Ascum j-ct the following side-title: "Lease per Evesque nienl sacre, et per Evesque deprive : " diversitie0." And as the Ascuns §-c. is not arranged in subjects like the Grand Abridgement, the date is of course not added to each Case, but placed at the beginning of the year, or reign, and in the running titleP; while at the end of each Case stands the title of the subject from which it is taken, which in the Grand Abridgement is of course at the head of each subject itself. Hence the words " B. Leases 68." (see p. 132, 5), i. e. "Brooke, Leases, Case 68." 363 C 1. Judicesque &c] This as expressed may appear to some to impute ° There is also the side-title " Con- " firmathn." opposite the word " confirme" . i' The 2d year of Mary beginning on the 2d line of the back of leaf 98 I Case 451), the printer has rather awkwardly made the running title to supersede the proper title of the year, notwithstanding the inter- vening line. Case 463 however falling on the first page of leaf 101, the words " Anno " secundo Maria?." have been six times printed distinctly before we arrive at it. The year ends on the next page, the run- ning title of which is the same with that in the middle, " Anno tertio Maria;." Notes by the Editor. — Addenda to d". xxx vii partiality to the Judges ; but what is really meant is only that when it was appre- hended that the decision of the Judges, whose business was merely with the legal aspect of the question, would probably be adverse to Ridley's friends, they applied to the Court of Chancery, which as a Court of Equity, was not so strictly limited. 364, 1. Omit saltan : see p. lxxxviii at the end of the Epitome. MR. WILLIAMS'S APPENDIX. 368 F, 3. s' il est permis de 1' adopter, &c.] Whether it is open to the Church to adopt it for the future. MR. WILLIAMS'S INDEX. The Notes to Mr. Williams's Index will be found at the foot of the page. ADDENDA TO THE PRECEDING NOTES, BEING CHIEFLY, WHAT MANY OF THE PRECEDING NOTES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO, THE TRANSLATIONS OF QUOTATIONS NOT ALREADY TRANSLATED ! SEE P. XII OF THE EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. 17 B 7. Bishop of Paris] Paris was still under Sens when this Dedication was written, though not when it was printed ; having in the mean time been made an Archbishopric, and this same Henri de Condi the first Archbishop, by Gregory XV in 1622. 18 B. margin. Dissert. MSS.] Read perhaps "Dissert. MS.", i. e. "MS. " Dissertation", i. e. the autograph of Reuaudot, which perhaps contained more than what was printed. Compare p. xxvi of the Editor's Introduction, in connec- tion with which it may be observed that the contents and character of the present Work were no doubt pretty extensively known before it was actually published. 19 B 14. After " Ejxistola." add : ["A Letter to a Friend concerning the true " and uninterrupted Succession of the English Bishops down to our own times."] 42 m, last line. After De Vocatione Ministrorum add, [" On the Calling of " Ministers"], 45 D 3 — 4. Sub — invaserat.] Add, ["without any Consecration had invaded " the Episcopate under Edward VI."] 45 D 8. After Anglicance add, [" Annals of the Anglican Church"]. 51, 1 — 3. Qwitenus — eff'ectu.] Add, ["That you, or at the least four of your " number, — the same Master Matthew Parker as Archbishop and Pastor of the " aforesaid Church to consecrate — be pleased with effect." 53, 7 — 9. Nec — pnteris.] Add, [" Nor will you ever be able to shew the " accustomed vocation or Consecration."]. 