ATIONER4BOOKBINOER, Vi >ltril i :r * A/isT .V BRIGHTON. A DISSERTATION ON THE VALIDITY OF 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. GEXEVIEVE 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. 3To tof)ttf) is attOcB, 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. Eabor Impvobug. OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER: RIVINGTONS, LONDON. MDCCCXLIV. OXFORD : PRINTED BY I. SHRIMI'TON. 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 3 , 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, 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 (he 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 Work b . 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 altogether dispensed with. Dr. Calder'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 Socinian c translation (Lon- don, I787) d of our author's Latest Opinions (see below), a Life, however, which as respects the French part of his career is extremely incorrect 6 , c The word "Socinian" 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. Ixi, note u. " lu 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 been born Nov. 7, instead of 17. This mistake however is found in, and appears to have been taken from, D'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- douiu, 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 i, p. xlv, and note ?/,p.xlix. 4. Onp.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 Noailles, 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 of 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 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. Ixxv) 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. lie misdates as made in England, an observation of our author's to Abp Wake, which was made more than two years sooner : see note //, 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 t J The substance, itshould be observed, of tbese four mistakes is found in this biographer's chief authority, the Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. 84, 85; the second, however, being expressly corrected on p. 544. The other three are continued in the Lit. Auecd. also: see p. vii. note *. 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 also f , 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 magnitude 8 , 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 11 , 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 Ivii ; 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). i 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 Sociniau bio- grapher, but also by the following, which are found in the Life (signed "L Y") given of our author in the Biographie Universelle ; in which, 1. Mason is made Bishop instead of Archdeacon 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 ' that he approved " ' their Liturgy in many respects, and had " ' attended at their sen-ices' ". 4. His Dernlers 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." Maunder' s 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 guess-correction, possibly, of the transposition li 1772 ", found in the Anecdotes of Covyj-cr, p. 84. Compare p. v, note f- INTROD.] there was any Second Edition of the original. vn 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. Ixxix) 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 8vo of 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 Encyklopeedie 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, " Angestellte " Beobachtungen auf einer Reise nach Paris " durch Flandern,Leipz. 1776." ("Arranged " Observations in a Journey to Paris " through Flanders, Leipsic, 1776.") The author of the same Life adds (p. Ixxix, Ixxx) that the accoxmt of ouf 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 1727 is not a mere guess-correction of the error of the Anecdotes of Bowyer, to which he professes (see note *) to be 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. were ;\1HT\\ lirus uiLurjiuruiuu IM uivu MAMHM ^iuuu niiiiuin, ffo*A*j miu 1110 tux*sm*j AJBVCTMMIV ui 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 the two last, published in 1828 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 Nouteau Dictionnaire Historique the present Editor has seen only the Edition of 17 Qfi ~" 1U* nrau. r . \n. nu liu\vf\ui J.IH-HAU*, \>im m**i. aumui ft uuuafiii., iwO passages (Occupying PP 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. v iii 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 172SJ, 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 Thorn dike'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. J 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- IN TROD.] 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 k 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, (seep, 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 ' 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. AVil- 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 ?" 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 Prayer-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, hi 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 Veader 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 Me'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 11 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, but 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 accdunt. 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 formerly 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 then? 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 o 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 Fransois Le Courayer " was born", says the AUgemeine EncyTtlo- paedie of Leipsic, 1818, "at Rouen 1 in Normandy, where his father was " President of the Court of Justice, Nov. 17 r , 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, trod.) ; to which may he added the decisive both here (p. 84) and in mentioning his authority of that under the picture in the Will (p. 85). See more p. Iv. Bodleian (see p. Ivii, and compare p. Iv. 1 In the La France Litteraire of D' He- note w). hrail and Laporte (in two volumes, 1769), * The new Biog. Brit (seep, vii, note f) vol. 1, p. 229, the date is given as Nov. refers to vol. 2, p. 19 of the " Observations 7, a mistake which has been followed by " in a Journey &c." (see p. vii, note h) for the Socinian biographer (p. xiii, the first a description of this Library ; which " is a of the Life itself: compare note e), not- " grand room in the form of a cross, about withstanding the inscription mentioned by " 300 feet in length and breadth, with a himself on p. Ixxx (see p. Iv of this In- " dome finely painted in the center". xvi Early life and first literary labours " Some words in the copy are effaced " supply. They are those which are in " here, which it has been necessary to " italics." INTROD.] to the Prior of St. Genevifae. 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- " Hans. 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 then" 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.) " * * * But 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- " ducing 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- " lity 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 then* 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 IXTROD.] of St. Gencvie've, 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. ~RvAfrustrajacitur rete ante oculos pennatorum [' 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. 1. c. 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 Encyklopaedie 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 (see p. 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 (droif) ; 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 1 727 r , and adds (p. 49) that he received at that time an infinity r 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 6th 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. They c 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 8 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) 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. (b) 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 Ca^torie, in favour of the validity of the English Ordinations, (rf) 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 1 . 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 1 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 Larimer'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 Hoi- beach on the 24th of March the same year. Ridley was consecrated Bishop of Rochester according to the Roman Pontifical in the beginning of Edward VI' s 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. 327 J). 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. 1550, 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 actually 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 VI's first Ordinal Aug. 30. 1551 ; the Suffragans of Thetford and Bedford according to the Roman Pontifical, O O 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- " lives 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 llth 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 17th of the following January. INTROD.] of the present Work, xxxvii Art. 10, " Proofs of the Consecration of Sands", Jewel x , 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- " tannicee Ecclesice of the London Edition of 1572." The number is 21, of which 13 contained the Mattfueus, 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 y 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 11 Otherwise Sandes or Sandys. The " them in the handwriting of [John] Jocelyn omission of the second vowel in writing " [the Archbishop's Secretary] ; see below was owing of course to its having previ- " p. 85, note f, and Master's Hist, of ously been dropped in pronunciation. " C.C.C. p. 113. ed. Lamb.)." Editor's * Our author writes his name systemati- Notes (see p. xiv, note d) to the Anglo- cally Iwel. Catholic Library Edition of Bramhall's y I. e. the above Mattheeus, and "another Consecration of Protestant Bishops, p. 12. " Life of him (in many passages substan- note f. This last mentioned Life was trans- tially the same) contained in ' a little lated into English by a determined Puritan, 'Latin book, belonging to' Corpus and published, together with a virulent in- Christi College, Cambridge, ' called His- vective against the De Antiquitate Eccl. ' toriola, being a MS. declaring briefly Brit, (of which the translator had seen a ' the History of the Foundation and the copy without the Mattheeus), in the year 'successive Masters of that College' (of 1574, without mention of place or name, whom Parker was one); 'writ by the Ibid.; where and in the other valuable notes ' Archbishop's own directions about the to, as well as in the test of, the Postscript ' year 1 569, and still preserved with great occupying p. 1 1 14, other interesting par- ' esteem in the College' (Strype, Parker ticulars concerning both this and the " bk. iv. c. 42 : there are two copies of Mattheeus, as well as the rest of the De " the MS. in C.C.C. Library, the older of Antiquitate, will be found. xxxviii Contents of the Defence. Answers to [EDITOR'S preserved in the family, in which he is mentioned as having been con- secrated Bishop of St. David's hi 1536. Art. IS 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. z " 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 Svo volumes, was published hi 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 2 These Observations were the produc- giving our author some hints of prudence, tion of the Coadjutor of Orleans, and re- make, together with two paragraphs of ex- lated, not to the question of the Anglican planation, the 6th Article (p. 40 46, the Orders, but to our author's incidental second letter occupying p. 45 and half of treatment of the doctrine of the Eucharistic 46) of the 2d or documentary volume. Of Sacrifice. (See above, in the contents of the very serious results which this contro- vol. III.) They had been presented by versy, which however does not directly con- their author (or nominal author, for ac- cern the question of the Anglican Orders, cording to Courayer they were attributed occasioned to our author, more will be said to Du Mesnil, Almoner to the Bishop of hereafter. Orleans), first in manuscript, and after- Before the publication of this Memoire, wards, in 1726, in print, to the Assembly it may be here mentioned, there had been of the Clergy, both times without immediate circulated in Paris a manuscript letter of a effect. Before they were published, which very burlesque character, addressed to our was on the day preceding that of the Second author, but of which he did not learn the Assembly, our author had requested in writer's name, ridiculing most of the vain, by a letter dated Aug. 28. 1726, the answers to the Dissertation, but especially opportunity of explaining what the Coad- the theological fancies of Hardouin, and jutor might think incorrect in his views, taunting Le Quien with a partnership fit and failing of this, published afterwards only to dishonour him. Our author would the Memoire in question. See the Rela- have reprinted it in the 2d or docu- tion, vol. 1, chap. 2, p. 29 36. The mentary volume of the Relation, had its letter, as well as one (dated Oct. 2. 1726) turn been more serious, and had not some of a Doctor of the Sorbonne (without the of its expressions been too low. Relation, name), commending the Meinoire, but vol. 1, chap. 2, p. 36. INTROD.] this Second Work. Hardouin. Th. de St. Ren 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- " prebend 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 Atif. 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 INTRO!).] Answer of Le Quien. Courayer'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 fails "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 12ino volume of some magnitude, intitled " Supplement aux deux Ouvrages &c." A Supplement to the two Works drawn up 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 then- 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). xlii 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 afterwards . 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. 224. " 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. XI. 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 which 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 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 have 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 156P. INTROD.] 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 6 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. h * 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 Biographic 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 8 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 ^ 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 * Henry de Thiard, son of Claude de Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. 84: also p. v. notee Thiard, Count of Bissy, and a distinguished of this Introd.), dated Dec. 7. 1726, the Abp IXTROD.] with respect to the Sacrifice. The details of the various steps taken hy 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 history 1 . Jt 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 llth 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 Noailles f, 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 N oailles, 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 Hi-story 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, ia 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. Biographie Unirenelle. f Some account of this Instruction is given in the 14lh Chapter of the Relation. xlvi The Author's Oxford Degree. [EDITOR'S censures of St. Germain and Embrun (see again note ), 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) hi 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 had 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 n 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, hy Sam. Jallason, for Peter du Noyer, London 1728. The French (of hoth) was reprinted hy our author in his Relation &c. vol. 2, Art. 23, p. 295308 ; the English in the Historical Register as ahove. We are also referred hy 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 XI V was born, and James II held his Court after he had lost possession of the British Crown. Encycl. Brit. It is on the left bank. m Where there is also, according to the Allgemeine Encyklopaedie of 1818, 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. Ix 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 "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 author's arrival in England, which the Reviewer erroneously assumes to have been earlier, instead of later, than that of the degree. 11 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. 102104, 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. 1 33, 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 month?, 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 than r ] three days by contrary " winds. It is said, indeed, that he narrowly escaped apprehension in his " way 3 : he got safe, however, to England, towards the end of January " 17 27-8*, where he was embraced with open arms. " On his landing at Greenwich, Lord Viscount Perceval, afterwards Earl " Fleury, then Prime Minister of might in consequence be exposed. Also " France", is the Editor's note to the words to the Due de Noailles for the same pur- " the Cardinal" in p. 109 of the same Work pose, Jan. 20. See these letters, Rel. vol. and portion to which this biographer refers. 2, Art. 22, p. 287 291. He had pre- Compare p. xx, with note I, and p. v, note viously obtained leave to compensate a e, of this Introduction. disagreeable sojourn of four months at P Besides that this is but little consistent Hennemont (see p. xlvi) by a visit to Senlis, with what is said in the latter part of the which however the publication of the Car- same paragraph, we learn from our author's dinal's Instruction (see p. xlv, note i) de- own statement that he left Paris Jan. 12. termined him to abandon, but which fell 1728, i. e. six weeks after the date men- in opportunely to cover his retreat into tioned. See more in note e, p. v, and note England. Rel. vol. 1, p. 309. k, p. xlvi. l He reached London Jan. 24, the same 1 T. e. P&re, Father. day (as he was informed by a letter of Feb r Relation &c. vol. 1, p. 312. 12) that an order of Council was given for 5 He wrote, from Calais to the Superior arresting him. This however, as well as of his Order (seep. 1, note e) Jan. 19, to in- other similar measures, appear to have- form him of the step he was taking ; not been intended rather to mark displeasure calculating apparently upon the chances of and alarm others than with their ostensible such delay, and the danger to which he object. (See Rel. vol. 1, p. 325 &c.) xlviii His reception in England. L 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 by 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 1736 X this pension was doubled by 11 An amusing version of this appears in " 'place'", of a Bishop in the Anglican the Nouveau Diet. Hist. : " Two noblemen Church : see p. Hi of this Introd. There " gave him the use of their tables and are five copies in the Bodleian, four in the " houses, one in the summer, and the other General, and one, printed by Bowyer (see " in the winter." p. 83 of Nichols's Anecdotes of that printer, It was obtained "with some difficulty", 4to, 1782) together with some verses of his according to the Anecdotes of Bowyer, p. own recited at the same Act, in the Gough 84. Compare a letter of Atterbury's, in Collection, in which is preserved also a which he speaks of the policy of the English translation of it " by a Gentleman of the towards the French Court; Epist. Corresp. " University of Oxford" printed in 8vo the vol. 4, p. 133, 134. following year. From vol. 2, p. 39 of the x Previously to this time, viz. July 11, same Mr Nichols's Literary A necdotes of the 1733, which that year was the last day of Eighteenth Century, 1812, into which the Trinity or Act Term, we find him at Oxford, former Anecdotes were incorporated, we delivering in the Theatre a Latin Oration, gather that our author " was sneered at in which was afterwards published with the " a pamphlet of eight pages," signed with title "Oratio habita in Theatro Sheldoniano his name, and containing two caricatures of " a P. F. Courayer, S.T.P., Quinto Id. Julii him, in a white dress, with a bell in his " MDCCXXXIII." (An Oration delivered hand. This pamphlet might perhaps have in the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford by P. F. been supposed the same with the Letter Courayer, D.D., July 11, 1733.) In 4to, (mentioned on the same page) from our 9 pages, besides the title. The Socinian author to "the Reverend William Whiston, biographer (p. Ixii) refers to this Oration " in answer to his Letter concerning the as containing (p. 5 and 6) " some very " holy Order of the Tertullyanites in Asia " acrimonious passages", shewing in his " Minor, being Father Courayer's first " opinion that, as Dr. Clarke said of Abp " Essay in the English tongue. To which " Wake on his promotion to the See of " is prefixed, a sketch of the habit of the " Canterbury, P. Courayer, with all his " Tertullyanites, which the curious will " moderation, was ' Priest enough for the " not be sorry to see", published in 1728, INTROD.] His Council of Trent. His income S(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 year? ; 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, at Rome: Cardinal Tencin (see p. xlv, had not the Index, revised by Nichols notes i and *) and the Bp of Auxerre had himself, treated them as distinct. also issued Mandates against it* It may be added here that Ol. Kicerning, " This Translation is very superior to who published at Helmstadt in 1739 a Dis- " that of the same Work by Amelot de la sertation concerning the Ordinations of the " Houssaie." Nouveau Diet. Hist, of 1786. Anglican Bishops, had enjoyed the advan- The same authority observes that " the tage both of epistolary correspondence and " reading of the Treatise De R, public d also of conversations in England with our " Ecclesiasticd [On the Church Common- author, who however made some corrections " wealth] of the celebrated Antony de in the Nouveau Bibliotheque, vol. VII, p. " Dominis had led astray the Canon of 341. Allgemeine Encyklopeedie of Leipsic " St Genevieve" ; pointing out at the 1818, compared with Maclaine, App. Ill, same time a remarkable similarity in their p. 118 (see note c, p. xvii, xviii). lives, viz. that both fled to England, where * "A French Translation of Father Paul's the one edited, the other translated the " [Italian] History of the Council of Trent, History of Father Paul. " with notes critical, historical, and theolo- Of this same History Dr. Johnson com- " gical, 1736, London, 2 volumes in folio; menced in 1738 a new English version, "printed at Amsterdam in the same year accompanied by a translation of our author's " in two volumes 4to, and at Trevoux, notes ; which however was afterwards dis- " under the title of Amsterdam in 3 continued, and the six sheets which had " volumes in 4to, with a Defence of the been printed destroyed. See Nichols's Li- " Translation by the Author of it" Socini- terary Anecdotes &c. vol. 2, p. 44, and vol. 5, an Life, p. Ixxvi. This Defence ("Defence p. 20 and 28, 29. According however to " de la nouvelle &c." Defence of the new the Allgemeine Encyklopaedie of Leipsic Translation of the History of the Council of 1818 and the Biographic Universelle these Trent, fyc.) was printed separately at Am- notes were translated into English as well sterdam, in 1742, in one 12mo vol. of 462 as Italian and German. The text had been pages, besides a Preface of xxiv pages, &c. translated into English by Sir Nath. Brent The Translation itself had been prohibited in 1616 : Lit. Anecd. vol. 2, p. 44. On the same side we find a Work of the Abbe Gervaise, (see p. xxii) " L'honnenr &c." Tltt honour of the Church and of the Sorereign Pontiffs defended against the calumnies and invectives of Father I* Courayer in his History of the Council of Trent; Nunei, 1742, '1 volumes 12mo. Iiiograj>/tie L'uictr- telle, Art. Gercaise, Dom Francois Armand. d 1 His charities. His religious practice [EDITOR'S " Poor prisoners were favourite objects of his charitable disposition, and " shared very liberally in his bounty. From the first payment of his " pension, it was certainly his custom 7 , and the writer is well assured, that " it was not unusual for him, to pay from fifty to eighty pounds a year at " a time* for their benefit. , " It is well known, and well attested, that he was wont to restrict his " expenditure on himself to a very moderate weekly sum ; and all that he " could possibly save out of his own allotment, with the remainder of his " income, never forgetting his charities, he religiously appropriated to " supply the necessities and to add to the comforts of two nun sisters and an " elder brother [see p. Iv] whom he left behind him in France b . " Money, notwithstanding, grew upon him, and he was rather rich at the " time of his death, as appears by his Will, of which it maybe proper to say " something in the sequel." Ibid. p. xxvii xxxii. Soon after his arrival in London he applied, as is said, to a Roman Catho- lic Priest to hear his confession ; but the Priest, " finding him excommuni- " cated, or on the point of excommunication" , declined doing so, "and " earnestly recommended to the Doctor an immediate application to his " rightful Superior at St. Genevieve." Ibid. p. xxxiii, xxxiv. It is said, however, " that for many years, and it may be to the end of his life, he " applied for confession, in order to absolution, regularly, at stated times". Ibid. p. xxxvii. The same biographer informs us that he " is well warranted to say, that " he always continued to the last, every day, to say, or repeat, his " breviary, which was a daily business of more than one hour." When in London he attended only the services of the Church of Rome. Ibid. p. xxxviii. " Nevertheless, at Baling in Middlesex, a village to which Instead of a comma, we ought appa- was declared, however, to have incurred rently to read with a semicolon, supplying the greater excommunication, by his Su- the sense from the preceding sentence. perior Fr. de Riberolles, Abbot of St. Either "a year" or "at a time", Genevieve, and Chief and Superior General more probably the former, ought, as it of the Canons Regular of the Congregation would seem, to be omitted. of France, assisted by the Prior and others, b "He was occasionally generous to Jan. 30, 1728.