63 B 8 — 14. Coiifirmati — Parliamcnto.] Add, [" When confirmed they are " consecrated ; and when after their Consecration they have taken the oath of " homage to the Kiug, and the King in return has restored them the possessions of " their Bishoprics . . . they enjoy these honours. They have the title of Lords " in virtue of the Baronies annexed to their Bishoprics, and precedence before " the other Barons of the Kingdom, not only in private assemblies, but in the " Supreme Council of the Kingdom, the Parliament"]. xxxviii Addenda to the preceding 67, 16 — 18. Per — ibidem.] Add, ["by the free and spontaneous resignation " into our hands of the last Bishop of that See."] 68, 4. After ibidem add, ["by the free resignation of the last Bishop of that " See"]. 68, 9. After Bourne, add, [" The See of Bath and Wells became vacant by " the resignation of William Barlow a married man, to whom succeeded Gilbert " Bourne."] 70, 2. After Episcopus add, [" the last Bishop of that See"]. 71 B 6 — 9. Regina, — velitis.] Add, [" the Queen, Sec. . . . desiring . . . " and commanding that the same Master William Barlow as Bishop and Pastor " of the aforesaid Church to consecrate, and all and singular the other things to " perform . . . you be pleased."]. 71 C 14. After conseerare add, [to consecrate.] 72 D 4. To the last foot-note under the note to this line add : — The Rev. William Cole, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, in his acute and entertaining MS. annotations to Strype's Memorials of Cranmer, found in a copy of that Work preserved in the Bodleian Library (K. 5, 13, Art.)q, refers for a correction by Dr. Brett of Wharton's error about this title to vol. 3 of his own A. C. {Athena Cantabrigienses, unpublished, in the British Museum) M. p. 527, 528. 73 3. peragere tjrc] Add, ["Firmly enjoining you that the aforesaid John " Capon of Sarum elect and the aforesaid election to confirm, and the same John " Capon as Bishop of Sarum to consecrate, and the rest to perform Sec."] 73 B 9. velitis.'] Add, ["Wherefore we enjoin you that all the other things " which by you for the Confirmation and Consecration of the same person in the " said Bishopric have been accustomed to be done .... you be pleased to do."] 73 C 6. Consecrationem.] Add, [" For the Confirmation and Consecration."] 73 D 7. velitis.] Add, [" That the aforesaid .... Elect to invest and conse- " crate . . . you be pleased."] 73 E 7. conseerare.] Add, [" The aforesaid election to confirm, and the same " person as Archbishop and Pastor of the aforesaid Church to invest and consecrate."] 74, 3. conseerare.] Add, [" And the same Hugh as Bishop and Pastor of the " aforesaid See to consecrate."] 74, 8. conseerare.] Add, [" The same Richard as Bishop and Pastor of the " aforesaid Church of Chester to consecrate."] 74 C 5. conseerare.] Add, [" To Confirm and . . . consecrate."] 74 D 2. After conseerare add, ["to consecrate"]. 74 C 9. velitis.] Add, [" Enjoining you that . . . the same Election to confirm, " and the same person as Bishop and Pastor of the aforesaid Church to authorize " aud invest, and all and singular the other things to perform . . . you be pleased."] 75, 5. and 75 B 6. investire.] Add, [" to authorize and invest."] 75 C 7. perimplere §-c] Add, ["The aforesaid election to confirm, and all " and singular the other things to perform and fulfil &c."] 75 D 8. facere $-e.] Add, [" The aforesaid election to confirm, and the same " person ... as Bishop and Pastor of the aforesaid Church to institute, and all " and singular the other things to do &c."] i There is also a MS. Index of his at the end, finished A.D. 1775. Notes by the Editor. xxxix 77, 10 — 14. Rogantcs—velitis.] Add, [" Desiring and — commanding, that " the same Master William Barlow, of the said Cathedral Church of Chichester " Bishop and Pastor Elect (as is aforesaid), and the said Election, you confirm, " and all other things perform — ."] 80, 3. After Electi add [" the last Bishop Elect of that See"]. 80, 6. After Electi add [" Bishop Elect of that See"]. 