* The sentence, preceded by " some of his relations in France" is the the Abbot's circular letter (dated Feb. 1), expression in the Anecdotes of Bowyer. and an introductory paragraph, forms the The Socinian biographer, however, was in 25th Article, p. 322 333, of the 2nd or possession of some original information, documentary volume of the "Relation &c." see note h, p. vi, vii : yet that his state- A reprinted letter of our author's to the ment is at least somewhat overcharged, his Abbot, dated Mar. 15. 1728, commenting own following paragraph implies. on this sentence, forms with an introductory c Elsewhere (p. lii) this biographer says paragraph the last Article, p. 333 346, of that " it does not certainly appear that he the same volume ; in which are contained " was ever actually excommunicated" from also a variety of other letters relating to the Roman Catholic Communion. He both controversies. The Nouteau Diet. Hist. Calderwood's Hist, of the Church q [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. 105.] m [Spotswood, p. 174.] r [Ibid. Chap. 3.] " [Ib. p. 156. Calderwood, p. 26.] ' Spots, p. 303. [Cald. p. 85.] Spotswood, p. 260. ' Calderwood, p. 1 16. " 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 ^ored. C " 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 1664, he caused four v Spotswood, p. 514. Calderwood, History, vol. 2. p. 702. p. 644. * The Life [History of the Troubles w Heylin's Hist, of the Presbyterians, and Trial] of W. Laud, p. 5G. p. 387. and Collier's Ecclesiastical y In [1638 and] 1639. D2 36 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 z . 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 c , 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 fo 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 ' the 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 Mary, [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 Ib. p. 538. 1706,] p. 253. e Ib. 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 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. CHAP. 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. Honry 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, Accipe Spiritum 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 PARKER'S 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. 1558. 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 ah 1 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 cCelire* 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 so b , 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 Bishop , 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, John 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 nichilomimts, supremo, auctoritate nostra regia, ex mero motu ac certa scientia nostris, si quid, aut in hiis qua juxta mandatum nostrum prcedictum per vos Jient, aut in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facilitate, vestris, ad prcemissa perficienda, desit aut deerit eorum, qua per statuta hujus regni, aut per leges ecclesiasticas, 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 d Rymer, vol. 15. p. 541. and 519. See the Proofs. OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 41 Hodgskins Suffragan of Bedford, confirmed Parker's election Confirmed, on the ninth of December 6 . The Record of Confirmation is found in Archbishop Bramhall's Works'"; 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 of cr December 1559, by the same Bishops who had confirmed the election. The Record is found in Bramhall's Works, and in Burnet's History among the Records s, 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 roo ^ s ' 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; Sfc. 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 Canterbury' 1 , and in Corpus Christi College Library at Cam- bridge ! ; and we see that all that is there related agrees with the public Records which are 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 contem- 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. Archiepiscopatum Cantuariensem rite f [Page 1022. ] electus, concione habita, Spiritu Sancto E Bramhall, p. [1044. and] 1051. and invocato, et Eucharistia celebrata, im- Burnet, vol. 2. Appendix, p. 363. positions manuum trium quondam Epi- h [Copied, Bramhall, p. J044.] scoporum, Gul. Barlovi Bathoniensis, ' [Copied, Bramhall, p. 1051. and Joan. Scorii Cicestriensis, Milonis Co- Burnet, 1. c.] verdali Exoniensis, et Joan. Suffra- k Matthseus Parkerus, vir pins, era- ganei Bedfordiensis, Lambethse conse- ditu?, et moribus modestissimis, qui cratur. Ille postea consecravit Edmun- Henrico VIII. a sacri>, Collegi.itse Ecole- dum Grindallum, &c. Camden. Annal- site Stoke-Clarcc Decanus prsefuerat, ad Eliz. p. 38. [f p. 49. Ed. Hearn.~\ 42 NEAL'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. Neai's Nevertheless, how reasonable soever it may seem to give credit 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. " m ln the beginning of Queen Eliza- 1 17. Decembr. Ann. 1559. 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 quse tempora servasti me ? &c. Life of non mediocri prosequebantur, oppro- Parker, Appendix, p. 15. briis lacessere coeperunt, quidam inter m Initio regni Elizabethae, depositis illos dicentes : Delirus iste senex existi- etincustodiamconjectisCatholicisEpi- mat nos Episcopos non fore, nisi liniti scopis, ut infra videbimus, alii creandi, et oleo ddibuti fuerimus ; tarn Epi- et illis sufficiendi erant. Qui fuerunt scopum senem quam Catholicum con- ad illam dignitatem nominati et electi, secrationis ritum ludibrio habentes. ex. condicto in quodam hospitio (cui Consecratore tamen frustrati, novum insigneeratCaputMannuli,invicodicto coguntur quserere consilium, et ad Cheapside) Londini convenerunt. Illuc Seoreum apostatam Monachum (qui etiam invitatus venit Landavensis Epi- sub Edvardo sexto absque ulla con- scopus, multa senectute jam decrepitus, secratione, ut statim videbimus, Epi- vir simplex et meticulosus. Ab ipso scopatum invaserat), ut ab eo orclina- expectabant ordinationem novi candi- rentur, recurrunt. Iste, qui cum habitu dati. Quod Bonerus Episcopus Lon- religioso conscientiam omnem exuerat, dinensis, in carcere religionis ergo rem cito peregit, hac usus caeremonia. constitutes, subolfaciens, minatus est Illis 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 conscientise tern verbum Dei sincere prtedicandi. Et stimulis, ille pedem retulit, et oculorum sicsurrexerunt omnesEpiscopi. Champ- iofimiitatem causatus, manus eis im- ney de cocatione Ministrorum,c.U.pA97. OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 43 betli'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 decrepid 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, w r hom 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 Neal, 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 Refuted, when only 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, T 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 Rymer has given us in his Collection of public 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 n 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 ah 1 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 Collection , 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. 63. Rymer, vol. 15. p. 573. OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 45 are 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. " P 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 JEpiscopatum 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 Anglicance marks the day of his Consecration ; ' Elizabetha quidem itahsec[fofficia] certis personis, ac ritu etiam certo, se- per lit eras patentee oonferebat, ut tameii cuudum leges regni ordinari. Sande- oportuerit eos quibus collata erant, a rns de Schism. Anq. 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* 1 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. 6 C " 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 q [See the Life of Parker, p. 57; Bramhall, p. 446; and Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. 2. p. 404. ED. ] OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 47 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 are 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, Hoe conse- crationes et coiifirmationes 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 Canterbury s , being willing to Examined -,-.. , , T i /> i i f i bv Roman convince .bitzherbert how little foundation there was tor 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 1 Anno itaque Domini 1559, Cantua- Herefordensi, Milone quondam Exoni- riensis Archiepiscopus electus est a ensi,etRichardo(leg. Johanne) Bedfor- Decano et Capitulo Ecclesiffi Metropo- densi, lege quadam de hac re lata liticse Cantuariensis. Posteaque eodem requisitis, consccratus est. Life of anno, 17. die Decembris, adhibitis qua- Parker, Appendix, p. 151. tuor Episcopis, W. Cicestrensi, Johanne * Godwin dc Prses. Angliae, 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 hands, 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 lately 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 are 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 BramhalPs 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. ' [f The King of France's Library at Paris.] OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 49 "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- O bj. H. 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, Ansvver . 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. But 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. But 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 are. 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 50 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD CHAP, much advantage is endeavoured to be taken against him. It 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 riousiy Va who cite the Registers, form the third objection to their au- 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, Scory, 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, Scory, 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 we 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 PARKER'S ORDINATION. 51 that Commission. Quatenus vos, out ad minus quatuor vestrum, eundem Magistrum Matheum Parker in Archiepiscopum ct Pastorem Ecclesice pr&dictce 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 \vith. 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, or 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. E2 52 DEFENCE 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 01-' PAKK.EU/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, but 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 : *Nec approbatam et assuetam vocationem aut consecrationem ostcndere 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 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 he^, 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 writing z : but, unluckily for Champney, 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 Stow% in his u Quis nescit, te tuosque collegas, y De Vocat Minist cap. 14. p. 502. non dico aliter quara requirunt Canones [et 504.] Ecclesiae,sednecsecundumpraescriptum z [Ibid. p. 501.] Statutorum vestrorum ordinatos csse ? a The Survey of London, p. 491. Staph'loni Opera, vol. 2. p. 839, 810. [p. 533. Ed. 1633.] 1 [Ibid, p. 830.] 54 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD C H A p. Description of the Antiquities of the City of London, Grindal, IL w ho 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 Rymer'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- sition 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, source. 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 before : this Commission is therefore forged . and if this first be 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. H4. [vol. 1. p. 142. Ed. 172J 31.] 56 DEFENCE OF THE RECORD CHAP. Supremacy. But the Oath of Supremacy was not tendered J him until the end of October 1559. Rymer c 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. He 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. of t ^ e ujg^pg j n ^ montn o f 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 does 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 c Vol. 15. p. 545. A Ant. Ilarmer, p. 151. OF PARKER'S ORDINATION. 57 months of June and July following, and upon their refusal, several \vere deposed at that time. If then Stow is to be understood but of some Bishops, it is very certain that there were some deposed in the month of July, as Heath Archbishop of York 6 , Thirlby Bishop of Ely 6 , &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, s is authentic; that the story of the Chcapside 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 '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 Neal'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 \ve 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. e Slrype's Annals, vol. 3. p. 143. [vol. 1. p. 1 41. Ed. 172531-1 CHAP. III. BAHLOW, PARKER'S CONSECRATOR, WAS HIMSELF CONSECRATED. PROOFS Of THIS CONSECRATION. CHAP. As few at this day dispute the authenticity of the Records - 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- >ns< pally 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 Collection 3 , 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- a Vol. 15. p. 550. 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 Testirao- 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 d , 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 b Gulielmus Barlow, Canonicorum nis Augustiniani, a Decano et Capitulo Regularium apud Bisham Prior, conse- Assavensi in Episcopura electus anno cratus est Febr. 22. 1535. Aprili deinde 1536, Januarii 16, a Thoma Archi- mense sequente Meneviam translatus episcopo Cant, die 23. Februarii se- est. Godwin, de Prcesulibus Anglice, quentis confirmatus est. De Episc. P- 663. Loiiti. et Assav. p. 359. c Willelmus Barlow, tune Prior Ca- d Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 22. nonicorum Regularium de Bisham, Ordi- 60 MANY OTHER CONSECRATIONS CHAP, the 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 Sirype. part of this chapter. Mr. Strype also, the author of the Life of Cranmer 6 , 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 Ecclesise Anglican ae. Silence The silence then of 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 s : 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 Memorials of Cranmer, p. 37. B Memorials of Cranmer, p. 95. TindicuB EccL AngL lib. 3. c. 10. h FatemurinRegistroCranmerinon P- 369- repeririConsecrationemBarlowi^sednci- OMITTED IN CRANMER'S REGISTER. 61 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^ Turbcrville of Exeter, Hopton of Norwich, Goldwcli of St. Asaph, whose Confirmations and Consecrations, if I am not very much mistaken, are not to be found now in the Archiepiscopal 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 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 Cranmer's Life 1 , who dates this Consecration on the twenty- aliorum plurimorum Episcoporum, de chiepiscopalibus hoc tempore habentur ? quorum tamen Ordinatione nunquam De f'era et non Interrupta Episc. Aug. adhuc a quoquam fuit dubitatum : Foxii Successione Epist. p. 16. Herefordensis Episcopi, Sampsonis 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 Wigorniensi, de Whito Lincolniensi, de make ill uses of. His writings will not Bayno Lichfeldensi, de Turbervillo always fall into the hands of such can- Exoniensi, Hoptono Norwicensi, Gold- did, judicious readers as our author is ; %vello Asaphensi Episcopis ; quorum and therefore it would be an act of great aut ego egregie fallor, aut nee Confir- charity, or rather justice, to the public, matio nee Consecratio in Registris Ar- and reputation to himself, to review 62 OTHER PROOFS CHAP, sixth of September 1535? I own it cannot be attempted, it - being a plain error, as the conge cTelire* bears date only the seventh of January 153, 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 Hereford 1 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. G 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- " cumstance 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 Prsemunire." 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 153f, as appears by the Record of it which is found in Rymer's Collection n ? 2. I 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 ' 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 bene- This Statute is among the Proofs, ficent, how praiseworthy an attempt " Vol. 14. p. 559. would that be! I can promise him large Here the 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 OP 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 Before Ed- Edward the Third, there are some examples of Bishops sitting xhh-d. 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 consecrati homagii juramentum Regi prce- stiterint, et Rex illis vicissim suorum Episcopatuum possessiones restituerit .... his honoribus potiuntur. Titulum habent Do- minorum ratione Baroniarum suis Episcopatibus annexarum, et prcecedentiam prce aliis Regni Baronibus non modo in privatis congressibus, 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 he**, "cannot elect without the King's Conge d'Eslire. 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 receiveth homage for the Bishopric, French Edition, and substituted this p Polit. Eccl. Angl. c. 5. p. 39, 40. short paragraph [and the first two words q Bramhall' s Works, vol. 1. p. 482. of the next] in their stead. [D. W.] 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. Bumct. Bishop Burnet, who must have been very well acquainted with the custom in this respect, attests the same thing in his History 1 . 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 daring the vacancy of the See ; who, in England, is styled Guardian of the Spiritualities*. Barlow But both in the Writs and in the Sessions of Parliament held edTth n " 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 two lines 2. p. 404. to be omitted here which are in the 8 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 ^ Gustos spiritualitatis. this paragraph : this was thought too Vol. 14. p. 563. and 737. inconsiderable to be inserted, as the PLACE IX COX VOCATION. 65 Mason y 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 of z . 4. At the same time with the Parliament of 1536 assembled In Convo- the Convocation of the Clergy, where several propositions were ^ 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's a . 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 h , 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 riot been consecrated himself? And that the more, because the con- stant usage of England is c , 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- o o / crates other alterations are, in the Appendix ; Mr. Williams's last note, however, be- others, nor was there so much as a hint given fore me, I have felt bound to print the of this in the first Edition, which was sentence as he gives it. ED.] occasioned by some mistake or another. a Collier's Eccl. History of Great D. W. [The clause omitted is the Britain, vol. 2. p. 126, 127. following: "and moreover, as we have b [-f- See the [Preface to the] Institu- seen, the Act of Investiture bears date tion of a Christen Man.] [Reprinted April 26, 1536." ED.] in " Formularies of Faith put forth by y Vindiciae Eccl. Angl. p. 368. authority during the reign of Henry z [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." With c See the Proofs : [Art. IX.] F 66 FURTHER PROOFS CHAP, is a Record in Cranmer's Register of the Consecration of 1IL Arthur Bulkeley as Bishop of Bangor. This ceremony was performed the nineteenth of February 15-H* 1 , 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 be 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 remai-ks, Henry the Eighth in this only renewed the ancient Canons of the Church : ad imitationem antiquorum canonum. But by the Canterbury Register, it is certain that in 154, Barlow w r as one of the Consecrators of Bulkeley, who, according to Cranmer's Commission 1 , 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 solemnity, 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 1559, Barlow was one of the Con- secrators. But if he had not been consecrated, why was he not consecrated together with the rest? And can there be any < Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 27. esse verus Episcopus ; ncc alio modo e Decrevit ne quisquam electus in ordinatum pro Episcopo agnosci opor- Episcopum Bullas Pontificias seu man- tere. Sanderus de Schismate Anglicano, datum Apostolicum de consecratione lib. 3. p. 348. requireret, sed Regium tantum diploma f This Commission [f or Mandate] adferret, secundum quod a tribus Epi- will be found in a letter of which some scopis cum consensu Metropolitan ordi- extracts are given among the Proofs. natus, jubebatur Icge comitiorum, facta s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 95. ad imitationem antiquorum canonum, i> 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 1 , "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. 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 Consecrationis 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 libcram et spontaneam resignationem Domini Willielmi Barlowe, ultimi Episcopi et Pastoris ejusdem 1 ; [f 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 cCelire directed to the Chapter of Bath by Queen Mary, dated the thirteenth of March 1554 : Per liberam et spontaneam resigna- tionem in manus nostras ultimi Episcopi ibidem; 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 deprivationem ct amotionem ultimi Episcopi ibidcm n , [1~by the l deprivation and removal of the last Bishop of that See.] But it is evident that these terms are here used 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 i The Life of M. Parker, p. 6-3. n [Ibid. p. 376.] k Ant. Harmer, p. 133. See the letters printed among the 1 Ibid. p. 135. Proofs. Kymer, vol. 15. p. 3<>f). F 2 gg NEGATIVE PROOF. CHAP, successor, and subsequent by more than a month to the ILL sentence supposed to have been passed, it is again said that the See was vacant by Barlow's resignation, per liberam resig- 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 successit 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. Q f no j egg f orce than the 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. 384.] THE WANT OF THE RECORD SUPPLIED. 69 Record can be hurtful. But 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 OS THE OTHER 9II>E. THE PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS [S 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 J ection - 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, su PP lied - 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 CHAMFNEY. CHAP, his resignation, and who in the sentences of deprivation gave him the title of ulthnus iitius sedis Episcopvs, 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. \N hy 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. Xo conclu- sion, then, can be drawn against Barlow's Consecration from the want of its being registered. Champney But, says Champney a , all he did was without power, and -imply 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 obstinacv. 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 mam tain 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 Voc2tiont ;9I. SECOXD 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 cTeKre, 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- 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. ^Regina, Sec. . . . Rogantes . .. et mandantes quatenus eundem Magistrum Willielmum Barloo Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesicz pr Regist. Laud. f. 28. 6. * Reg. Cranmer. f. 205. G 82 SUPPOSED COLLUSION c H A P. 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 before ? Further It is therefore false that it is unprecedented for Bishops matkm. 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 extensiveuess, 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 author 3 , the new Bishop after his Consecration is styled only electi et confirmati, and not consecrati ; which proves to a demonstration, that the term JElectus 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. 656.] 716, &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, by 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 Prsemunire ? 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 84 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 proof. . n f avour O f B ar 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: h "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 chosen, without mention made of any Orders, should be 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 advancing 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 lce ' the 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 b Strype's Memorials, vol. 1. Appen- Collier's Eccles. Hist vol. 2. p. 135. 4ix, p. 287. [p. 18*. Ed. 1721.] and c Fox's Martyrs, vol. 2. p. 715, BETWEEN CRANMER 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 \^ ei 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 be very secret ; and this too is what they pretend, saying that the whole affair was managed between Cranmer 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 BONDER'S THREAT. CHAP, can be laid upon such a conjecture, and it ought to be regarded IV - as demonstrated, that Barlow's Consecration is indisputable. Third ob- I proceed now to the last difficulty which M. L'Abbe Renaudot 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. Bonner's IT is not easy to see at first sight, what connection there can 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. Neai's To understand this menace fully, it is necessary to remem- ber 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. " a Thither likewise, upon invitation, Illuc etiam invitatus venit Landa- Londinensis, in carcere religio'nis ergo vensis Episcopus, mult a senectute jam constitutus, subolfaciens, minatus est decrepitus, vir simplex et meticulosus. Landavensi excommunicationem, si eos Ab ipso expectabant ordinationem novi ordinaret : quo nuncio territus, et tactus candidati. Quod Bonerus Episcopus etiam fortassis iutriiisecus conscientiae 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, and 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 whole relation of Neal, 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 pedcm retulit, et oculorum nere recusavit. Champney de vocat. iufirmitatem causatus, manus eis impo- Minht. cap. 14. p. 497. 88 THE THREAT ITSELF 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 SSpfobaf 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*, 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: " c The 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 sint, nullus Episcoporum Han. (v. p. 78.): in Ed. Lond. 1729, prseter se jus aliquod habeat, sed hu- P 1 J-] mana simul et divina omnia, velut in Mos et consuetude Archiepiscopo- propria dicecesi, in sua disposition rum Cantuariensium ab antiquo fuit consistant. Ibid. et est, ut in terris suis, ubicunquc per ALTOGETHER IMPROBABLE. 89 divine 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. " e When 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 1 Letter from Daniel Pulteney, Esq. talem locum ad id efficiendum elege- dated the 27th of March 1721. runt, ad quern ipse accedere non hae- Cum nulla esset illis spes Epi- sitaret, indeque factum est ut ad scopum Landavensem (a quo conse- Caput Manni ex condicto convenirent. crationem recipere et cupiebant et ex- Champ, de Vocat. Minist. p. 500, 501. pectabant) ad Ecclesias suas adducendi, 90 WERE THE THREAT TRUE, CHAP, 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 addictissinnis, says Godwin 1 ), 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. f De Praesulibus Angliar. p. 641. 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 that 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. g An- 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 which 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 Hodgskins, 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 g 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 Hodgskins, 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- 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 word of God sincerely ; 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 caeremonia. vum coguntur quaerere consilium, et ad Illis omnibus ante ipsum genua flecten- Scoreum apostatam monachum, (qui tibus, unicuique illorum Biblia super sub Edvardo sexto absque ulla con- caput imponens, dixit, Accipite potes- secratione, ut sta'.im videbimus, Epi- talem verbum Dei sincere prtrdicandi. scopatum invaserat), ut ab eo ordina- Et sic surrexerunt omnes Episcopi. rentur, recurrunt. Iste, qui cum habitu Champmy de vocatione Minist. c. 14. religiose conscientiam omnem exuerat, p. 498. WITH ITS OWN FOUNDATION. 93 ney'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- Conciu- 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 are 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 WHEREIN CONSISTS CHAP. To begin with what relates to the matter of Ordination; ' this is a point 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. t h ese 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 Morinus d , nor in the eighth and ninth Ordo Romanus given us by Father Mabillon 6 ; and it appears from Alcuin and Amalarius, that the Church of Rome has not in fact always made use of this ceremony. " f It is not found in any authority Itaque tandem coacti ad manus billon, Museum Italicum, torn. 2. Mar- impositionem confugerunt, quam solam tene de Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, agnoscunt Patres omnes, Ritualesque torn. 2. omnes antiqui, tarn Graeci quam Latini. d Morin. part. 2. Morin. de Sacris Ecclesite Ordinationibus, e Mus. Ital. torn. 2. part 3. Exercit. 2. cap. 1. 2. p. 19. f Non reperitur in auctoritate veteri, Rationale, lib. 2. cap. ult- neque nova, sed neque in Romana tra- c Morin. de Sacr. Ordin. part. 2. Ma- ditione. Alcuin. de Dh-hiis Officiis. [In THE MATTER OF ORDINATION. 95 either 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: ""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, whether in a certain formula of words, as this : Receive the Holy Ghost, 8fc. 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 Bibliotheca Patrum &c. De-la-Bigni- dimus diversam observationem, sed non ana, torn. 10. eol. 271 B. Ed. Paris. diversam fidem in Christi semper Ec- 1654. sub tit. Qualiter Episcopus ordi- clesiis extitisse. Fulbertus Carnotensis, netur in Romana Ecclesia.~\ Epist. 2. [In eadem Bibliotbeca, torn. 6 Xeque in hoc scandalizamur, si au- 3. col. 439 C.] 96 WHEREIN CONSISTS CHAP, imposition of hands, which all agree is the matter of Ordi- VT. nation. The words How prevalent soever may have been the opinion of the Schoolmen, who have maintained that these words, Receive the Holy Ghost, r. 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. " h No 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 ' Verba ilia, Accipe Spiritum Sanc- habent verba, nusquam comparent ; turn, quae ante praedictam Praefationem etiam in recentioribus multis nulla eo- cum manus impositione ab ipso conse- rummentio. . . Apud Latinos cceptasunt cratore proferuntur, in quibus formam usurpari vix ab annis quadringentis. Episcopatus reponunt Scholastic! recen- Apud Graecos autem et Syros, nee est tiores, toti antiquitati ignota fuerunt ; nee unquam fuit illorum usus. Itaque adeo ut vix in ullo Pontifical! annos nulla ratione did possunt ad Ordinis quadringeiitos attingente reperiantur. substantial!! pertinere. Morin. de Sacr. De Ant. Eccl. Ritibus, lib. 1. cap. 8. art. Ord/n. part. 3. Exercit. 2. cap. 2. 2. p. 22. 10. p. 330. [torn. 2. p. 27. 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 it k . 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 in 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 \vords, or in the words themselves. It is, then, the invocation of the Holy Ghost in gene- Praver in 1 ral upon the Bishop Elect which makes the form of Ordi- ge 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, c. 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 v Morin. de Sacr. Ordin. part 2. clesia : sed neque in hoc scandalizamur. 1 In multis Grsecia 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.)] 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 Jnt ' 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 valid, 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, m ' 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 seu ipsorum Sacramentorum venera- potestatem perpetuo in Ecclesia fuisse, tioni, pro rerum, temporum, et locorum ut in Sacramentorum dispensatione, varietate, magis expedire judicaverit, salva illorum substantia, ea statueret Sess. 21. De Commun. c. 2. vel mutaret, quae suscipientium 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, English 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 we 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 Holy Ghost, $c. 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, T." These terms are distinct, and out of the reach of any cavil. The Records that are preserved of the Records. English Consecrations, are 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 n , we find in the Record of Parker's Consecration these Parker. n Appendix, p. 364. H2 100 OMITTED CEREMONIES. CHAP, decisive words: "Post or at tones et suffragia qnce dam, juxta for- : mam Ubri author itate Parliamenti editi, apud Deum habita, Cicestriensis, Herefordiensis, Suffrayaneus 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, $"."] Omitted It is true indeed that in this Record there is no mention made, either of unction, or of the delivery of the instruments, or of the laying the book of the Gospels 5 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 Rubric, " Then the Arch- bishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying, Give heed unto reading, fc." 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. "iThis 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 quibus plerique freti asse- " Then the Archebishop shall laye the runt vel negant, codicis Evangelici im- Bible upon his Necke, saiyng, Geve positionem ad Episcopatus materiam hede unto readyng, $c." [N.B. this pertinere. De Sacr. Or din. part 3. note is not in the French Edition. ED.] exercit. 2. cap. 1. 9. p. 21, 22. 11 Haec varietas velut in speculo de- RENAUDOT'S OBJECTION. 101 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 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 r Aliis tamen rationibus fretus, ex et scapulas Ordinandi impositionem ad traditione scilicet Ecclesiastica petitis. Episcopatus substantiam non pertinere. colligo illam Evangelii super ccrvicem Ib. 5. p. 20. 102 EASTERN' ORDIXATIONS. CHAP. VI. Eastern Rituals. English case the same. No pre- scription. English Service. prayers for all Churches. But this is evidently false, and is - refuted by the bare reading of the ancient Pontificals of dif- ferent Churches, and by comparing (which is easily done) the 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 formulas being 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 validity of the Ordinations of the Greeks. And yet, if their 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 Rome? But 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 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 formulae 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 things, which by Thy Holy Spirit hast appointed diverse Orders of Ministers in 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 word and deed he may faithfully serve Thee in this Office, fyc. 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: fyc. These words are plainly agreeable to those of the Pontifical, where we read : Da ei, [i n the Domine, cloves regni ccelorum, ut utatur, non glorietur, potestate a ^ a ^ quam tribuis in (Bdificationem, 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. CHAP, 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 icithin 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 lon ' form of the 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 r. 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 of 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- sion. 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 SAME SUBJECT. ANSWER TO THE DIFFICULTIES. THE ALTERATIONS MADE BY CHARLES THE SECOND IN THE RITUAL OF EDWARD THE SIXTH DO NOT PROVE THERE WAS ANT 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 w r hich 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 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, are 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 BOTII 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 in King Edward the Sixth's 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 ofpoicer, and love, and of soberness. That for Priests is as follows: Receive the Holy Gkost: ivhose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and u-hose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dis- penser 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 cond : that of Edward the Sixth had will bear in mind) these quotations are Receivefor Priests, but Take for Bishops. given in the Latin translation. ED. ] THE PRINCIPLE FALSE. 107 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 been 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 prin- i i_ ' -i f -i i ciple also the 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 108 ONE PARTICULAR FORMULA CHAP. Holy Ghost. Morinus acknowledges it expressly. " b Amongst VIL 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. " c It 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 continetur, nisi hoc expresse dictaverit sunt usurpari vix ab annis quadringen- Ecclesia, aut publica praxi, cum ingruit tis. Apud Grsecos autem et Syros nee periculum, his exceptis, castera prseter- est nee unquam fuit illorum usus. Ita- mitti soleant. Illse enim assertiones, Ista que nulla ratione dici possunt ad Ordiiiis Ritualis verba sunt Sacramenti forma, substantiam pertinere. De Sacr. Ord. In his vero materia continetur, non part. 3. exerc. 2. cap. 2. 2. p. 22. autem in illis, ScholasticorumDoctorum c Adnotare necesse est, quod nemo sunt velitationes, quas concedet qui mihi videtur negaturus, certum esse de voluerit, et de quibus inter se ssepe dis- fide, Sacramentum administratum juxta sentiunt. Contingit autem aliquando ritum in Pontificali seu Rituali Romano eorum aliquos a vero tarn immaniter prescript um esse legitimum, nihilque aberrare, ut in Ritu Romano ea pro ex parte sui illi deesse ad effectum in solis materiis et formis adnotent, quae suscipiente producendum : verum non ad Sacramenti tantum solemnitatem et esse necessario de fide, quod Doctores significationis ampliationem spectant. Scholastici disputant, In hac parte, in De Pccmt. lib. 8. c. 18. 2. p. 568. his verbis Ritualis, forma vel materia NOT ESSENTIAL TO ORDINATION. 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. " d For 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 part ' 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 or 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 Spiritum Sanctum. Quorum remiseris peccata, remit- tuntur eis ; et quorum retlnueris, retenta sunt. f" Receive the [John 20. 23.] 1 Xihil enim variae Seholasticorum mentorum virtuti, cum omnia in Ritu- opinationes de Ritualis verbis, an hie all praescripta rite administrantur, offi- vel illic sit Sacramenti forma, Sacra- ciunt. Morin. ibid. 110 THE FORM ACCIPB 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 words 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 are 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, the Archdeacon presents them to the Bishop, as in the Roman Pontifical, saying, Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these Persons 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 ichom ice purpose, God willing, to receive tins day unto the holy Office of Priesthood. Then follows the Litany, in which is inserted this prayer: f That it may phase Thee to bless these Thy servants, now 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, 'c. ' The Forms of both these Ordi- the Proofs, nations are printed at length, among f [See the Editor's notes. J 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 benefits 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: Whose sins thou dost forgive, fyc. 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 pi-each the word of God, fyc. 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 well 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 this 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 now 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 are called by God to the Ministry for which they are presented? Also, g whether they will be faithful in ordaining 8 [See the Editor's notes.] H2 THE ROMAN PONTIFICAL. CHAP, worthy Ministers, and laying hands upon them ? whether they w iH m ake 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, hi 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 fyc. 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, tificai. 01 * 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 Accipe Spirit um Sanctum on one side than on the other. The presenting of the 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 ah 1 to the Ordination of the Catholic Bishops ? The addi- 4. If the use of this formula is as recent as the inspection of ming up" 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 Accipe ; we ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS. 113 cannot but say, with a great number of Divines, even Jesuits, h Vasques, Hurtado, 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 Maerat, " that these words, Accipe *c. 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 ; " k for", 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 ; l ad sacramenti tantum solemnitatem, et significationis am- pliationem spectant; and that M. L'Abbe Renaudot has fallen Error of into the gross error of those who take for the matter and form, that is to say, for the essential parts of Ordination, things that serve only to render it more solemn, or help to explain it. " ! 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 h Vasques [al.Vasquez,vel Vazquez], stringitur et determinatur ad Episcopa- in 3. part. [S. Thomae,] disp. 240. t. 3. lem gradum significandum, et per conse- p. 740. [col. 1.] Hurtado [de Sacra- queiis, proprium Episcoporum officium. mentis et Censuris], de Online, p. k Plus enim videtur esse, dari Spiri- ."!M. Maerat, [Disputationum] t. 3. de turn Sanctum absolute, quam dari ad Ordine, p. 692. [col. 2.] De Rhodes, hunc vel alium effectum peculiarem. Theol. Scholast. t. 2. p. 662. 1 ' Contingit autem aliqr.ando eorum 1 At objicies , verba heec, Accipe $c. aliquos a vero tarn immaniter aberrare, nimis generalia videri. Respondeo, ut in Ritu Romano ea pro solis materiis ita quidem esse, si praecise secundum se et formis adnotent, quae ad Sacramenti considerentur : secus autem si cum ma- tantum solemnitatem et significationis teria supra quam prefer untur: per bane anipliationem spectant. Morin. de Pcen. enim eorum generalis significatio re- lib. 8. cap. 18. 2. p. 568. RENAUDOT. MERE CHAP. Charles the Second, is to attribute to him a ridiculous notion . VIL 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 Memoire, 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 Holy 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 mere ce- which can never be regarded as more than mere ceremonies. remomes. CEREMONIES. SUMMING UP. 115 Thus, for example, no one doubts that in the administration of Baptism a number of things, Avhich 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 either 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- nation 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- i2 116 RENAUDOT'S OBJECTION FROM THE RESULT CHAP, dot makes the essence of tbe 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 tbe 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. [Seep.105] ANSWER TO THE SECOND DIFFICULTY. THE FORM OF ORDINATION PRE- SCRIBED DT 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. Bonner 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- ^ 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. a Upon this refusal, Horn had him indicted in the King's-Bench, whereupon they assigned him, according to a Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 345. [vol. 2. p. 173.] Collier, Eccl. Hist vol. 2. p. 492, 493. 118 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 pleas. Among the rest I find two. The first, which is given us by the author of the Annals of the Reformation under Queen Elizabeth b , 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 Histories", 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 coming 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 ' from granting that 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 first First, it is false in fact, that they did not observe in Horn's f * -P 1 case the 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 11 , that Horn and Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough, were consecrated Feb. 16, > 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. * Reg. Parker, fol. 88. STAPLE-TON'S REASONING. 119 156?, 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 Stapleton. not being consecrated, it was not because they were ignorant of this Consecration, but because they maintained that the Consecrators themselves were not Bishops. " e Who knows not" [f 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, as well 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, w T hich Stapleton denies Horn. " f For 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. "% 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. Quis nescit te tuosque collegas, nee approbatam et assuetam vocationem noil dieo aliter quam requirunt Cano- aut consecrationem ostendere unquam nes Ecclesise, sed nee secundum prae- poteris. Ib. p. 839, A. scriptuni statutorum vestorum ordina- e Nam licet Episcopum Wintonien- tos esse ? Qua ergo fronte, qua facie, sem appellaverit, quern satis novit et nomen Domini Episcopi It'intonit'nsistibi legitima vocatione et canonica conse- arrogare audes, quo leges onines, tarn cratione destitutum, ego tamen vere Municipalesquam Ecclesiasticae,merito denuncio te nee Episcopum esse, nee te privant ? Stapletoni opera, torn. 2. Dominttm Episcopum Wiutoniensem. Ibid. p. 839, 840. p. 838, D. ' Propterea non Episcopus, quia 120 ACTS UXDEU EDWARD THE SIXTH. c H A P. Nothing 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 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. STATL-TES. In the year 1548, King Edward had had drawn up a new 6. c. i. Directory for Divine Service and the Administration of the Sacraments, called The Book of Common Prayer; and Par- liament had ordered it to be used h . In 1549, there was 3 and 4 Ed. drawn up also, with the authority of Parliament 1 , 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 fi and 6 Ed. as follows : k "V. And because there hath risen in the " 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 mistakers, then of any other "worthy cause ; (2.) therefore, as well for the more plain and h Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 645. This and the following Statutes are Ibid. p. 674. and Heylin, Hist Ref. given in their original language among P- b2 ' 83 - the Proofs. [See the Editor's notes.] k Statu'es at Large, vol. 1. p 676. 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 Queen Mary '. The Book of Common-Prayer was abolished, and the use of the Roman Pontifical resumed in the Ordination i Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 7C9. Heylin, Hist. Ref. p. 298. [vol. 2. p. 28.] 122 ACTS OF THE FIRST CHAP, of Bishops [&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 iEliz.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 Mattens, 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 i" 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. n "(2.) Be SEliz.c.i. " 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- "secrate Archbishops, Bishops, -c. after the form and order " prescribed in the said order and form how Archbishops, fyc. " 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; #e." 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. e. 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. " Ibid. p. 816. Sect. III. and V. 124 THE ORDINAL RE-ESTABLISHED CHAP. By the Statute of 1552, Edward the Sixth had added to ^ IL __ the Book of Common-Prayer, a Form for consecrating the^ffi- Bishops, Priests and Deacons, which was thenceforth to make 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 "he 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 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. VL 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 of are undoubtedly so many parts of the Book itself, we find cc 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, 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- "ment 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 P Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 676. 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. Heylin in his History of the Reformation q . This business, he says, was brought before the Parliament which began the thirtieth of September 1566, "where all particulars being fully 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 Heylin,] "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, &c. This, as we have seen above, is the exact purport of the Statute of 1566. The seth But before the Parliament had declared their sense on this 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 Page 346. [vol. 2. p. 174.] &~c. [in Eng. p. 105: in Lat.] p. 221. r [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 Bumet. 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 Com mon-Pray er-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- 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 1 , or at least, if that be preferred, of the rites and ceremonies of the Church 4 ? * Art. 3(5. p. 377. l ' Bramhall, p. 452, 453. 