81, 19—23. Cum — iSfc] Add, [" Whereas the Episcopal See of Hereford, as " well hy the natural death of Francis Godwin late Bishop thereof, as hy the pro- " motion of the Rev. Father in Christ William Juxon Bishop Elect of the same to " the Bishopric of London, has lately become vacant, Ate."] 82; 1, 2. After Episcopus Assavensis add, [Bishop of St. Asaph]; after Electus, [Elect]. 82 B ; 12, 13. After Electi et Confirmati add [Elect and Confirmed] ; after Consecrati [Consecrated]. 88 B 18. After " subjiciuntur*" add, [" are subject to the Archbishop alone"]. 90 B (5. After addictissimvs add, ["greatly attached to the Popish doctrine"]. 104 B 5, &c] Accipe Spirilum Sanctum] add, ["Receive the Holy Ghost"]. 104 B 10. Veni Creator] Veni Creator Spiritus ["Creating Spirit come"] &c. : see p. 312, 313. 113; 19,20. ad — spectant] add, ["regard only the solemnity of the Sacra- " ment, and the fuller expression of its meaning"]. 128, 32. restored] Read " restored to their former footing". 133 B. In the second side-note for " deception" read " anachronism". 133 B 17. After Regina add, ["The Judges of the Kingdom under Queen " Elizabeth herself"]. 133 B 24. After Maria: add [" In the second year of Mary"]. 133 B 26. After §-c. add, [" Some Novel Cases of the years and times of the " King Henry VIII, Edward VI, and the Queen Mary, &c."]. 133 1. ult. — 134, 3. Ascuns — ans.] add, [" Some Novel Cases of the years and " times of the King Henry VIII, Edward VI, and the Queen Mary ; written out " from the Grand Abridgment, composed by Sir Robert Brooke, Knight ; there " dispersed under the titles, but here collected under the years."] 136, 14. Remove the comma after " premisses", and place it after " power". 137.22. Supplentes £c] Add as a foot-note : — [Translated, p. 136.] 139.23. After " desit." add: ["Whatever — or in you, or any of you, your " condition, state, or power, for the performance of the premisses maybe wanting." 142.14. several questions] The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. 142. 15. they always exclude] To the 3d, 5th, and 6th questions their answer was the denial of a determinate number at all. With respect to the fourth and seventh see the notes to p. 142, 17 and 144 B 6. 142,17. they extend] Rather "Cranmer extends". Barlow says that four only, viz. Baptism, the Sacrament of the Altar, Matrimony, and Penance, are most chiefly spoken of in the old Doctors. Compare the notes to p. 142, 15, and 144 B 6. 144 B 1. the seventh question] See the note to p. 142, 20. 144 B 3 — 6. Cnnveniunt — Carliolens.] Add, ["They agree except the Bp of " St. David's that the nature of the seven Sacraments is given us in the Scriptures. Addend i to the preceding Notes. " The Abp of York enumerates their sev eral effects : so also the Bp of Carlisle."] ; together with the following note : 144 B 6. except the Bp of St. David's] He (Barlow) allowed it only of Bap- tism, the Sacrament of the Altar, Matrimony, and Penance. Cranmer mentions the same Sacraments, objecting however to the common mode of treating Penance. Of Matrimony he says he finds "very much in Scripture", and accordingly he enlarges most upon it. 144 B; 10, 11. Omnes — Episcopos~\ Add, ["All agree that the Apostles re- " ceived of God the power of making Bishops"]. 144 B; 20, 21. Convenit— Presbyteros] Add, ["All except the Bp of St. " David's agree that Bishops have the power of appointing Priests"]. 144 B 22—27. Eboraeen— Edgeworth.] Add (before the bracket), "The Abp " of York appeals entirely to deny this authority to others. Redmayn, Symmons, " Robertson, Leighton, Thirleby, Cuiren, the Bp of Rochester, Edgeworth, Ogle- " thorp, and the Bp of Carlisle, have nowhere read that others have used this " power ; [although (by a certain privilege) it was given to Moses, as Redman " and Edgeworth think.]" 