128 ITS RE-ESTABLISHMENT ACKNOWLEDGED CHAP. Moreover, the same Statute contains a repeal of the one which V1IL 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 ca'nnot 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," n Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 709. Maria; Elizabetha in integrum resti:uit * Hist. Ref. p. 198. [vol. 2. p. 28.] ac renovavit. De Schi.m. Angl. lib. 3. y Has leges novas sustulit Regina p. 348. BY ROMAN CATHOLICS. 129 says he z , "wretched Clergy! who choose rather to take their form of Consecration from ' the Book 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. Bramhall 3 , even the Jesuits against whom he wrote, de- sirous to establish the truth of the Nag's-head 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 Sendee, 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 u Charles the Second, where it is said, b that Queen Elizabeth 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 z Hist des Variations [des Eglises a Page 465. Protestantes], liv. 10. torn. 2. p. 14. b Statutes at Lar^e, vol. 1. p. 1198. 130 WHY BOXNER WAS DISCHARGED CHAP, times of 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, c." 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 ah 1 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 ground of refusal, it was because they could find nothing more plausible to allege FROM THE INDICTMENT. 131 against the Bishop of Winchester. However, though they Why Bon- had no doubt as to the validity of the Ordination, yet as the dfechar- Law was not so clear as it might have been, it was a sort of S ed - justice to acquit the accused, whose cause is always entitled to favour, when the Law seems to need explanation. Besides, as Dr. Heylin remarks , 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 a 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. Brooke's from the indictment laid against him from any such motive, decision, that the Royal 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 Robert Brooke, printed with that Queen's privilege, out of which Champney and Ward have extracted this report 1 : "Dicitur que Evesqes in tempore E. 6. ne c Hist Ref. p. 346. [vol. 2. p. 174.] Latin and English printed on the next 6 Life of Parker, p. 125. Heylin, ib. page. The French is Case 463. (fol. e Heylin, ibid. 101.) of the abstract mentioned in the f Life of Parker, p. 125, 126. next page but one, and published in 8 [Not the original French, but the 1-587. and 1604. ED.] K 2 132 SIR ROBERT BROOKE'S DECISION CHAP, fuer ont sacres, et ideo nefueront Evesques, et ideo Jeas^ pur ans per tiels, et confirms per le Deane et Chapter, ne Hera le successour. Car tiels ne unques fueront Evesques. Contra de Evesque deprire que fuit Evesque in fait tempore dimissionis, et confirmatio facta. B. Leases 68." A report which [omitting the last sentence] Champney 1 translates thus: Dicitur Episcopos tem- pore Edwardi sexti creatos nonfuisse consecrates, atque ideo non fuisse Episcopos ; ac proinde locationes terrarum pro certo an- nonim termino per eos factas, confirmatas etiam per Deca- num Sf Capitulum, successorem ejus non obligabunt, quia tales nunquam fuerunt Episcopi. [And WardJ into English thus : "It is said that the Bishops created in the time of King Edward VL were not consecrated, and therefore were not Bishops ; and for this reason, the locations of lands for certain terms of years by 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 Rite of Edward the Sixth, and how unsound and frivolous, says Champney, those who were best skilled in the Laws judged them to be. " k The 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 " [Or, as in the edition of 1604, lease.~] betha Regina, Ordinationes Episcopo- De Vocat. Minist. c. 13. p. 432. rum factas sub Edvardo adeo in 1 Controversy of Ordination, p. 28. dubium vocarunt, ut eas nullas fuisse k Judices Regni, sub ipsamet Eliza- cxistimasse videantur. De foe. M. ib. WITH RESPECT TO EDWARD THE SIXTHS BISHOPS. 133 is necessary than to give a straightforward account of the facts he is desirous to misrepresent arid falsify. Several proofs of this have been 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 "eptioa 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 secundo Maria. This work, which was published with the title of Ascuns Novell Cases de les ans temps le Roy H. 8. Ed. 6. 8f la Roygne Mary, ^r]v teal IJ/MV TrapaSbvs dvrl dvauzs TW Sew 8i7]vetca)<; 7rpoo- etiam Metropolitans Ecclesiis in Episcopos et Archicpiscopos prcEfici et prceesse } illasque in eisdem spiritualibus et tempora- libus regere et gubernare ; ac ad quoscumque etiam sacros et Presbyteratus ordines promovere, ct in illis, aut per eos jam licet BULL OF JULIUS III. OFFER OF PIUS IV. 235 minus rite susceptis Ordinibus, etiam in Altaris Ministerio mi- Bull of ... . 4 . .. 7 ., v Julius 111. mstrare, necnon munus consecratwms suscipere, et illo uti libere et licite valeant, dispensare etiam libere et licite possis, plenam et liberam Apostolicam authoritatem per prcesentes concedimus facultatem et potestatem. [Also with any who by you for the time have been absolved and reinstated as aforesaid, that their past errors and excesses notwithstanding, over any Cathedral, even Metropolitan Churches as Bishops and Archbishops they may freely and lawfully be appointed and preside, and the same in the said spirituals and temporals rule and govern ; and to any, even sacred and Priestly Orders ad- vance, and in the same, or Orders by them already, though irregularly, received, even in the Ministry of the Altar serve, and the gift of Consecration receive, and the same freely and lawfully use, that you may freely and lawfully dispense, we grant you by these presents full and free Apostolic authority, permission, and power.] For what could these w^ords, licet minus rite susceptis Ordinibus [Orders even irregularly re- ceived] mean, if not that in conferring the Priesthood, essen- tials excepted, which are always supposed, the ordinary laws of the Church were not observed ? Nevertheless, under this hypothesis he permits the Legates to reinstate them, and these Priests thus reinstated to serve in their order, and to have Episcopal Consecration without receiving the Priesthood anew. Can there be any thing more direct on this head ? There is yet something more. For, if we believe Camden, Offer of notwithstanding all the changes made since the Reformation in the Offices and public Liturgy, Rome was so far from regarding them as essential, and consequently was so little decided on re-ordination, that one of the conditions which the Abbe Vincent Parpaglia, secret Envoy of Pius the Fourth to Elizabeth, offered on his part to that Princess, if she would return to his obedience, was that of approving her Liturgy, that is to say, the Book of Common-Prayer. ' l Fama obtinet Pontificemjidem dedisse, . . . Liturgiam Anglicam sua au- ctoritate coiifirmaturum, . . . dummodo ilia EcclesicB Romanes se oggrcgaret, Romanesque Cathedra Primatum agnosceret. [It is reported that the Pope promised, . . . that he would confirm ' Aimal. Eliz. part 1. p. 59. [p. 73, Ed. Hearne, 1717.] 236 NEITHER THE RE-ORDINATIONS NOR THE CHAP, the English Liturgy by his authority, . . provided she would -join herself to the Church of Rome, and acknowledge the Primacy of the Roman See.] General It is impossible, then, in order to prove the invalidity of "' the Ordinations made under Edward, to make any use of the re-ordinations prescribed in the reign of Mary, for two reasons. The first, because they were not uniform on this head, and because there was a time when they thought them valid, as appears from the Ordinances of Queen Mary, from the Visitation Articles of Bonner, and still more from the plenary power granted by Julius the Third to his Legate Cardinal Pole, and the offers made by Pius the Fourth to Queen Eli- zabeth. The second, that they equally charged with invali- dity the Consecrations of Bishops made under Henry the Eighth, after his schism, as we see by the degradations of Latimer, of Ridley, and of Farrar, who had been consecrated according to the Roman Pontifical, and whom they were con- tented to degrade from the Priesthood only, on the pretext that they were not Bishops. But all agree now, that these Bishops were validly consecrated, and that their Consecration could not, without error, be taxed with invalidity. It is not surprising, therefore, that the same Divines were mistaken about Edward's Ordinations ; and their opinion on this sub- ject, or rather the re-ordinations made on such an authority, cannot even serve as an antecedent probability towards the decision of this question. Opinions J^" o m ore can we rest on the opinions of those Divines who founded . ... on false have enlisted themselves against the Ordinations performed under Queen Elizabeth; because their reasons depend on two facts absolutely false. The oldest of them rejected these Ordinations because, according to them, they had not been performed agreeably to the laws, and because those who had consecrated the new Bishops were not Bishops themselves. On the contrary, the argument of the later Divines is, that these Ordinations had validity only so far as the first had it, and that these first were indefensible, having been performed in a Tavern, without ceremony, without form, without so- lemnity, and contrary to all the laws. If these two facts are false, they can be no foundation for any just reason for maintaining the necessity of re-ordinations. OPINIONS OF DIVINES PROVE ANYTHING. 237 But it is certain, and I think I have demonstrated in the First fact second chapter, that the new Bishops were consecrated ac- se ' cording to the laws, and that the history of the Tavern is a fable to which they have not even given such an air of truth as is necessary to pass it off. After what has already been said on this subject, it is very needless to enlarge upon it again ; and I shall content myself with repeating in two words, that this fable is destroyed both by the silence of contemporary authors, and by its opposition to the public Registers, both by the contradictions found among those who have given it to the world, and by its inconsistency with it- self; and lastly, by the fact that there was no necessity and no advantage for the Protestants to have recourse to such an Ordination, but on the contrary, every reason of wisdom, and even of human policy, are opposed to it How then can such a story be maintained? and can we on such a foundation establish the necessity of re-ordination ? The other fact is no less false. For to be ordained ac- second cording to the laws, three things are necessary : a Minister a ' duly consecrated, the essential matter and form, and a reli- gious Formulary authorized by the national Church, which appoints her own rites. But all this is found in the Ordi- nation of the new Bishops. The Consecrator had been con- secrated, as has been demonstrated in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters. The essential matter and form were ex- actly preserved : we have seen this in the sixth and seventh chapters, where it has been proved at great length, that im- position of hands and prayer, which, as the best Divines agree, form alone the essence of Ordination, were strictly ob- served in the Consecration of Parker, and that the changes made in the Ritual could not alter the substance of the Con- secration. In fine, the Rite of the Church prescribed by the laws in order to make a ceremony religious, was regularly observed in the same Ordinations; and it has been clearly proved in the eighth chapter, that these laws were already re-established when the new Bishops were ordained under Elizabeth; and if it sufficed to secure the validity of the Ordinations performed under Edward, we ought not to contest it with those made under Elizabeth. I know that Stapleton, Harding, and other Catholic writers staple- ton &c. 238 ARGUMENTS OF HARDING AND OTHERS CHAP, contemporary with Parker, maintained to the faces of the '- new Bishops, that they were not truly Bishops; that their Consecration was chimerical; and that they could not make use of their Ordination, having received it from a man whose Ordination was equally indefensible. Their rea- It is very true that these Divines advanced all these (Harding.) things, and that they did it boldly; but, in truth, upon what First, reasons? It was, in the first place, upon this, that these Bishops had received their Ordination from Prelates who had embraced the Schism, as Harding says. k Qui alios ordinare eo tempore prasumebant, erant ipsi omnino sine Or dine, mini- strantes Ordines non secundum Ecclesiae Catlwlicce ritum, quippe qui omnium Episcoporum in orbe Christiana Successionem ab- jicientes, novam congregationem proprice sues plantations sibi erexerunt. [" Those who took upon them to give Orders were Second, altogether out of Order themselves, and ministered them not according to the rite and manner of the Catholic Church, as who had forsaken the whole Succession of Bishops in all Christendom, and had erected a new Congregation of their own planting".] The second reason was that Parker had not been ordained by Catholic Bishops. l Dicis Episcopos vestros per Archiepiscopi triumque aliorum Episcoporum Consecratio- nem creates esse, sed Archiepiscopus ipse quomodo, quceso, con- secratus fuit ? Et qui fuerunt tres illi in toto Regno Episcopi qui manus illi imposuerunt? . . . Nam Metropolitanus vester, qui omnium vestrum Consecrationes authoritate sua confirmare deberet, legitimam Consecrationem minime obtinuit. . . . Fuerunt quidem in Regno Episcopi legitimi, qui vel non fuerunt requisiti manus vobis imponere, vel requisiti illud facere recusdrunt. [" Ye were made (you say) by the Consecration of the Archbishop and other three Bishops. And how, I pray you, was your Archbishop himself consecrated ? What three Bishops in the Realm were there to lay hands upon him ? . . . For your Metro- politan, who should give authority to all your Consecrations, himself had no lawful Consecration. . . . There were ancient Bishops enough in England, who either were not required or Third. refused to consecrate you".] The last reason is, that they k Detect, errorum Juelli, ["A De- fol. 231. [See the Editor's notes.] tection of sundry foul errors," &c. "ut- ' Ibid. fol. 234. tered and practised by M. Jewel",] UNFOUNDED. MISTAKEN VIEW OF THOSE TIMES. 239 preserved no more of the Pontifical than the imposition of hands and prayer, and retrenched or altered all that was not thought essential. m Quod dare demonstrat vos talem Consecrationem quce in usu semper fuerat non qucesivisse, sed aliam novam, quam omnes antiqui Episcopi despiciebant. ["Which is an evident sign that ye sought not such a Con- secration as had been ever used, but such a one whereof all the former Bishops were ashamed."] But are such reasons very suitable to convince us that Parker was no Bishop, and consequently all those also whom he had ordained ? The two former would prove that no Bishops ordained in schism and heresy are validly consecrated; a doctrine which all Catholic Divines now allow to be false. The third, that a mere change of the Rite could alter the substance of the Sacra- ments : a pretence which falls to pieces of itself, and which the mere practice of the Churches refutes, without any necessity of enlarging upon it to shew its falsity. There is moreover a thing of importance to remark. Mistaken Almost all the Divines of those times were persuaded, that tnose f the essence of Ordination did not consist in the imposition of times - hands alone, but also in the unction, in the imposition of the book of the Gospels, and in the delivery of the instruments. This opinion is not even now so fully abandoned, as that some Schoolmen of our age do not, against all probability, maintain it Persuaded as they were of the truth of this opinion, they could not think favourably of the validity of an Ordination in which, with the exception of imposition of hands and prayer, all the rest was omitted, although they thought it equally essential. And it was a necessary consequence, that they should not regard as Bishops those whose Ordination wanted parts which they considered absolutely necessary. But now, when, being more enlightened in the knowledge No ground of tradition, we doubt not that imposition of hands and prayer, joined to the rites prescribed by each Church in order to make this ceremony an act of religion, constitute the only essential matter and form of Ordination, can we draw a pre- judice from the opinion of these Divines against the validity of the Ordinations made under Elizabeth ? and ought we not, m Ibid. [fol. 234, 235. immediately after the preceding words.] 240 PRACTICE AT ROME NO DECISIVE RULE. CHAP, on the contrary, to determine that they were mistaken, and that these Ordinations were quite valid ? For, to conclude this answer in two words, we cannot employ against these Ordinations an opinion founded on false reasonings. But the opinion of the Divines who have opposed these Ordi- nations, is founded only on false reasons, or false facts; that is to say, either on the fable of the Nag's-head; or on the error of the necessity of re-ordaining those who have been ordained in schism or heresy ; or lastly, on the false opinion which, besides imposition of hands, requires as ne- cessary several ceremonies whose necessity is destroyed by all that is most authentic in the ancient Ecclesiastical monu- ments. Practice at The only prejudice that remains for us to encounter, is the modern practice of the Church of Rome, which re-ordains all the English Ministers who re-unite themselves to the Catholic Church. This prejudice might indeed stop us, if in this affair we were to be determined by the respect due to an au- thority so venerable as that of the Church of Rome. But there are here two reflections to make. The first, that by the Bull of Julius the Third to Cardinal Pole, which we have cited above, it appears that the practice of the Church of Rome has varied on this head ; and that she has not even yet any fixed and determined principle as to the particular point in question. The second, that there having been at Rome no new discussion, nor any juridical examination of this diffi- culty, the present usage cannot be used as a ground of argu- ment, nor be made so to determine us, as that we should make this usage the rule of our decision. Grounds. There is even every reason to believe, that the conduct of that Church has varied on this head, only because the English Catholics will have sanctioned there the fable of the Nag's- head 11 , and because they will have there published confi- dently, that the first new Bishops had not been consecrated by true Bishops : for we have seen, that the Catholic Divines contemporary with Elizabeth uniformly refused to regard as true Bishops, those who had not been ordained by the Catholic Prelates. These reasons, which could be destroyed only by n What I advanced only as a con- to me by a letter of the learned M. jecture, has very lately been confirmed Fontaumi to one of my friends. CASES OF FORMOSUS AND CONSTANTINE. 241 facts of which they were ignorant at Rome, and which the English did not much concern .themselves to make known there, having once got the upper hand, it was impossible but that they should regard as invalid, Ordinations in which it was believed that all that was thought essential was omitted, and in which they found neither Minister, nor matter, nor form, which appeared admissible. It is on this same prin- ciple, that M. L'Abbe Renaudot, and those of our writers who have treated of this subject, have rejected the English Ordinations. But after the new clearing up of the facts, can a decision be defended, which is manifestly founded on false facts and frivolous principles ? But even supposing these facts, and the reasons on which Variations the present practice of the Church of Rome is founded, were as a solid as they are deficient in solidity, we could not even then make of the usage of that Church a rule which we ought to propose to follow blindly on this point, when we know that in this same matter, in other cases in which they ought to have had more light, they have not escaped being deceived. Every one knows the history of the Popes Formosus and Con- stantine. After the death of Formosus, Stephen the Sixth, Case of his successor and his enemy, caused him to be disinterred, ob9?!^ and at the head of his Council, having declared null the Ordinations which he had performed, caused all those to be re-ordained whom he had ordained. Cunctosque quos ipse ordinaverat, says the historian, gradu proprio depositos iterum ordinavit. [And all whom he had ordained, he deposed from their proper rank and ordained again.] John the Ninth annulled all that Stephen had done?. Sergius the Third, who succeeded Johni, renewed all that Stephen had done against Formosus, and caused his Ordinations to be again declared null. But in fine, all was pacified under his successors, and no regard was had to the interrupted usage of that Church. Something of the same kind had already happened with Case of respect to Constantine. This Pope had been intruded into tine, int- the holy See, and occupied it only a year and a month, A ' D- /67> during which time he performed several Ordinations. But o Luitpr. Diac. lib. i. hist. c. 8. (113), p. 118. Ed. Moguntiae, M302.J [Luitprandus Diaconus Ticinensis de [ p See the Editor's notes.j viiis Poiitiftcum Romanorum, cap. ult. [ q Not immediately. ED.] 242 CASES OF FORMOSUS CHAP. Stephen the Fourth having been canonically elected, Con- XIIL stantine was shut up in a monastery, after they had had his eyes put out. It was afterwards deliberated what ought to be done with those whom he had ordained. It was resolved Cone. in a numerous Synod, where there were present even several AD. 769. French Bishops, who had been called to Rome upon this subject, that the Ordinations should be deemed null. De Episcopis vero, atque Presbyteris et Diaconibus, quos ipse Con- stantinus consecraverat, ita in eodem Concilia promulgatum est, says Annstasius the Librarian 1 ": ut Episcopi illi, si oliquis eorum Presbyter aut Diaconus fuerit, in pristinum honoris sui gradum reverteretur ; et si placabiles fuissent coram populo civitatis su&, denuo facto decreto electionis more solito, cum Clero et plebe ad Apostolicam advenissent Sedem, et ab eodem ISanctissimo Ste- phana Papa benedictionis suscepissent Consecrationem ; Presby- teri vero illi ac Diaconi ab eodem Constantino consecrati, simili modo in eo quo prius existebant habitu reverterentur ; et postmo- dum, si qui eorum placabiles extitissent) antefatus Beatissimus Pontifex Presbyteros 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 justly be , J n inferred, must never draw consequences from bad examples. s J\u?i- quam exemplum a malis est sumendum. Ex his enim quce in voluminibus leguntur, ea solummodo imitanda vel facienda sunt, T Anastas. in Steph. IV. [Rerum s De Ord[inationibus] Form[osi,] Italicarum Scriptores, torn. 3. p. 177. lib. 2. cap. 4. [ap. Morinum de Sacr. col. 1. C, D. Ven. 1723. See the Edi- Ord. part. 2. p. 363. col. 2. B.] tor's notes.] AND COXSTAXT1XE. MOTIVES. 243 (jii(B bona esse probantur ,- mala autem penitus execranda sunt, ct omnino cavenda. [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. * Sana quippe ratio etiam ex- cmplis 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 Constantine 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. Rut 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. ' De Civitate Dei, lib. 1. cap. 23. [cap. 22. 2. torn. 7. col. 22. A. Ed. BenecL] R2 244 PASSION NOT THE ONLY MOTIVE. CHAP. xni Motives. French (Case P of Sieebert. Moreover, I do not know whether it is as certain as they .... say, that in the business of the re-ordinations directed in the ~ T> i f^ 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- sembled, espoused all their hatred and animosity ? Will it easily be believed, that the French themselves, who were called to tne % no d hdd under Stephen the Fourth against Con- stantine, decided as they did merely from passion ? And is there not more ground to think that this question 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 Sigebert in his Chronicle bears witness. " u With much 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 tair.en proptcr Sacerdotalis officii digni multos annos quaestio et controversia tatem, et fidem eorum qui ordinati fue- est agitata in Ecclesia, aliis ejus et ab eo ordinatorum Consecrationem irritam esse debere praejudicantibus, aliis 6 contra qualiseumqne fuerit Formosus, rant, omnes Consecrationes ejus ratas esse debere, saniori consilio judicanti- bus. Sigebert. Citron, ad Ann. 900. 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- m 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 T . -if i T i doubts. ject. It is certain that tor 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 di>- opinion contrary to re-ordinations has so got the upper hand, p< that although it has not been denned by an express decree of the Church, it is regarded as almost belonging to the faith. This opinion, in fact, is built on reasons so solid, that it is Reasons, difficult not to yield to them. For, 1. it is unanimously First re- agreed, that every Sacrament which impresses character ; principle, that is to say, which carries with it a kind of Consecration, ought not to be reiterated ; and on this point itself there never was any difficulty. There is no more difficulty to know whether Ordination imprints this character, since it has always been agreed that it does, and since it is this which St. Augustine brings to support the validity of Ordination as St. Augus- well as of Baptism. " a As the baptized person," says this Sicut baptizatus, si ab imitate re- Baptismi non amittit. Nulli enim Sa- cesserit, Sacramentum Baptismi non cramento injuria facienda est Dt-Iia/'t. amittit; sic etiam ordinatus, si ab uni- ront. Doiiat. lib. 1. cap. 1. [ 2. vol. f. tate recesserit, Sacramentum dandi col. 80. A. Ed. Bened.] 246 SACRAMENTS WHICH IMPRINT CHARACTER. CHAP. Father, " if he departs from the unity, loses not the Sacra- _* v : ment of Baptism ; so also he that has been ordained, if he de- tine. U! '*" 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, et quddam Consecratione utrumque homini datur ; illud dim baptizatur, istud cum ordinatur ; ided- que in Catholica utrumque non licet iterari. Nam si quando ex ipsa parte venientes etiam prapositi pro bono pads, correcto schismatis errore, suscepti sunt, et si visum est opus esse ut eadem officia gererent qua gerebant, non sunt rursum ordinati ; sed sicut Baptismus in eis, ita Ordinatio mansit Integra : quia in prcecisione fuerat vitium, quod unitatis pace correctum 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 on this subject 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 9 O out of the Church. This principle is a consequence of the * Lib. 2. cont. Ep. Farm. cap. 13. [cap. 28. torn. 9. col. 14. B, C. Ed. Bcned.] ANALOGY BET\YEEX BAPTISM AND OUD1XATIOX. 247 doctrine of the character: and though it has been 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; ulicumque snnt, 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 Optatus. of men are at variance, the Sacraments are not." The third principle received bv Divines is, that we must Third .1 f n j- * " ^ ..principle, on this point reason ot Ordination in the same manner as ot Baptism. This maxim was not always universally received. Not always Urban the Second would not admit of a parity between these received, two Sacraments. d Alia in Baptismo, says he, et alia in Lrbau I[ - 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 Gratia,,, that any thing can be concluded from the one to the other. e Patet ergo illud Augustini, says he, Sacramenta videlicet Ckristi per hareticos ministrata suo non carere effectu, non de omnibus intelligi general'tter, 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, he adds, f Patet quod Sacramenta Ecclesiastica pr&ter Baptisma ab h&reticis 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 his ergo qui accepta e Et si hominum litigant mentes, [ xxxv. torn. 11. col. 949. B. Col. Agr. non litigant Sacramenta. Optat. lib. 3. lb'09.] parag.9. [p. 6ti. EcLDupin, Antw.1702.] e Decret. p. 2. c. 1. qu. 1. [Ed. Par. a Epist. ad Luc. S. Juv. prsep. [Lu- 1612.] can. 45. cium Eccl. S. Juventii apud Ticinum f E Can. 74. & f>7. praepositum,] apud Baron. An. 1190. 248 OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS. CHAP. Sacerdotali potestate ab unitate Catholica Ecclesice recedunt, loquitur Augustmus, non de ittis qui in schismate vel h&resi positi Sacerdotalem unctionem accipiunt. [St. Augustine there- fore speaks of those \vho 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- ne A an S d 1S ~ g ustme > 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 D 397 tne reiteration of Baptism and that of Ordination. i Illud suggerimus mandatum nobis, guod etiam in Capuensi plenarid Synodo videtur statutum : non liceat fieri rebaptizationes et re~ ordinationes. [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 remarks. ^Hanc qu&stioncm perplexam ac pene insolubilem h Illud autem quod dicitis, ut is qui secrari. Greg. M.lib. 2. Ep. 32. [Ep.4G. ordinatus est, iterum ordinetur, valde torn. 2. col. 608, 609. Ed. Bened.] ridiculum est, . . . Absit autem d. frater- ' Can. 38. [Concilia, torn. 2. col. nitate vestra sic sapere. Sicut enim 1172 B, C. Ed. Paris. 1671.] baptizatus semel, iterum baptizari non k Lib. 4. dist. 2-5. [p. 830. Ed. Mo- det>et ; ita qui consecratus est seme], guntiae, 1632.] in eodem itenim Ordine non valet con- WHEN REITERATION IS LAWFUL. 249 faclunt Doctorum verba; qui plurimum dissentire videntur. [This question is perplexed and rendered almost incapable of determination by the words of the Doctors, who are found to differ much in their opinions.] A fourth principle allowed as certain is, that to reiterate a Fourth Sacrament, there must either be a positive decree of the pl Church, or a clear nullity, or at least a solid and evident doubt in the administration of the Sacrament itself. This principle follows from the preceding ones, and is founded on the very nature of the case. For if the reiteration of a Sa- crament is a crime when that Sacrament has been validly con- ferred, it ought not to be performed except where the Church shall have determined by a solemn decree, that the first ad- ministration is null; or the thing is clear of itself; or lastly, the doubt is so solid, that we may apply to it the maxim of St. Leo, that we are not accounted to reiterate, what is not Leo the known to have been done. l Quod non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit ut videatur iteratum quoniam non potest in iterationis crimen venire, quod factum esse omnino nescitur. [What is not shewn to have been done, reason forbids us to account repeated since that cannot be accused of repe- tition which is not known to have been done at all.] But to establish solidly a doubt of this kind, according to St. Leo, there must be neither proofs nor indications to conduct us to a knowledge of the thing. m "Si nulla existant indicia " si " nemo sit penitus qui testimonio suo possit juvare ignoran- tiam nescientis" ["If there be no indications" if "there be no one at all who can help by his testimony the ignorance of him who does not know."] For otherwise this doubt will not be sufficient to authorize the reiteration of a Sacra- ment in other circumstances than the last extremity. n Nisi forte supr emus finis immineat. [Unless perhaps the last end be at hand.] In fine, the last principle received as certain in the Schools Fifth prin- dole of this day is, that in Ordination, as in the other Sacraments, there are many things which do not belong to their essence, and which may be omitted without consequence. Morinus goes farther, and maintains without any proba- Morinus. 1 Leo Mag. Ep. 2. [resp. 16.] et 13-5. [m Ibid.] [cap. 1. p. 717. Ed. Paris. 167-5.] [ n Ibid. Ep. 135.] 250 OPINION OF MORINUS. CHA'P. bility, that the ceremonies which have been added to those . X1V ' parts which are of the substance of the Sacrament, become Morlnus. themselves essential, by the choice which the Church has made of them. In ritu Ordinationis sacra, says this Father, qucedam esse divines institutionis et traditionis, qua omni Ordini sacro semper et ubique conveniunt, veluti manus impositio et oratio conveniens, qua et Scriptura sacra nobis tradidit, et Ec- clesice praxis semper et ubique usurpavit. Qucedam vero Eccle- siasticce institutionis, qua licet mutari possint, et pro temporum et regionum varietate aliter atque aliter observari, tanti tamen sunt momenti, quamdiu ab Ecclesia revocata aut abrogata non sunt, ut eorum omissio Ordinationem reddat non modb inhonestam et illicitam, sed etiam irritam et nullam, omnique cffectu et gratia cassam. Ula autem omnia ejusmodi conditiones sunt, materiam Sacramenti sic afficientes et determinantes, ut earum defectu materia reddatur Ordinationi inepta. [That in the rite of sacred Ordination, some things are of divine institution and tradition, which belong to all holy Orders always and every- where, as imposition of hands and suitable prayer, which both holy Scripture has delivered us and the practice of the Church has always and every where used. Some again of Ecclesiastical institution, which although they may be changed, and according to the variety of times and countries be variously observed, are yet of so great moment, so long as they are not revoked or abrogated by the Church, that their omission makes an Ordination not merely discreditable and unlawful, but also vain and null, and void of all effect and grace. But all those things are conditions of such a kind, so affecting and determining the matter of the Sacrament, that by their defect the matter is rendered unfit for Ordi- nation.] But this opinion of Father Morin is ill supported, and there is scarcely any Divine who does not make an entire distinction between what is of the essence of the Sacra- ment, and what belongs properly to ceremony : a distinction which could have no place, if ceremonies prescribed by the Church became essential parts of Ordination. Appiica- It is time now to proceed to the application of these prin- tion of the prin- ciples, and shew that they are incompatible with the re-ordina- tions of the English ordained according to the Anglican Rite. Morinus de Sacr. Ord. part. 3. Excrc. 5. cap. 9. [ 1.] p. 104. APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES. 251 By the first principle, no Sacrament which imprints a Firs character ought to be reiterated, even when conferred out of the Church ; because, according to the second principle, the conferring of a Sacrament out of the Church does not render that Sacrament null, at least when nothing has been omitted which is essential thereto. But, according to the first principle, Ordination imprints a character ; because, ac- cording to St. Augustine, it is a kind of Consecration similar to that of Baptism. P Utrumque enim Sacramentum est ; et quddam Consecratione utrumque homini datur ; illud cum bap- tizatur, istud cum ordinatur ; idebque in Catholica utrumque iion licet iterari. [For each is a Sacrament, and each is given a man by a kind of Consecration; the one when he is baptized, the other when he is ordained; and therefore it is not lawful in the Catholic Church to repeat either.] It is unlawful therefore to reiterate the Ordination of the Eng- lish, unless at least it be proved that any thing essential is wanting therein ; which it is impossible to prove. For, by the fifth principle, we must distinguish, in the con- Fifth, ferring of the Sacraments, that which is essential from that which ought to be regarded only as a simple ceremony, and all does not belong alike to the substance. But it has been proved in the sixth and seventh chapters, that nothing essential was omitted in the Consecration of Parker, and that what was omitted ought not to pass for such. It does not appear, then, that we can hesitate on this head ; Third, the less, because by the third principle, we ought to reason about Ordination in the same manner as about Baptism. But if we reason about Ordination as about Baptism, it is evident, that we must allow the validity of the English Ordi- nations, not only because both alike imprint a character, but also because in the new English Ritual, the same retrench- ments have been made in the administration of Baptism, as in that of Ordination. For as from Ordination they have cut away the Unctions, the imposition of the Book of the Gospels, the delivery of the instruments, and all that did not appear essential ; in like manner have they cut away from the administration of Baptism, the Exorcisms, the Unctions, most of the signings of the Cross, the use of salt, and the greater r Lib. 2. cont. Parm. cap. 13. [See p. 2-16.] 252 XO REASONABLE DOUBT. CHAP. XIV. Applica- tion of the principles. Fourth. No decree of the Church. No evi- dent nul- lity. part of the other ceremonies, confining themselves to the mere immersion of the baptized, or the pouring the water on his head, joined to the words consecrated for the validity of that Sacrament. But the Baptism of the English is received, notwithstanding the retrenchments they have made of ceremonies certainly more ancient than all those used in Ordination. We cannot hesitate, then, as to the reception of their Orders, unless at least we have two weights and two measures in the judgment we pass on the things of religion. If then there is any doubt on this subject, it can be only a doubt badly founded. But by our fourth principle, to reite- rate a Sacrament, there must be either a solemn decree of the Church, or an evident visible nullity, or at least a solid and reasonable doubt; and this is what we do not meet with here. For 1. there is no decree of the Church that declares the English Ordinations null. It is true, that in some particular Churches it has been thought right, on the strength of false prejudices, to re-ordain those who have been ordained in England since the Schism; and that even at Rome this practice has been observed. But in all this we hear of no rule, and it has been done without discussing the question, without examining the facts, and because the most false and fabulous stories have been received as truths. Nevertheless, there is no prescription against truth ; and it is never too late when the business is to make known the things of which persons were ignorant before. No more is there any evident nullity. The essential matter and form are found to have been used in these Ordi- nations. The public Records bear testimony to the publicity and solemnity of the ceremony. They there name the Consecrators, and detail all that was done, and all that was observed on the occasion. The imposition of hands, among the rest, and prayer, are there expressly related. There is therefore no evident nullity; and it is this which makes the greater part of those who contest the validity of the English Ordinations confine themselves to the doubt, and pretend that, being solid, it is sufficient of itself, without other nullities, to render the English Ordinations invalid, or at least, make us act with regard to those who have received this Ordination, as if it were reallv null and invalid. But we have shewn in the GENERAL OBSERVATION. MORINUS. 253 twelfth chapter that this doubt, under the circumstances which accompany it, is not sufficient to authorize the re-ordination of the English, and does not prevent our falling into what St. Leo calls the crime of reiteration : in iterationis crimen. The application of these principles is so easy and so natural, Summing that I do not see on what side they can be destroyed. All agree, that Orders imprint a character; that the conferring of it out of the Church is not sufficient to hinder that impres- sion ; that in conferring a Sacrament, no regard ought to be had except to things essential, and to the Rite which makes it a religious ceremony ; that in Ordination, imposition of hands and prayer, are the only essential parts, and that all this is found in the Ordination of the English Bishops. At what point then can the validity of these Ordinations be contested ? A man must necessarily resolve to take one of these two Two aiter- sides ; and to maintain either that the essentials were not ob- served in the Ordination of the new Bishops, or that, to make Ordination valid, it is necessary to observe not merely what has been practised at all times and in all places, that is to say, not merely that which is in the Sacraments by divine or Apostolic institution, but also all that the Church has since thought fit to add to it, in such sort that is no longer permitted to any Church to change any thing therein. 1 Qucp.dam verb Ecclesi- astical institutionis, guce licet mutari possint, et pro temporum et regionum varictate aliter atque aliter observari, tanti tamen sunt momenti, . . . ut eorum omissio Ordinationem reddat non modo inho- nestam et illicitam, sed etium irritam et nullam, omnique effectu et gratia cassam ; [Some again of Ecclesiastical institution, which although they may be changed, and according to the variety of times and countries be variously observed, are yet of so great moment, . . . that their omission makes an Ordi- nation not merely discreditable and unlawful, but also vain and null, and void of all effect and grace ;] as the learned Morinus teaches us. But this alternative is incapable of being maintained in Neither either of its parts. As to the first, it has already been shewn, main- C in proving that King Edward's Ritual retained all that was tained - essential of the Roman Pontifical, that is to say, the Minister, imposition of hands, and prayer : and that in the opinion of i Morinus ibid. [See p. 250.] 254 OMISSION OF CEREMONIES. CHAP, the most learned Divines, none of the other ceremonies have Y I V - either the antiquity or the universality necessary to entitle them to be regarded as essential parts of this Sacrament : that by the Record of Parker's Consecration, it is evident that these last parts alone were omitted ; and that thus it cannot be proved that the essentials were not observed. All this has been demonstrated at such length, that it is needless to dwell longer Omission upon it. But what we have to shew here in opposition to Mo- monies" rinus is, that the non-observance of the rest of the ceremonies, does not render an Ordination invalid, but simply unlawful. Morinus. We might first quote Morinus against himself, asking him why, if he thinks the non-observance of the ceremonies prescribed by the Ritual or the Pontifical affects the validity of a Sacrament, why, I say, in speaking of the matters and forms in particular, he determines in what they consist, and distinguishes what belongs to the substance and what docs not, as may be seen in the passages we have quoted in speak- ing of the imposition of hands and the formula Accipe Spi- ritum Sanctum, [Receive the Holy Ghost,] of which he says : nulld ratione dicipossunt (hcec verba) ad Ordinis substantiam per- tinere : [by no means can these words be said to belong to the substance of Orders.] For if the whole Rite together be of such importance, to use his own expressions, that the omis- sion makes the Ordination not merely unlawful, but invalid, in vain would he distinguish what belongs to the substance from what does not; all, according to him, belonging alike, quamdiu ab Ecclesia revocata ut abrogata ?wn sunt : [so long as they are not revoked or abrogated by the Church.] Question But without staying to reconcile this author with himself, itself it will be desirable to examine the matter independently of his opinion. Now, I ask whether there is any Divine who has thought that the rites approved by the Church, are in such sort essential to the validity of a Sacrament, that the matters and forms being employed -without being accompanied by Distinc- these rites, there is no Sacrament conferred? This proposi- cases. tion, which may be true in one sense, is absolutely false in that of Morinus, which is all I am concerned to confute; and as this requires to be developed, we must see in what sense it may be true or false, in order to be able to apply it justly. OMISSION OF CEREMONIES. 255 In order that a Sacrament may be conferred, to the matter i. intcn- and form must be joined the intention. All agree in this. There is a dispute in the Schools as to the interior or exterior intention ; but this does not concern us here, where the exterior intention is sufficient for us. This exterior intention is manifested by the practice and observation of the religious Rite prescribed by the Church, and we cannot otherwise judge of it. When in certain circumstances this Rite is omitted, we may pronounce with full assurance, that the in- tention is wanting, and this judgment is neither false nor rash. It is precisely under these circumstances that the proposition of Morinus is true, that the omission of the Eccle- siastical ceremonies renders the Sacrament null ; because, as he judiciously observes: " r But all those things are conditions of such a kind, so affecting and determining the matter of the Sacrament, that by their defect the matter is rendered unfit for Ordination." For as the intention is essential to the Sacrament, and as this is not otherwise manifested than by the observation of the ^ceremonies prescribed, the omission consequently causes a nullity. The omission of the ceremonies may happen in another 2. Neces- case, which is that of necessity. This necessity may arise S1 from different accidents : at one time it will be the peril of death, at another the want either of Ministers, or even of those things which are the material of the ceremonies ; some- times the fear of a persecution ; in a word, all that can give the idea of a just necessity. Admitting this, it appears to me that it cannot be doubted that the proposition of Morinus is false ; and I know of no Divine who has been willing to maintain in this case, that the omission of the ceremonies rendered a Sacrament null. There are even occasions, in which, without any necessity, the omission of the ceremonies does not make Sacraments null, when the intention to do what the Church does is otherwise manifested; and this proves that the case of defect of intention alone, can render the observation of the ceremonies essential to the Sacrament. ' Ilia autem omnia ejusmodi condi- defectu materia reddatur Ordination! tiones sunt, materiam Sacramenti sic inepta. Hid. afficientes et determinantes, ut earum 256 OMISSION OF CEREMONIES. CHAP XIV. Baptism. Orders. Bishops ordained by one Bishop onlv. 3. Church authority. Some examples will tend to clear up this matter, and will serve to decide the difficulty. In the administration of Baptism, the water is the matter, and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, in whatsoever manner enounced, whether in the form of prayer, or in that of a wish, or in that of a command, is the form. If a person in sport baptizes another, that is to say, if he pours water upon him, invoking the Holy Trinity, this Baptism will none the less be looked upon as null, because the non-observance of the cere- monies of Baptism proves in these circumstances, that the intention did not accompany the application of the matter and form. On the contrary, the omission of the ceremonies of Baptism in an imminent peril of death, does not hinder the Baptism from being received as valid: and even apart from the case of death, although one cannot but regard as an evident abuse the delay of the ceremonies of Baptism in order to render the solemnity more august, as it often happens to the children of great lords, it has never been doubted that such a Baptism was good, although conferred without the ceremonies which ought to accompany it; because in this case the intention was sufficiently manifested, and there was no doubt in the matter. In like manner in Ordination, we know how urgent and strict are the Ecclesiastical laws which require three Bishops for the Consecration of a Bishop. This law is at least as ancient, as general, and as urgent, as those which prescribe the Unctions, and the other ceremonies which accompany Ordination. And yet in a hundred instances, when necessity has required it, the Ordinations performed by one alone have been allowed as good; which would have been rejected as null, if the neglect of this la\v had afforded ground to believe that the intention of the Consecrator was not that of the Church. The practice therefore of the Church, which re- ceives as good and valid Sacraments administered without all the ceremonies prescribed, entirely decides against Morinus, and proves that the retrenchment of the ceremonies may take place without affecting the validity of the Sacraments; and this in fact is the opinion of all Divines. There is a third case in which the omission of the cere- monies may take place. It is when the Church in general OMISSION OF CEREMONIES. 257 thinks it desirable to make alterations therein, or to take them away altogether ; or when a particular Church thinks it necessary not to keep to the Rite received for a long time, and makes therein all the changes or retrenchments she pleases, though preserving still what has always been thought essential. In this case, the omission of the ceremony does not alter in any manner the validity of the Sacrament, as we have seen in the tenth chapter ; and Morinus himself freely Admission allows it, in speaking of the necessity of the ceremonies. n Ion ~ " s Hence it follows," says he, " that the matters of those Sa- craments may be different in different Churches, and that Matrimony, Absolution, and Ordination administered in some places may be null and void, which if they had been per- formed in the same manner, and with the same circumstances in other places, would have been valid and lawful, supposing those conditions and circumstances to be, as we assume, according to the usage of that Church, commanded as sub- stantiate. For every one is bound to follow the custom of the Church in which he lives, unless he has obtained licence from one who has authority." But to suppose that a Church may change the rites she has been using, is not this to allow plainly that she may authorize the omission of the ceremonies, without prejudicing the substance of the Sacrament ? In these two cases it is plain that the maxim of Morinus is entirely false ; and it is astonishing, that he has not restrained it to the sole case of the ceremonies being necessary to manifest the intention of the Church. But what has led Cause of him into this error is a second maxim, equally variable with ^seccmd the former, namely, that the Church may prescribe conditions maxim - on which the validity of a Sacrament so depends, that without them it should not be thought conferred. (reX&>9 aderiiaai' . . . ov rrjv HL^rjcnv TOV cr9 (TTrovSaioi, \al/col xeiporovovvrai erceivo o rjcrav 'Trap TO TTporepov e'lre TrpecrftiiTepoi,, eire Sid/coven, K. r. X. [After these things, as good laics, they are ordained what they were before in their own Sect; whether Presbyters, or Deacons, &c.] Baisamon. The other is Balsamon's, who being consulted by a Patriarch of Alexandria, s An Sacerdos vel Diaconus hcereticus, dignus habitus divino et sancto Baptismate, vel per sanctum Chrisma sanctificatus, possit sacra facere cum priore Ordinatione sud 9 An vero si sacra ministrare velit, iterabitur ejus Ordinatio ? [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 functions, his Ordination shall be repeated?] answers in distinct terms, that (whether his Baptism be repeated, in case the former was null, or he be received by the Unction, supposing the former Baptism valid,) * * 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 u , 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. r Lib. 4. Jur. Orient. [Juris Graeco- palis, priore Sacerdotio pro sacrilegio Romani, Francofurti, 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 ascender. ' Si dignus censeatur non modd Sa- u De Sacr. Ordin. part. 3. Exercit. 