145, 1—9. Respondent— j-c] Add, ["The Abp of York, the Bps of London " and Carlisle, Leighton, Tresham, Robertson, Edgeworth, Curren, Day, and " Oglcthorp, reply that Consecration is required. Redman says that it was " received from the Apostles, and instituted by the Holy Ghost for conferring " grace. Day, the Bp of Rochester, and Symmons, say that the Priesthood is " conferred by the imposition of hands, and that from the Scriptures, but that " Consecration has long been received in the Church ; Cox that appointment with " imposition of hands is sufficient, and that Consecration is not required by the " Scripture. &c."] 145, 16 — 19. Fatentur — Src.'] Add, [" All allow, as before, that Laymen may " teach. The Abp of York, Symmons, and Oglethorp, deny that they may ordain " Presbyters ; yet the Abp of York allows that they may baptize and perform " marriages ; Edgeworth only that they may baptize, for this he says is sufficient " for salvation. &c."] 15b' B 4. Deus — est,] Add, [" God Who for our sakes was made man,"]. 1.62 m, col. 1,1. 10. After " sensibilia," Morinus proceeds, "qua? sufficienter " significarent collationem potestatis traditce in qualibet Ordinatione ;" (ir/iich should sufficient!)/ signify the con ferring of the power given in any Ordination ,-). Ibid. col. 2, 1. 3, 4. After " superior ;" Morinus proceeds, " materia vero et " forma aliorum Sacramentorum est physica, quam per consequens fixaxn et im- " mutabilem remanere congruit." : (but the matter of the other Sacraments is phy- sical, which consequently it is congruous should remain fixed and immutable.) 163, 6 and 9. See the notes to 162 m. 165, 10. " But Sec."] The preceding words of Gregory are : " Novit fraternitas " tua Romans Ecclesiae consuetudinem, in qua se meminit enutritam." (You know, Brother, the custom of the Church of Rome, in which you remember your- self to have been brought up.) 168 C 6. in particular Pastors] "per quemcunque Ecclesiarum Pastorem". 171 B 3. Read, If he added to the form these words, .... not &c. The word forma' (see note/) was omitted by our author. THE AUTHOR'S MS. ADDITIONS ETC. FOR THE DEFENCE AND SUPPLEMENT. MS. ADDITIONS ETC. FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE FRESENT WORK," FOUND IN THE AUT HOB's HANDWRITING b IN HIS OWN COPY OF THE DEFENCE, PRESERVED IN ARCHBISHOP TENNISON'S LIBRARY: SEE PP. IX AND LXV OF THE PRESENT EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. In vol. 1, part 2, p. 363, L 5, (in the English Translation, vol. 1, p. 500, 1. 17,) sans (without) is corrected in the margin to stir (upon). This correction, however, appears to be a mistake itself. In vol. 2, part 2, after the words " Observations Importantes, &c." {Important Obser- vations, Sfc), which conclude the title of Art. 22 (p. clxii, — in the Eng. Trans, vol. 2, p. 562) of the Proofs, is added : — " par Mr. de Paris, alors Coadjuteur et maintenant Eveque " d' Orleans." (by Mr. de Paris, then Coadjutor and now Bishop of Orleans.) In the last paragraph of the same Article, opposite the words "l'Ecrivain le plus vrai, " le plus modere, et le plus judicieux, qu' ait produit depuis long-temps 1'Eglise Gal- " licane" (p. ccxii : in the Eng. Trans.c, p. 574), the truest, the most moderate, arid the most judicious writer whom the Gulliean Church has produced for a long time, — is written in the margin " L'Abbe Fleury." Besides which, on a blank leaf at the end of vol. 1. part 2, there is waxed a loose paper containing the two following additions : [1.] " Epitaphe de la femme de Scory a [Epitaph of the wife of Scory at] St. Leonard's " Shoreditch. " Here lyeth buried Elizabeth Skory ye wife of ye late Revd Father in God John Skory " late Bishop of Hereford. The said