5. ccrdotalis dignitatis, sed etiam Episco- cap. 7. [ 4, 5.] p. 98. WORSE THAN THAT OF BAPTISM. 269 We have already seen that Urban the Second also recog- t'rban n. nised this difference, avowing that we ought not to reason of the other Sacraments as of Baptism. x Quia alia in Bop- tismo, et alia in reliquis Sacramentis consideratio est ; quippe cum et ordine 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, f Ubi notandum, says he, quanta invocationi divini nominis reverentia debeatur, cum et ab eis baptizati quos tarn perfida, ut ita dixerim, jides damnat, rebaptizari tarnen 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 i-irtutem Sancti Spiritus in fide non habent, qua videlicet omnis Ecclesia 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 says a , 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. " b That 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 Quod rebaptizatio et reconsecratio y Petr. Dam. Opusc. 6. c. 22. [Ope- par crimen est. Quod sicut rebaptizari, rum torn. 3. p. 55. B. Romae, 1615.] ita et denuo consecrari quisque non po- z [Ibid. p. 54. F.] test. [Tom. 3. p. 59, 60.] * De Sacr. Ord. part. 3. Ex. 5. c. 2. 270 FACTS AND EXAMI'l.i.-. CHAT. But the recital of the facts and example* which arc found ^ in the history of the Church on this subject, affords yet belter 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 Nuncjuarn a mails sinnnidinn rxf. <:mn]>lutn, 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!^. 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- Recond tiori ; and the single example of the Ordinations of Maximus Council: the Cynic, declared null by the first Council of Constantinople, A ' * 381 ' seems to decide it For Balsamon and Zonaras do not ; tate to interpret in this sense the decree of that Council. " d Therefore this holy Synod," says Balsamon', " deposed him (Maximusj, defining that he neither was nor had b- 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, sayfj omnibus si-iltci't (jufK circa eum rt-1 nl> c<> (j<*xta aunt, in imfum rc'focatt* : [all things, in fact, which had been done with respect to him or by him having been declared null.] <-...., ,,f The example of Photius and of his Ordinations, is very wdaiDed similar to that of Maximus. Jt is for this reason that Adrian A.D. K58. the Second would have him treated in the same manner ; and Anastasius the Librarian, after'Adrian, gives a convincing [ c t See p. 242.] CL OSML K72. The Sebotioo / o 'H olt> 0.716. obvolot afar) iirncfipvl* iiariiv follow* umneduiUJy tliat TOVTW t-rlv Md^i/j.'>fj, fjpl-ja.'ja ufa* aoUM.J abrbv fiviaQcu fy t'lvat, Im Tu.l, .nii-r* fovt M i> rr- (! to: v. CoflC. tODTJ W v T#*' r viovMfrtrot j8a- A B. Ed. Pri*. J07J. fiov K\i) f utwt tlftu. veo in the origunl ibid. ool). 047, wve Paudeetc Canonum &c. p. 91 CASE OF PHOTIUS. reason ; which is, that the Ordination of both is very nearly the same. Q/t/a J'/wtiu* Mtu-imo, [says Adrian the Second?,] Adrian II. ct Ordinatio cjntt, . . istitia OrdiiHitioni penc in cunctis ridetnr csse slmilitma. [Because Photius to Maximus, and the Ordination of the one, . . to the Ordination of the other, appears in almost all things to be very similar.] Scicnchnn cst, says Anastasius Anastasius 11 , quia J'hotius tamquam neophytus et adulter, qui brarian. scilicet l-'.cclcsi(nn ri cent is invaserit, nunquam fuisse Episcopus diet us et promultjatns cst : sed nee ii qui ab co mnnus impositionem acceperunt : comparati videlicet Maximo Cynico, et ordinatis ab co, d sectnida Synodo cum ordinatore repidsis. [It must be understood, that Photius, as a novice and adulterer, one, that is to say, who had invaded the Church of a living person, was said and publicly declared never to have been a Bishop : nor vet those who from him had received imposition of hands : being compared, in fact, to Maxim us the Cynic, and to those ordained by him, who, together with their ordainer, were re- jected by the second Synod.] It appears, in fact, that the Latins acted with Photius, as if he had conferred nothing. For we see that they consecrated the Churches which he had already consecrated ; that they gave Confirmation to those to whom he had already administered it : and that Photius, by way of reprisal for what had been done, had on his part re- ordained those who had been ordained by Ignatius: TOW VTTO rov dyiov TereXeo/teyoiK? ermparo dva^eiporovelv, [those consecrated by the saint he endeavoured to re-ordain,] says Nieetas': which proves that they had also re-ordained those who had been ordained by Photius ; that this was in conse- quence of the decrees of Nicolas the First, who, in his letter Nicolas I. to the Kmperor Michael, declares that (Gregory of Syracuse could ordain no one : k elinna qucmquam ordinare nequirif : [having been struck out, he could ordain no one:] that his prayer could not be heard, and consequently that he conferred nothing: } ai iton uudibilia, er. I, :ul l^iuithiin, ilml. col. P LilV ot'l^natius: ibid. col. 1256 D.] 1012 C; MV;I!SI> coi. S!iS r-_K.] N Ep. !: C\Hu-. torn. 8. col. S35. [" Si-holioii at tlu- t-iuloflns Kdition O K. ] of tin' Ki^hth CouiK-il : ihiil. col. [< Ibid. col. 3S6 A.] 1176 A.] 272 CASE OF PHOTIUS. CHAP, on Photius:] that Photius having nothing, could give nothing, : as Adrian the Second says : m nihil habuit, nihil dedit, nisi forte Adrian II. ., . rl , , damnationem habuit, quam se sequentibus propmavent ; [he had nothing, he gave nothing, unless perhaps he had damnation, of which he drank first and passed the cup to his followers ;] and that it is for this reason that they ought not to be re- garded as Clergymen or as Bishops whom Photius had or- dained: n Quos idem Photius in gradu quolibet ordinasse putatus est, ab Episcoporum numero vel dignitate, quam usurpative ac ficte dedit, merito sequestrantes : [those whom the same Photius is thought to have ordained in any degree, from the number and dignity of Bishops, which he in an usurped and fictitious manner gave, deservedly sequestrating :] which agrees with Eighth the sense of the fourth Canon of the eighth Council, which General .. ., , _. 111 ^ . 7 . v Council, annuls all that Photius had done : Omnibus, maxime qua> in Constan- ip so e ^ a ^ ip so a ^ Sacerdotalis gradus acceptionem vel damnatio- A n D P 869 nem ac * a sun *> i rr it um ductis : [all things, 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 exaggera- vation. . , . . , i tion, and imagine that they regarded only the suspension of acting in those who had been ordained ; and that this is so Tempo- much the more probable, because in the reconciliation which dHatfon 11 " was made between Photius and the Church of Rome, under johnVin tne Popcorn of John the Eighth, no mention was made of A.D. 879. re-ordaining either Photius or those whom he had ordained. p In Pontificali officio Comministrum, atque . . . in Pastorali ma- gisterio Consacerdotem, pro Ecclesice 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.] 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. col. 1128 E.] 1012 D. (see also Harduini Concilia, [p John VIII. Ep. 199. ibid. col. Paris. 1715, torn. 5. col. 794 D.)] HJO A. and torn. 9. col. 131 E.I [ n Ibid. co!. 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 suis gradibus confirm- antcs, says he, speaking of these, ignoscendum 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, 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 S 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. r In eodem Concilio, says Anastasius, promulgatum est, ut Episcopi illi (guos ipse Con- stantinus consecraverat), . . . in pristinum honoris sui gradum re- verterentur ; " et si placabiles fuissent cor am populo civitatis suce, denuo facto decreto electionis more solito, cum Clero et plebe ad Apostolicam advenissent Sedem, et ab eodem Sanctissimo Stephana Papa benedictionis suscepissent Consecrationem ; Presbyteri verb illi ac Diaconi ab eodem Constantino consecrati, simili modo in eo quo prius existebant habitu reverterentur ; et postmodum, si qui eorum placabiles extitissent, antefatus Beatissimus 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, pr&ter sacrum Baptisma, atque sanctum Chrisma" [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.) : r Anast in Steph. IV. [See p. 242.] ibid. col. 1013 C.] [' Ibid. col. 2 A.] 274 CASES OF EBBC 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. i Decretum est a sacra- tissima Synodo, ut quidquid in Ordinationibus Ecclesiasticis idem Ebbo post damnationem suam egerat, secundum traditionem Apostolicce Sedis, ut in gestis Pontificum legitur, prater sacrum Baptisma, quod in nomine sanctce 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 * us< been seen, 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. II. A.D. 853. action. 5. [Cone. torn. 8. col. 88, 89.] MR. THORNDIKE'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 Conciu- has been variation on the subject of re-ordinations, but also su 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 dlke- 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 Ordinatione, says he, cum duo esse ex dictis constet, au- Thorn- ctoritatem ac jus Ecclesice in Ordinante, primum ; turn Con- secrationis solennitatem, qua Ministerio Ordinis traditi auctorem Ecclesiam palam inscribit ; tanto majoris est momenti Ecclesice auctoritas quam consecrandi ritus, ut in irritum cadat rite ac more Ecclesice peracta Consecratio, ad quam 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 consecratum, etsi servato ritu Ecclesice. . . . lltaque si dubium existat de auctoritate Ecclesice, non de ritu ordinandi, non est minim, accedente aucto- ritate Ecclesice, valere Ordinationem non jure factam, ad id ad quod valere earn vult accedens auctoritas Ecclesice. Pauca sunt hujus causes exempla in rebus veteris Ecclesice; pauca quidem, sed sunt tamen quce earn dubiarn esse non sinunt. . . . Sane cum nihil majus quceri in hac totd re possit, quam ut rata sint apud Deum, quce fideli plebi ministrantur ab Us quorum dubia sit Ordinatio ; nee plebis esse de rebus Ecclesice communibus judicium dictum sit; statuendum est non posse Jidelibus fraudi esse ea apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur fidem Ecclesice. . . , z lgitur u The remaining part of this chapter author. [D. "W. See the Editor's notes.] considerably varies from the French * y z De Ratione &c. cap. 20. p. 363, edition, being altered by the learned 36-5, 367. T 2 276 MR. THORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLE. CHAP, non est mirum, accedente JEcclesice auctoritate, ratas Ordina- . xv - tiones evadere eas, qua non accedente Ecclesia 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 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 Ecclesice ; 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. THORNDIKE'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 sacratum videri debet, quod non sit jure Ecclesice Deo consecration, 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 dubium existat de auctoritate Ec- clesice, non de ritu Ordhiandi, non est mirum, accedente auctori- tate EcclesicB, valere Ordinationem non jure factam, ad id ad quod valere earn vult accedens auctoritas Ecclesia. [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. THORNDIKE'S PRINCIPLE. CHAP. 4. b This maxim, according to this author, should be very ^ ' proper to reconcile all the opposite facts before related. For, ourth ' 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 mirum, accedente Ecclesice auctoritate, ratas Ordinationes evadere eas, quce non accedente auctoritate Ec- clesia irritoe 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 Ecclesice decretorum et gestorum rationem inibimus frustra, hac repudiata, quarendam. [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. c Si qui autem Clerici, says this great Pope, ab istis pseudo-episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, qui f ad proprios Episcopos pcr- tinebant, et Ordinatio eorum consensu et judicio prcesidentium [ 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.] Tkomttike, till supra, [p. 363.] [ c Thorndike, ibid. p. 370.] e Leo Mag. Ep 2. inquis. 1. [p. ^ d Scio aliter decretum esse de Bap- 401, -105. Ed. Quesuel. Paris. 1675.] tismo haereticorum, . .. Sedhocad Ordi- [ f See Quesnel's note, Appendix to nationem trahendum non est; . . . Non St. Leo's Works, p. 787.] est necesse ratam haereticorum Confir- MR. TIIORXDIKE'S PRINCIPLE. 279 facta est, potest rata haberi, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent. Aliter autem vana habenda est creatio, qua nee loco fundata est, nee 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- cndnm est non posse Jidelibus fraudi esse ea apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur fidem EcclesicB. [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, 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. XVL THE SUCCESSION OF THE ENGIJSH BISHOPS HAS NOT BEEN INTERRUPTED BT THE SCHISM. CHAP. THIS proposition is the consequence of all the rest, and the XVL natural conclusion of this Treatise. It is not necessary, before does not establishing its truth, to repeat what I have already frequently improve" 5 observed, that I do not undertake to prove that these Bishops the Angii- ^g l aw f u lly 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 To make to proving that the Bishops who since the Schism, down to ftjfi$u aw ~ 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. General This thesis, confined to these terms, is a necessary conse- quence of the principles and 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 FOUR EPOCHS OF DANGER. FIRST. 281 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 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- difficulty sion was interrupted; since by the consent even of the Divines in . hls 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. Cceremo- ?iia>n et solennem unctionem, more Ecclesiastico, adhuc in Come- 282 FIRST EPOCH. BISHOPS CONSECRATED AFTER THE SCHISM. CHAP, cratione Hid adhiberi voluit (Henricus Octavus), [The ceremo- 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. ^Primo loco sanrierunt, lit cum Episcopi ac Presbyteri Anglicani, Ritu fere Catholico (exceptd Romani Pontificis obedientid, quam omnes ab- negabani) ad illud 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 " c 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 after the nas preserved several for 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 Bulkeley 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 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. 213, 244. SECOND EPOCH. TWO REMARKS. 283 at the time of the re-union under Queen Mary, several were (First continued in their Sees without its being thought necessary epoch -' to reiterate their Ordination, as Robert Warton, George Day, Anthony Kitchin, Thirlby Bishop of Westminster, &c. 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 n. Ed- of Edward the Sixth. It was under that Prince that the V " 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, de numero prasentium Episcoporum qui manus ordinando iwponerent, 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- ff. i " -,. T-" i i marks, sumce to put the matter out ot dispute, rirst, that the 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. e De 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 5__-' 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- ti n ' ^ n ^ act ' tne new ^ lie d^ not l ast tnree whole years, epoch.) since Poynet, who was the first ordained according to the new Form f , received Ordination June 29, 1550 g , and Harley, who was the last, was ordained May 26, 1553 h . 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, 1552 l . 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- vaiid! s i n f tn e 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 mhtedh. * n tne P ower ne 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 hcereticis et schismaticis Episcopis, etiam minus rite, dummodo in eorum collatione Ecclesiastica forma et intentio sit sej-vata, per eos susceptis, . . . etiam in Altaris Ministerio ministrare, . . . valeant. { Memorials of Cranmer, p. 192. ' k ' Ibid. p. 254, 271, and 293. e h Ibid. p. 253. and 301. "' 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 epochi > 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- hj^e been tions, as Robert of Carlisle, who had assisted in that o f admitted - IIarley n , were continued 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 sen?c clear of damage. The third epoch, which is that of the reign of Elizabeth, III. 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 tireTy C ' Formulary were altogether wanting. For the Queen, in the wantin &- 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. P Ant. Harmer, p. 133. Fasti Eccl. Angl. p. 335. 286 DIFFICULTIES. DIFFERENCES AMONG CHAP. Bishops ; and excepting Barlow, Kitchin, and some others, - who died a few years afterwards, this Church found herself 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 acuities. Edward an( j tnat O f 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 Rite 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 Roman 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 Parker's Consecration were clear, it sion dm 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 1S > tnat anion g 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 Parker's 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- epoc 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, Rccapitu- we have but to call to mind what has been proved in the course of this Dissertation, to shew the weakness of all these different sides. 1. The ridiculousness of the charge, that the Ordination i. Nag'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 CHAP, of a chimera of this kind is its most convincing refutation, and the only one it properly deserves. epoch.) 2. What has been produced in the third, fourth, and fifth ^ chapters, proves not merely the truth, but even the notoriety, secrated. o f 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. j ose ne ith er their 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, vaLU? in order to defend an opinion which has no other foundation What must than the prejudice of a Scholastic theology, they must make to make it it appear either that imposition of hands and prayer do not ld ' 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 i -I 11 i i i i i T. proposi- contrary to truth, and to ail 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 . , , -r, , 1-1 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 consecrated, they have been refuted beforehand in what has b y a co "- . secrated 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. u 290 FOURTH EPOCH. CROMWELL S PROJECTS CHAP. The succession of the doctrine, if you please, is no longer \" YT -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 Providence. " i i . . . , . _ . , . objection. difficulty that can be objected to them. It is, that to continue Want of the Episcopal succession, there must be not merely a valid r *gh t u 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 /-M i . T !! question Churches, is a mere question about a name. I am willing to about a suppose, with the authors of the objection, that the succession ^ a ^' 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 the proper business is only to ascertain whether there be among tion is! * Ibid. [See the Editor's notes.] some measure in the Translator's Pre- 1 See these objections answered in face. [D. W.] 292 WHAT IS ADMITTED. CASE OF THE DONATISTS 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 conf- Episcopate was acknowledged in them. Yet they were guilty pared. o f 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 Rite 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 a'dop- ^ e s P^ Tli f tne Catholic Church, that I do not hesitate to ted at believe, that they would never have adopted it at Rome 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 be of General use towards clearing up the subject I proposed to examine, tion. 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 O 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 Reordin*- this Work, re-ordinations have always been odious in the ^ays o- Church ; and it is necessary, in order to come to this, either dious ' 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 neMi- he of this carries with it that of all the Bishops ordained since the nistr y- 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 (Barkw) Ordination there is no dispute,) we have proved in the was con ~ 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 CHAP, doubt that he was truly consecrated, because this omission is XVII - 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 who 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. The con- It is not then from the side of the Consecrator that persons ve'rmain- can deduce the nullity of the Consecration of Parker, to ring e hi^ U ~ wnom i n ^ ac t it was never made a reproach during his life, life - that he had been consecrated by a man who had not been consecrated himself. The new No more can it be from the side of the form ordained by doeTnot the Ritual of Edward; since, as has been seen in the sixth and differ in seventh chapters, this form does not differ as to essentials from the from that of the Roman Pontifical. For according to all our Pontifical. Des t Divines, what is essential to the form of Ordination is the invocation of the Holy Spirit, or the prayer by which are 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. The Nag's- We have shewn elsewhere, in the second chapter, that in ut^teriy'in^ the Ordination of Parker the Form in question was used ; that defensible, 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 STORY. - 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- ,. . i i ' if it- -i - i dination not in the Ordination, considered in itself, any nullity which therefore can render it invalid. In order to endeavour to find out some other nullity, the other ai- adversaries have had recourse to exterior proofs. They have if t f| s . n 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 was authority by the Ecclesiastical authority that the change was made in |" n *j ng ~ 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 Bramhai). 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. CHAP. Christians in the interior court of conscience ; the third to XVII the regiment of Christian people in the exterior court of the Church. Concerning the two former," says he, b ' there is no controversy between 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 by f< Ecde Bishops 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. Schism If there was some difficulty about this, that this power aier the ought not to be allowed except to those Churches which 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 either 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 [ b Ibid. p. 338 341. 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 reor- them, there remained nothing more than to shew that the oftheEng- Ordination of the English being faulty neither as to the Jherefore Consecrator nor as to the matter and form, the re-ordinations indefen- 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 what ai- Sacrament. It has even been shewn in the ninth chapter that the heretical opinions of those who might be employed crament 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 : c Additio verborum qua debitum formce Sacramentalis sensum corrumpunt, tollit [ Natalis Alexander : see p. 171-] 298 ALTERATION OF FORM.-DOUBT.-COMPARISON.-SUCCESSIOX. CHAP, veritatem Sacramenti : [The addition of words which destroy "V v 1 1 ' 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 fbunda- shewn in the twelfth chapter, if there be many Divines who 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 argumenT are a ^ founded upon evident facts and authentic monuments, sides 16 tW an( ^ ^ ^ e PP os i te 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. Succes- The Ordination being once ascertained, the succession was 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. sion. GENERAL OBSERVATION'S. 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 tions?tcn- of the theological principles. If it has nothing new for the ?u n< ^^ f r the Work. 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 more 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 Conciu- 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. 1685. 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 are b . 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.] b 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, |J J. BENIGNE, Bishop of Meaux. ARTICLE II. VARIOUS STATUTES [l. 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 the King Head of the Church of England. [26 Hen. VIII. c. 1.] B 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 shah 1 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 This relates to the Four Articles of the Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. '1-36. 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. 1. 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 this 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 tune, by their discretions, to give, grant, and dispose by an Instrument under the seal of b This Statute proves that they did not spiritiialibits [in things spiritual.] regard the King as Head of the Church in c Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 427. 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 necessary; 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. 57.] 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 6 Ibid. p. 425, 426. ART. ii. 3.] Consecration $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 hi 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 Pr&munire. Statutes concerning [APPENDIX, the King's Dominions, after any such election, nomination or presentation shall be 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 Prcemunire, 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 [*c.], made under Edward the Sixth in the Parliaments of 1549 and 1552. IV. Act of the Year 1549, to order the drawing tip of a new Form of Ordination. [3 # 4 Ed. VI. c. 12.] {From RastaVs 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 Sendee e Ibid. c. 12. p. 674. f Ibid. c. 1. p. 676. 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 RastaTs Abridgment.] & A 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. 13.] h WHERE at the death of our late Sovereign Lord King Edward the Ibid. c. 2. p. 709. " Ibid. c. 2. p. 763. x 2 308 Ordination Service. Declaration [APPENDIX, Sixth ', there remained one Uniform Order of Common Sen-ice and Prayer, and of the Administration of Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of England, which was 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, authorised by Act of Parliament, holden in the fifth and sixth years of our said late Sovereign Lord King Edward the Sixth, intituled, An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments ; the which was repealed and taken away by Act of Parliament in the first year of the reign of our late Sovereign Lady Queen Mary, to the great decay of the due honour of God, and dis- comfort 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 concerning the said Book, and the Service, Administration of the Sacra- ments, 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 Order of Service, and of the Administration of Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies, with the alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this Estatute, shall stand and be, from and after the said Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist, in full force and effect, according to the tenour and effect of this Estatute ; Any thing in the aforesaid Estatute of Repeal to the contrary notwithstanding. III. And further be it enacted by the Queen's Highness, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral or Parish Church or other place within this Realm of England, Wales, and the Marches of the same, or other the Queen's Dominions, shall from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, be bounden to say and use the Mattens, 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 mentioned in the said Book so authorised by Parliament in the said fifth and sixth years of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, with one alteration or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the Form of the Letany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacra- ment to the Communicants, and none other or otherwise. VIII. Statute of the Parliament of the year 1566, touching the Validity of the Ordinations made since 1559. [8 Eliz. c. 2. sect. 1 5.] k Forasmuch as divers questions by overmuch boldness of speech and ' In the printed text" Henry" has been Editor's notes.] put by mistake for "Edward." [See the k Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 814 816. ART. ii. 8.] concerning the Elizabethan Ordinations. 309 talk, amongst many of the common sort of people being unlearned, hath lately grown upon the Making and Consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops within this Realm, whether the same were and be duly and orderly done ac- cording to the law or not, which is much tending to the slander of all the state of Clergy, being one of the greatest states of this Realm : (2) There- fore, for the avoiding of such slanderous speech, and to the intent that every man that is willing to know the truth, may plainly understand that the same evil speech and talk is not grounded upon any just matter or cause, It is thought convenient hereby partly to touch such authorities as do allow and approve the Making and Consecrating of the same Archbishops and Bishops to be duly and orderly done according to the laws of this Realm, and thereupon further to provide for the more surety thereof, as hereafter shall be expressed. II * III. Wherefore for the plain declaration of all the premisses, and to the intent that the same may the better be known to every of the Queen's Majesty's subjects, whereby such evil speech as heretofore hath been used against the high state of Prelacy, may hereafter cease, (2) Be it now de- clared 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 and the Administration of Sacraments, with other Rites and Ceremonies, is au- thorised 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 Con- secrating of Archbishops 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 au- thorised by Parliament in the fifth and sixth years of the said late King, shall stand and be in full force and effect, and shall from henceforth be used and observed, hi all places within this Realm, and other the Queen's Majesty's Dominions and Countries : IV. And that all Acts and things heretofore had, made, or done by any person or persons, in or about any Consecration, Confirmation, or Investing of any person or persons elected to the office or dignity of any Archbishop or Bishop within this Realm, or within any other the Queen's Majesty's Dominions or Countries, by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's Letters Patents or Commission sithence the beginning of her Majesty's reign, be and shall be by authority of this present Parliament, declared, judged, and deemed, at and from every of the several times of the doing thereof, good and perfect to all respects and purposes ; Any matter or thing that can or may be objected to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding : V. And that all persons that have been or shall be Made, Ordered, or 1 I have not thought it necessary to copy was done, but have satisfied myself with here without use the declaration of what giving what the Parliament ordered. 310 Declaration concerning the Elizabethan [APPENDIX, Consecrate Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers of God's Holy Word and Sacraments, or Deacons, after the Form and Order prescribed in the said Order and Form how Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Ministers should be Consecrated, Made, and Ordered, be in very deed, and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to be, and shall be, Arch- bishops, Bishops, Priests, Ministers, and Deacons, and rightly Made, Ordered, and Consecrated ; Any Statute, Law, Canon, or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding." It follows clearly from this Statute, that it is not the Parliament that gives the Ordination its validity, but that it presupposes it, recognises it, and in consequence declares it. IX. Act of the Parliament held the thirty-ninth year of the Reign of Eliza- beth, in 1597, to confirm the Deposition of the old Bishops and other Dignitaries, and the substitution of the new ones. [39 Eliz. c. 8.] m Whereas divers and sundry persons exercising the office and function of Bishops and Deans of divers Sees and Bishopricks and Deanries within this Realm in the reign of our late Sovereign Lady Queen Mary, were, before the tenth day of November in the fourth year of the most happy and blessed government of the Queen's most excellent Majesty that now is, lawfully and justly deprived from such Bishopricks and Deanries as they severally enjoyed and took upon them to hold, and in their steads and places sundry excellent and worthy men duly preferred to the same : (2) And whereas the parties so deprived did notwithstanding, as it is pre- tended, make secret appeals, and used other secret means, pretending thereby to support the continuance of their said offices and functions : II. Be it therefore declared and enacted by authority of this present Par- liament, That all and every deprivation and deprivations, and all and every sentence and sentences of deprivation whatsoever, had, pronounced, or given at any tune between the beginning of the reign of the Queen's most ex- cellent Majesty that now is, and the tenth day of November in the fourth year of the same, against any person or persons which was, or took upon him to be, Archbishop or Bishop of any See or Bishoprick, or Dean of any Deanry, within this Realm, or any the Dominions thereof, in the reign of the said late Queen Mary, from such See or Bishoprick, shall be adjudged, deemed, and taken, good and sufficient in law, to all intents and purposes, and so shall remain and continue ; Any appeal, exception, or other matter or thing whatsoever, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all such Archbishops and Bishops, and Deans, as were Ordained or Made by the authority or licence of the Queen's Majesty that now is, at any time between m Statutes at Large, vol. 1. p. 922. ART. ii. 9.] " Deprivations. Edwardine Ordinal. 311 the beginning of her reign and the said tenth day of November in the fourth year of her Majesty's reign, shall be taken and adjudged to be lawful Arch- bishop or Bishop of the See or Bishoprick, and Dean of the Deanry unto the which he was so preferred, assigned, or appointed : (2) And that the same See of Archbishoprick or Bishoprick and Deanry unto which he was so pre- ferred, assigned, or appointed, shall be deemed and adjudged to be merely void to all respects and purposes, before such presentment, appointment, or assignment, so made as aforesaid ; Any ambiguity or question in that behalf heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, to the contrary in any wise not- withstanding. It is plain, as we see by the terms of this Act, that what is here treated of is not at all the validity of the Ordinations, or doubts raised on this subject, but simply whether the Sees were lawfully vacant by the deposition of the persons who rilled them, and whether the substitution of those who were put into their places was also lawful. ARTICLE III. EXTRACT FROM THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, AND FROM THE FORMULARY OF ORDINATIONS, WHICH WAS JOINED TO IT BY A STATUTE OF THE PAR- LIAMENT OF THE YEAR 1552. We remarked in the first and eighth chapters, that in 1549 Edward the Sixth had the Formulary of Ordinations reformed, and that in 1552 the Parliament authorised it, joined it to the Book of Common Prayer, and ordered it to be used, as forming part of that Book. It is from this Formulary thus reformed and authorised, that I have extracted the Form of Ordering Priests and Bishops, which I have thought it expedient to join to the Proofs, in order that every one may be convinced for himself, that in this Formulary all the substance of the Roman Pontifical has been preserved. I have omitted the Ordering of Deacons, as not being at all neces- sary. [ a In both Mr. Williams' s Editions the " inserting] the variations between it and whole of this Article is omitted, and in its " the old Ordinal of Edward the Sixth, as stead the following mis-statement inserted " follows." at the end of the preceding Article : Now, as it happens, and as Courayer has " N.B. The author had here inserted the himself clearly stated in the first paragraph ' greatest part of our Ordinal, as it has of the Article, it is from the Ordinal not ' stood since King Charles the Second's " as it has stood since King Charles the ' reign, hut the translator has thought fit Second's reign," but as it stood before that ' to omit it, because it is in every English time, that he has given the Extract. The ' reader's hands ; and therefore he has importance of this difference, and of Mr. 'omitted it, and only inserted [in Ed. I. and Williams' s twice repeated mutilation itself, ' therefore he has contented himself with will be obvious. ED.] 312 The Edwardine Form [APPENDIX, As it was judged proper to make some further changes in this Ordinal (as the English call it) in the time of Charles the Second, after this Extract will be found the changes which were made therein ; in order to omit nothing which might lead to a suspicion that we wished to suppress any thing which might concern either of the two parties. It will be necessary to inform the reader, that the Latin transla- tion 15 of the Book of Ordinations, which is here made use of, may be regarded as an original like the English, this translation having been authorised in the Realm . It is different from that of which I have made use in the quotations scattered through the Treatise ; as I have taken these quotations from the Translation of the Ritual as reformed under Charles the Second, but the difference is only in the style, and not at all in the sense d . f THE FORM OF ORDERING PRIESTS. ^f Wlien the Exhortation [such as is described in the Ordination of Deacons 6 '} is ended, then shall follow the Communion. And for the Epistle shall be read out of the twentieth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles as followeth. From Mileto Paul sent messengers more blessed to give than to receive, [v. 17 35.] Or else this third chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy. This is a true saying, received up in glory. After this shall be read for the Gospel apiece of the last chapter of Matthew, as followeth : Jesus came . . . until the end of the world. Matt, xxviii. [v. 18 20.] Or else this that followeth, of the tenth chapter of John. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not . . . one fold and one shepherd, [v. 116.] Or else this, of the twentieth chapter of John. The same day at night, . . . they are retained, [v. 19 23.] When the Gospel is ended, then shall be said or sung, { Come, Holy Ghost, eternal God, proceeding from above, Both from the Father and the Son, the God of peace and love ; [>> This paragraph applies only to the Qui Paraclitus diceris, French Edition : see the Editor's notes.] Donum Dei altissimi, [ c d See the Editor's notes.] Fons vivus, ignis, charitas, [ e These words are inserted for explana- Et spiritalis unctio. tion as in the Latin given by Courayer. Tu septiformis munere, ED.] Dextrae Dei tu digitus, f Veni, Creator Spiritus, Tu rite promissum Patris, Mentes tuorum visita : Sermone ditans guttura. Imple superna gratia Accende lumen sensibus, Quae tu creasti pectoia. Infunde amorem cordibus ; ART. in.] of Ordering Priests. 313 Visite our minds, and into us thy heav'nly grace inspire, That in all truth and godliness we may have true desire. Thou art the very Comforter, in all woe and distress, The heav'nly gift of God most high, which no tongue can express ; The fountain and the lively spring of joy celestiall, The fire so bright, the love so clear, and unction spir'tuall. Thou in thy gifts art manifold, whereby Christ's Church doth stand ; In faithful hearts writing thy law, the finger of God's hand. According to thy promise made thou givest speech of grace, That through thy help the praise of God may sound in every place. O Holy Ghost, into our wits send down thine heav'nly light, Kindle our hearts with fervent love, to serve God day and night ; Strength and stablishe all our weakness, so feeble and so frail, That neither flesh, the world, nor devl against us do prevail ; Put back our en'my far from us, and graunt us to obtain Peace in our hearts with God and man, without grudge or disdain. And graunt, O Lord, that, thou being our Leader and our Guide, We may eschew the snares of sin, and from thee never slide. To us such plenty of thy grace, good Lord, graunt, we thee pray, That thou may'st be our Comforter at the last dreadful day. Of all strife and dissension, O Lord, dissolve the bands, And make the knots of peace and love throughout all Christen lands. Graunt us, O Lord, through thee to know the Father most of might, That of his dear beloved Son we may attain the sight : And that with perfect faith also we may acknowledge thee The Spirite of them both alway, one God in Persons three. Laud and praise be to the Father, and to the Son equall, And to the Holy Sp'rite also, one God co-eternall. And pray we that the only Son vouchsaufe his Sp'rite to send, To all that do profess his name unto the worldes end. Amen. And then the Archdeacon shall present unto tJie Bishop all them that shall receive the Order of Priesthood that day ; the Archdeacon saying, Reverend Father in God, I present unto you these persons present, to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood, Cum interrogatione et responsione, ut in Ordine Diaconatus. And then the Bishop shall say to the people, Good people, these be they whom we purpose, God willing, to receive this day unto the holy office of Priesthood. For after due examination we find not the contrary but that they be lawfully called to their function and ministry, and that they be persons meet for the same : but yet if there be Infirma nostri corporis Noscamus atque Filium ; Virtute firmans perpeti. Te utriusque Spiritum Hostem repellas longius, Credamus omni tempore. Pacemque dones protinus, Sit laus Patri cum Filio, Ductore sic te prsevio Sancto simul Paraclito ; Vitemus omne noxium. Nobisque mittat Filius Per te sciaimis da Pattern, Charisma Sancti Spiritfls. 314 The Edicardine Form [APPENDIX, any of you which knoweth any impediment or notable crime in any of them, for the which he ought not to he received into this holy ministry, now in the name of God declare the same. And if any great crime or impediment be objected, 8fC. ut supra in Ordine Diaconatus usque ad finem Litaniae cum liac Collecta : 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, and replenish them so with the truth of thy doctrine, and innocency of life, that, both by word and good example, they may faithfully serve thee in this office, to the glory of thy name, and profit of the congregation, through the merits of our Saviour Jesu Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen. Then the Bishop shall minister unto every of them the oath concerning the King's supremacy, as it is set out in the Order of Deacons. And that done, he shall say unto them which are appointed to receive the said office as hereafter followeth : You have heard, brethren, as well in your private examination, as in the exhortation, and in the holy lessons taken out of the Gospel, and of the writings of the Apostles, of what dignity and of how great importance this office is (whereunto ye be called) . And now we exhort you, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to have in remembrance into how high a dignity, and to how chargeable an office ye be called, that is to say, to be the messengers, the watchmen, the pastors, and the stewards of the Lord ; to teach, to premonish, to feed, and provide for the Lord's family ; to se^ek for Christ's sheep that be dispersed abroad, and for his children which be in the midst of this naughty world, to be saved through Christ for ever. Have always, therefore, printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge ; for they be the sheep of Christ which be bought with his death, and for whom he shed his blood. The Church and congregation whom you must serve is his spouse and his body ; and if it shall chance the same church, or any member thereof, to take any hurt or hindrance, by reason of your negligence, ye know the greatness of the fault, and also of the horrible punishment which will ensue. Wherefore consider with yourselves the end of your ministry towards the children of Ged, toward the spouse and body of Christ, and see that you never cease your labour, your care, and diligence, until you have done all that lieth in you, according to your bounden duty, to bring all such as are or shall be com- mitted to your charge, unto that agreement in faith, and knowledge of .God, and to that ripeness and perfectness of age in Christ, that there be no place left among them, either for error in religion or for viciousness in life. Then, forasmuch as your office is both of so great excellency and of so great difficulty, ye see with how great care and study ye ought to apply yourselves, as well that you may shew yourselves kind to that Lord, who ART. in.] of Ordering Priests. 315 hath placed you in eo high a dignity, as also to beware that neither you yourselves offend, neither be occasion that other offend. Howbeit ye cannot have a mind and a will thereto of yourselves ; for that power and ability is given of God alone. Therefore ye see how ye ought and have need earnestly to pray for his Holy Spirit. And seeing that you cannot by any other means compass the doing of so weighty a work, pertaining to the salvation of man, but with doctrine and exhortation taken out of holy Scrip- ture, and with a life agreeable unto the same ; ye perceive how studious ye ought to be in reading and in learning the holy Scriptures, and in framing the manners both of yourselves and of them that specially pertain unto you, according to the rule of the same Scriptures. And for this selfsame cause ye see how you ought to forsake and set aside (as much as you may) all worldly cares and studies. We have a good hope that you have well weighed and pondered these things with yourselves long before this time, and that you have clearly determined, by God's grace, to give yourselves wholly to this vocation, whereunto it hath pleased God to call you, so that, (as much as lieth in you) you apply yourselves wholly to this one thing, and draw all your cares and studies this way, and to this end. And that you will continually pray for the heavenly assistance of the Holy Ghost, from God the Father, by the mediation of our only Mediator and Saviour Jesus Christ, that by daily reading and weighing of the Scriptures ye may wax riper and stronger in your ministry. And that ye may so endeavour yourselves, from time to time, to sanctify the lives of you and yours, and to fashion them after the rule and doctrine of Christ. And that ye may be wholesome and godly ex- amples and patterns for the rest of the congregation to follow. And that this present congregation of Christ, here assembled, may also understand your minds and wills in these things ; and that this your promise shall more move you to do your duties, ye shall answer plainly to these things, which we, in the name of the congregation, shall demand of you, touching the same. 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 ? Answer. I think it. The Bishop. Be you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, through faith in Jesu Christ ? And are you determined, with the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach nothing (as required of necessity to etemal salvation) but that you shall be persuaded may be con- cluded and proved by the Scripture ? Answer. I am so persuaded, and have so determined by God's grace. The Bishop. Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine, and Sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the 316 The Edwardine Form [APPENDIX, Lord hath commanded, and as this realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of God, so that you may teach the people committed to your cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same ? Answer. I will so do, by the help of the Lord. The Bishop. Will you be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word, and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your cures, as need shall require and occa- sion be given ? Answer. I will, the Lord being my helper. The Bishop. Will you be diligent in prayers, and in reading of the holy Scriptures, and in such studies as help to the knowledge of the same, laying aside the study of the world and the flesh ? Answer. I will endeavour myself so to do, the Lord being my helper. The Bishop. Will you be diligent to frame and fashion your own selves and your families according to the doctrine of Christ, and to make both yourselves and them (as much as hi you lieth) wholesome examples and spectacles to the flock of Christ ? Answer. I will so apply myself, the Lord being my helper. The Bishop. Will you maintain and set forwards (as much as lieth in you) quietness, peace, and love amongst all Christian people, and specially among them that are, or shall be, committed to your charge ? Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper. The Bishop. Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other chief ministers, unto whom the government and charge is committed over you, following with a glad mind and will their godly admonition, and submitting yourselves to their godly judgments ? Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper. Then shall the Bishop say, Almighty God, who hath given you this will to do all these things ; Grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same, that he may accomplish his work which he hath begun hi you, until the tune he shall come at the latter day to judge the quick and the dead. After this, the congregation shall be desired, secretly in their prayers, to make humble suppli- cations to God for the foresaid things : for the which prayers there shall be a certain space kept in silence. That done, the Bishop shall pray in this wise. 5[ Let us pray. Almighty God and heavenly Father, which of thy infinite love and good- ness towards us, hast given to us thy only and most dear beloved Son Jesus Christ, to be our Redeemer and Author of everlasting life : who, after he had made perfect our redemption by his death, and was ascended into heaven, sent abroad into the world his apostles, prophets, evangelists, ART. in.] of Ordering Priests. 