RJ Father in ye reign of King Edward ye sixth was " Bishop of Rochester, and translated from thence to Chichester. He departed this life at " Whitborne in ye County of Hereford ye 26th day of June anno Dom. 1585, and ye said " Elizabeth deceased in Holywell in this Parish ye 8th day of March 1592. " Maitland's Hist, of Lond. L. [Book] 8, p. 869. " Cette Epitaphe est une nouvelle preuve des different Episcopats de Scory. [This " Epitaph is a fresh proof of the different Bishoprics of Scory.] " Addit. pour la Defense, L. 3 [Addition for the Defence, Book 3], Ch. xi, p. 383. [In " the Eng. Trans., vol. 1, p. 513.]" [This Epitaph, however, is not among the Epitaphs given in the account of St. Leonard's Shoreditch in the 8th Book of Entick's Edition of Maitland's History of London, in two volumes, A.D. 1775 ; nor has the present Editor been able, after spending much time in the attempt, to light upon it elsewhere in that Work. The previous Editions of 1739 in one, • The Additional Errata for the Original of the present Work, which it had been intended (see p. Ixv of the Editor's Introduction) to insert here, it has been found necessary, for want of room, to transfer to the end of the Epitome, pp. Ixxxvii, Ixxxviii. Instead therefore of "this volume,— its PS.", on p. Ixv of the Introduction, read, 11 the Epitome of the whole volume." b In the same with the note (dated and signed with his name) at the bottom of the next page. c From which however the present Editor does not profess to quote, having translated or corrected for himself all the foreign quotations which occur in this volume. xlii Author's MS. Additions &c. for the Defence and Supplement. and 175C and 1760 in two, volumes, which are mentioned by Lowndes, and of which that of 1 739 is most probably the one referred to by our author, the present Editor has been unable to see.] [2.] " Autre preuve pour l'Episcopat de Barlow, thie du Registre du Conseil du temps " de la Reine Marie [Another proof for the Episcopate of Barlow, drawn from the Register " of the Council of the time of Queen Mary] : " 22d of April 1554. This day one William Marrincr of Bristoll for conveying of Dr. " Barlow late Bishop of Bath over the Sea was committed to the Marshalsea. " Addition pour la Defense, Liv. 3 [Addition for the Defence, Book 3], Chap. VII pag. " 258. [In the Eng. Trans., vol. 1, p. 433.]" THREE CORRECTIONS AND A NOTE FOR THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE PRESENT WORK AND ITS DEFENCE, FOUND IN THE SAME HANDWRITING IN THE AUTHOR'S OWN COPY OF THE SUP- PLEMENT, PRESERVED IN ARCHBISHOP TENNISOn's LIBRARY ! SEE PP. IX AND LXV OF THE PRESENT EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. I. Three MS. corrections, of irhich the first is found both in the margin and in the Errata, the second in the maryin, and the third in the Errata, alone. " (1.) P. 293, 1. 27, arhevee,je crois] Read, achevie, soil mat fondee, je crois. " (2.) P. 502, 1. 15, Censures'] Read, Censeurs. " (3.) P. 590, 1. 12, VEvtque de Seglia] Read, — de Veglia." II. A MS. note added to the Errata, and referred to in the margin by the words " V. 1' Errata." [See the Errata.] " P. 346,1. 15, ww Memoire justifieatif de Cranmer [a Memoire in justification of Cran- " mer]. J' ai consulte depuis le Memoire dont il est ici question, et il ne s' y agit ni de " Cranmer ni de Barlow : ainsi on n' en peut tirer aucune preuve ni pour ni contre la Con- " serration de Barlow. [I have since consulted the Memoire in question, and neither " Cranmer nor Barlow is there spoken of: no proof therefore can be drawn thence either " for or against the Consecration of Barlow.] " Ce 14. Decembre [This 14th of Dec] 1737. P. Fr. Le-Courayer." Oxford, Ascension Tuesday (May 21) 1844. iiiilii li iiiiil 1 1012 01185 4231