317 doctors, and pastors ; by whose labour and ministry he gathered together a great flock in all the parts of the world, to set forth the eternal praise of thy holy name : For these so great benefits of thy eternal goodness, and for that thou hast vouchsafed 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, we worship and praise thee ; and we humbly beseech thee, by the same thy Son, to grant unto all us, which either here or else- where call upon thy name, that we may shew ourselves thankful to thee for these and all other thy benefits, and that we may daily increase and go forwards in the knowledge and faith of thee, and thy Son, by the Holy Spirit. So that as well by these thy Ministers, as by them to whom they shall be appointed Ministers, thy holy name may be always glorified, and thy blessed kingdom enlarged ; through the same thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, which liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Holy Spirit, world without end. Amen. ^[ Wlien this prayer is done, the Bishop, with the Priests present, shall lay their hands severally upon the head of every one that receiveth Orders ; the receivers humbly kneeling upon their knees, and the Bishop saying, Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful dispenser 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. ^f The Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in fiis hand, saying, Take thou authority to preach the word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments, in this congregation, where thou shalt be so appointed. ^[ IHien this is done, the congregation shall sing the Creed, and also they shall go to the Communion ; which all they that receive Orders shall take together, and remain in the same place where the hands were laid upon them, until such time as they have received the Communion. IT The Communion being done, after the last Collect, and immediately before the Benediction, shall be said this Collect : Most merciful Father, we beseech thee so to send upon these thy servants thy heavenly blessing, that they may be clad about with all justice, and that thy word spoken by their mouths may have such success, that it may never be spoken in vain. Grant also that we may have grace to hear and receive the same as thy most holy word, and the mean of our salvation, that in all our words and deeds we may seek thy glory, and the increase of thy king- dom ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. IT And if the Orders of Deacon and Priesthood be given both upon one day, then shall all things at the holy Communion be used as they are appointed at the Ordering of Priests ; saving that for the Epistle the whole third chapter of the first to Timothy shall be read as it is set out before in the Order of Priests. And immediately after the Epistle the Deacons shall be ordered. And it shall suffice, the Litany to be said once. 318 The Edwardine Form [APPENDIX, f THE FORM OF CONSECRATING OF AN ARCHBISHOP OR BISHOP. ^[ At the Communion. The Epistle. 1 Tim. iii. [1 6.] This is a true saying, . . . lest he fall into rebuke and snare of the evil speaker. The Gospel. John xxi. [15 17.] Jesus said to Simon Peter, . . . Feed my sheep. ^[ Or else out of the tenth chapter of John, as before, in the Order of Priests. Tf After the Gospel and Credo ended, first the elected Bishop shall be presented by iu-o Bishops unto the Archbishop of that Province, or to some other Bishop appointed by his commission ; the Bishops that present him saying, Most Reverend Father in God, we present unto you this godly and well learned man to he consecrated Bishop. ^[ Then shall the Archbishop demand the King's mandate for the consecration, and cause it to be read ; and the oath touching the knowledge of the King's supremacy shall be ministered to the person elected, as it is set out in the Order of Deacons. And then shall be ministered also the oath of due obedience unto the Archbishop, asfolloweth : ^[ The Oath of due Obedience to the Archbishop. In the name of God, Amen. I, N. chosen Bishop of the Church and See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the Arch- bishop, and to the metropolitical church of N. and to then: successors : So help me God, through Jesus Christ. ^[ This oath shall not be made at the consecration of an Archbishop. ^f Then the Archbishop shall move the congregation present to pray ; saying thus to them : Brethren, it is written m the Gospel of Saint Luke, that our Saviour Christ continued the whole night in prayer, or ever that he did choose and send forth his twelve apostles. It is written also in the Acts of the Apostles, that the disciples which were at Antioch did fast and pray, or ever they laid hands upon, or sent forth Paul and Barnabas. Let us, therefore, following the example of our Saviour Christ and his apostles, first fall to prayer, or that we admit and send forth this person presented unto us, to the work whereunto we trust the Holy Ghost hath called him. If And then shall be said the Litany, as afore in the Order of Deacons. And after this place, " that it may please thee to illuminate all Bishops," Sfc. he shall say, That it may please thee to bless this our brother elected, and to send thy grace upon him, that he may duly execute the office whereunto he is called, to the edifying of thy church, and to the honour, praise, and glory of thy name. Answer. We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord. ART. in.] of Consecrating Bishops. 319 ^f Concluding the Litany in the end with this 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, 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 word and deed he may faithfully serve thee in this office, to the glory of thy name, and profit of thy congregation ; through the merits of our Saviour Jesu Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost world without end. Amen. ^[ Then the Archbishop, sitting in a chair, shall say this to him that is to be consecrated. Brother, forasmuch as holy Scripture and the old canons commandeth that we should not be hasty in laying on hands, and admitting of any person to the government of the congregation of Christ, which he hath purchased with no less price than the effusion of his own blood ; afore that I admit you to this administration whereunto ye are called, I will examine you hi certain articles, to the end the congregation present may have a trial and bear witness how ye be minded to behave yourself in the church of God. Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this ministration, according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the order of this realm ? Answer. I am so persuaded. The Archbishop. Are you persuaded that the holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation, through the faith in Jesu Christ ? And are you determined, with the same holy Scriptures, to instruct the people committed to your charge, and to teach or maintain nothing, as required of necessity to eternal salvation, but that you shall be persuaded may be concluded and proved by the same ? Answer. I am so persuaded and determined by God's grace. The Archbishop. Will you then faithfully exercise yourself hi the said holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same, so as ye may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers ? Answer. I will so do, by the help of God. The Archbishop. Be you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's word, and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage other to the same ? Answer. I am ready, the Lord being my helper. The Archbishop. Will you deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this world, that you may shew your- self in all tilings an example of good works unto other ; that the adversary may be ashamed, having nothing to say against you ? Answer. I will so do, the Lord being my helper. The Archbishop. Will you maintain and set forward (as much as shall lie in you) quietness, peace, and love among all men ; and such as be unquiet, 320 The Edwardine Form of Consecrating [APPENDIX, 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 ? Answer. I will so do, by the help of God. The Archbishop. Will you shew yourself gentle, and be merciful for Christ's sake to poor and needy people, and to all strangers destitute of help? Answer. I will so shew myself, by God's help. The Archbishop. Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who hath given you a good will to do all these things ; Grant also unto you strength and power to perform the same, that he accomplishing in you the good work which he hath begun, ye may be found perfect and irreprehensible at the latter day ; through Jesu Christ our Lord. Amen. Then shall be sung or said, " Come, Holy Ghost," fyc. as it is set out in the Order of Priests. That ended, the Archbishop shall say, Lord, hear our prayer. Answer. And let our cry come unto thee. ^[ Let us pray. Almighty God, and most merciful Father, which of thy infinite goodness hast given to us thy only and most dear beloved Son Jesus Christ to be our Redeemer and Author of everlasting life, who, after that he had made perfect our redemption by his death, and was ascended into heaven, poured down his gifts abundantly upon men, making some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and doctors, to the edifying and making perfect of his congregation ; 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 ; so that he, as a wise and a faithful servant, giving to thy family meat in due season, may at the last day be received into joy ; through Jesu Christ our Lord, who with thee and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world without end. Amen. *[ Then the Archbishop and Bishops present shall lay their hands upon the head of the elected Bishop, the Archbishop saying, 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. ^f Then the Archbishop shall deliver him the Bible, saying, Give heed unto reading, exhortation, and doctrine. Think upon these things contained in this book ; be diligent in them, that the increase coming thereby may be manifest unto all men. Take heed unto thyself, and unto teaching, and be diligent in doing them ; for by doing this thou shalt both ART. in.] Bishops. Alterations under Charles II. 321 save thyself and them that hear thee. Be to the flock of Christ a shepherd, not a wolf ; feed them, devour them not. Hold up the weak, heal the sick, bind together the broken, bring again the outcasts, seek the lost. Be so merciful, that you be not too remiss ; so minister discipline, that you forget not mercy ; that when the chief Shepherd shah 1 come, ye may receive the immarcessible crown of glory ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. *[f Then the Archbishop shall proceed to the Communion ; with whom the new consecrated Bishop with others shall also communicate. And after the last Collect, immediately before the Benediction, shall be said this prayer : Most merciful Father, we beseech thee to send down upon this thy servant thy heavenly blessing ; and so endue him with thy Holy Spirit, that he, preaching thy word, may not only be earnest to reprove, beseech, and rebuke with all patience and doctrine, but also may be to such as believe an wholesome example in word, in conversation, in love, in faith, in chastity and purity, that, faithfully fulfilling his course, at the latter day he may re- ceive the crown of righteousness laid up by the Lord, the righteous Judge, who liveth and reigneth one God with the Father and the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen. ARTICLE IV. ALTERATIONS MADE IN THE RITUAL UNDER CHARLES THE SECOND. 1 . Changes made in the Ordination of Priests. 1 . There was in the first place some alteration made in the order of the prayers. In the former Editions the ceremony begins with the reading of the Epistle and Gospel, and afterwards with the hymn Veni Creator ; after which follows the presentation by the Archdeacon of the persons to be ordained, together with the notification which the Bishop makes thereof to the people, and the Collect. This order is a little altered in the Ritual reformed in Charles the Second's time. For it begins with the presentation of the Candidates and the notification which the Bishop makes thereof to the peo- ple, after which is read a Collect, and afterwards the Epistle and Gospel, which are different from those in the old one. 2. In both, the [Bishop's] exhortation and the questions are the same; after which, in the new reformed Ritual we find the hymn Veni Creator, which in the old one was sung after the Gospel. At last comes the prayer which holds the place of the Preface of the Roman Pontifical, and which is followed by the imposition of hands, together with a formula which has been reformed in the new Ritual ; for in the old one we read thus : Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser 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. But in the new Ritual this formula has been re- formed as follows : Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Y 322 Alterations made in the Ordinal [APPENDIX, Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser 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. 3. In the former Editions of King Edward's Ritual it is said, that after the delivery of the Book of the Gospels into the hands of the ordained, the Creed shall he sung, without determining which Creed ; but in that which was reformed by Charles II. it is set down that it shall be the Nicene Creed : When this is done, the Nicene Creed shall be sung or said. We then find a Collect, with which this Ordination concludes in the former Editions of Edward's Ritual; but in that which was reformed under Charles II. this Collect is followed by another prayer and a benediction, which it will be proper to insert here. Prayer. Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with Thy most gracious favour, and further us with Thy continual help, that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in Thee, we may glorify Thy holy Name, and finally, by Thy mercy, obtain everlasting life ; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Benediction. The peace of God, which pusseth all imder standing, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord : And the blesst7ig of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you, and remain with you always. Amen. II. Changes made in the Ordination of Bishops. 1. In the reformation made under Charles II. still fewer alterations have been made in the ceremony of the Ordination of Bishops, than in that of Priests. The Office begins in the first place with a Collect which is not found in the former Editions, and which for that reason we shall here insert. Almighty God, who by Thy Son Jesus Christ, didst give to Thy holy Apostles many excellent gifts, and didst charge them to feed Thy flock ; Give grace, we beseech Thee, to all Bishops, the Pastors of Thy Church, that they may diligently preach Thy word, and duly administer the godly discipline thereof; and grant to the people that they may obediently folloiu the same, that all may receive the crown of everlasting glory; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 2. After the reading of the Gospel, the Ritual of Charles II. lays down that the Nicene Creed is to be sung, which was not determined in the former Editions. It is also said that a Sermon shall be preached, and that afterwards the Bishop elect, vested with his Rochet, shall be presented to the Archbishop ; whereas in the first Ritual there is no mention made either of Sermon, or of Rochet. 3. In the rest of the ceremony I see only two alterations worthy of notice. The first is, that among the questions put to the Bishop elect, there has been one added which was not used before, namely this : Will you be ART. iv. 2.] under Charles II. Bull of Julius HI. 323 faithful in ordaining, sending, or laying hands upon others ? with the answer, / will so be, by the help of God. The second is, that in the reformed Ritual they have thus determined the formula which is annexed to the imposition of hands : Receive the Holy Ghost 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. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God ichich is given thee by this Impo- sition of our hands : for God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and soberness. 4. The ancient Ritual does not say what is to be the posture of the Bishop over whom these words are to be pronounced ; whereas the new one specifies that he is to be upon his knees. The prayer and benediction which the reformed Ritual has added in the ceremony of the Ordination of Priests, after the Collect which in the old one concludes the office, have also been added after a similar Collect in the ceremony of the Ordination of Bishops. And this is the exact amount of all the alterations which the re- visers made in the new Ritual of the time of Charles II. It is easy to judge by this alone, whether there is the least probability that these alterations can contribute in any respect to the validity or invalidity of an Ordination. ARTICLE V. GENERAL AUTHORITY GIVEN BY POPE JULIUS THE THIRD TO CARDINAL POLE FOR RECONCILING ENGLAND TO THE CHURCH OF ROME. a JULIUS PP. III. Dilecte fili noster, Salutem et Apostolicam Benedictionem. Dudum cum charissima in Christo filia nostra Maria, Angliae tune princeps, regina declarata fuisset, et speraretur regnum Angliae, quod saeva regum tyrannide ab unione sanctae ecclesiae catholicae separatum fuerat, ad ovile gregis Domini, et ejusdem ecclesiae unionem, ipsa Maria primum regnante, redire posse : Nos te praestanti virtute, singulari pietate, ac multa doctrina in- signem, ad eamdem Mariam reginam, et universum Anglise regnum, de fratrum nostrorum consilio et unanimi consensu, nostrum et apostolicae sedis legatum de latere destinavimus ; tibique inter caetera, omnes et singulos utriusque sexus, tarn laicas quam ecclesiasticas, saeculares, et quorumvis ordinum regulares personas, in quibusvis etiam sacris ordinibus constitutas, cujuscumque status, gradus, conditionis et qualitatis exstiterint, ac quacum- que ecclesiastica etiam episcopali, archiepiscopali, et patriarchal!, aut mun- dana, etiam marchionali, ducali, aut regia dignitate praefulgerent, etiam capitulum, collegium, universitas, seu communitas forent, quarumcumque haeresium aut novarum sectarum professores, aut in eis culpabiles vel suspectas ac credentes, receptatores et fautores eorum, etiamsi relapsae * This document is taken from the printed at Amsterdam in 12mo. in 1687. French translation of Burner's History, vol. 4. p. 1068. [Comp. p. 232, note h.] Y 2 324 Bull of Julius the Third [APPENDIX, fuissent, eorum errorem cognoscentes et de illis dolentes, ac ad orthodoxam fidem recipi humiliter postulantes, cognita in eis vera et non ficta aut simulata pcenitentia in omnibus et singulis per eps perpetratis (hsereses et ab eadem fide apostasias, blasphemias, et alios quoscumque errores etiam sub generali sermone non venientes sapientibus) peccatis, criminibus, excessibus et delictis, necnon excommunicationum, suspensionum, interdictorum, et aliis ecclesiasticis ac temporalibus, etiam corporis afHictivis, et capitalibus sen- tentiis, censuris et poenis in eos, prsemissorum occasione, a jure vel ab homine latis vel promulgatis, etiamsi in iis viginti et plus annis insorduissent, et eorum absolutio nobis et divinse sedi, et per literas in die coense Domini legi consuetas reservata existeret, in utroque conscientiae videlicet et con- tentioso foro, plenarie absolvendi et liberandi, ac aliorum Christi-fidelium consortio aggregandi : necnon cum eis super irregularitate per eos prse- missorum occasione, etiam quia sic ligati missas et alia di\-ina officia, etiam contra ritus et cseremonias ab ecclesia eatenus probatas et usitatas celebras- sent, aut illis alias se miscuissent, contracta ; necnon bigama per eosdem ecclesiasticos, sseculares vel regulares, vere aut ficte, seu alias qualiter- cumque inversa (etiamsi ex eo quod clerici in sacris constituti, cum viduis vel aliis corruptis matrimonium contraxisse pnetenderetur), re- jectis et expulsis tamen priiis uxoribus sic de facto copulatis : quodque bigamia et irregularitate, ac aliis preemissis non obstantibus, in eorum ordinibus, dummodo ante eorum lapsum in hseresim hujusmodi rite et legi- time promoti vel ordinati fuissent, etiam in altaris ministerio ministrare, ac qusecunque et qualitercunque etiam curata beneficia secularia vel regularia, ut prius, dummodo super eis alteri jus qusesitum non existeret, retinere ; et non promoti ad omnes etiam sacros et presbyteratus ordines, ab eorum ordi- nariis, si digni et idonei reperti fuissent, promoveri, ac beneficia ecclesiastica, si iis alias canonice conferrentur, recipere et retinere valerent, dispensandi et indulgendi ; ac omnem infamise et inhabilitatis maculam sive notam, ex prsemissis quomodolibet insurgentem, penitus et omnino abolendi ; necnon ad pristinos honores, dignitates, famam, et patriam, et bona etiam confiscata, in pristinumque, et eum in quo ante prsemissa quomodolibet erant, statum restituendi, reponendi, et reintegrandi ; ac eis, dummodo corde contriti eorum errata et excessus alicui per eos eligendo catholico confessori sacramentaliter confiterentur, ac poenitentiam salutarem, eis per ipsum confessorem propterea injungendam omnino adimplerent, omnem publicam confessionem abjura- tionem, renunciationem, et prenitentiam jure debitam arbitrio tuo moderandi, vel in totum remittendi. Necnon communitates et universitates, ac singu- lares personas quascumque a quibusvis illicitis pactionibus et conventionibus per eos cum dominis aberrantibus, seu in eorum favorem quomodolibet initis, et iis prsestitis juramentis et homagiis, illorumque omnium observatione, et si quern eatenus occasione eorum incurrissent perjurii reatum, etiam absol- vendi, et juramenta ipsa relaxandi. Ac quoscumque regulares et religiosos, ART. v.] for reconciling England. 325 etiam in hseresim hujusmodi, ut prsefertur, lapses, extra eorum regularia loca absque dictse sedis licentia vagantes, ab apostasia? reatu et excommunica- tionis, aliisque censuris ac poems ecclesiasticis, per eos propterea etiam juxta suorum ordinum instituta incursis, pariter absolvendi : ac cum eis ut alicui beneficio ecclesiastico curato de illud obtinentis consensu, etiam in habitu clerici ssecularis, habitum suum regularem sub honesta toga presbyteri secu- laris deferendo, deservire, et extra eadem regularia loca remanere libere et licite possint, dispensandi. Necnon quibusvis personis, etiam ecclesiasticis, ut quadragesimalibus et aliis anui temporibus et diebus, quibus usus ovorum et carnium est de jure probibitus, butyro, et caseo, et aliis lacticiniis, ac dictis ovis et carnibus, de utriusque seu alterius, spiritualis, qui catholicus existeret, medici consilio, aut si locorum et personarum qualitate inspecta ex defectu piscium, aut olei, vel indispositione personarum earumdem, seu alia causa legitima, id tibi faciendum videretur, ut tuo arbitrio uti et vesci possint, indulgendi et concedendi. Necnon per te in prseteritis duntaxat casibus, aliquos clericos sseculares, tantum presbyteros, diaconos, aut subdiaconos, qui matrimonium cum aliquibus virginibus, vel corruptis saecularibus etiam mulieribus de facto eatenus contraxissent, considerata aliqua ipsorum singu- lari qualitate, et cognita eorum vera ad Christi fidem conversione, ac aliis circumstantiis ac modificationibus tuo tantum arbitrio adhibendis, ex quibus aliis prsesertim clericis in sacris ordinibus hujusmodi constitutis, quibus non licet uxores habere, scandalum omnino non generetur, citra tamen altaris, ac alia sacerdotum ministeria, et titulos beneficiorum ecclesiasticorum, ac omni ipsorum ordinum exercitio sublato, ab excommunicationis sententia, et aliis reatibus propterea incursis, injuncta inde eis etiam tuo arbitrio pceni- tentia salutari, absolvendi, ac cum eis, dummodo alter eorum superstes re- maneret, de csetero sine spe conjugii, quod inter se matrimonium legitime contrahere, et in eo, postquam contractual foret, licite remanere possent, prolem exinde legitimam decernendo, misericorditer dispensandi : ac quse- cumque beneficia ecclesiastica, tarn ssecularia quam regularia, et quse per rectores catholicos possidebantur, de ipsorum tamen rectorum catholicorum consensu, seu absque eorum prsejudicio, cuicumque alteri beneficio ecclesi- astico ob ejus fructus tenuitatem, aut hospitali jam erecto vel erigendo, seu studio universali, vel scholis literariis, uniendi, annectendi, et incorporandi, aut fructus, reditus, et proventus, seu bonorum beneficiorum dividendi, separandi et dismembrandi, ac eorum sic divisorum, separatorum, et dis- membratorum partem aliis beneficiis seu hospitalibus, vel studiis aut scholis, seu piis usibus similiter arbitrio tuo perpetuo applicandi et appropriandi. Ac cum possessoribus bonorum ecclesiasticorum (restitutis prius, si tibi ex- pedire \-ideretur, immobilibus per eos indebite detentis) super fructibus male perceptis, ac bonis mobilibus consumptis, concordandi, et transigendi, ac eos desuper liberandi et quietandi : ac quidquid ex concordiis et transactionibus hujusmodi proveniret, in ecclesiae cujus essent bona, vel in studiorum univer- 326 Bull of Julius the Third [APPENDIX, salium, aut scholarum hujusmodi, seu alios pios usus convertendi, omniaque et singula alia, in quae in praemissis et circa ea quomodolibet necessaria et opportuna esse cognosceres, faciendi, dicendi, gerendi et exercendi : necnon catholicos locorum ordinaries, aut alias personas Deum timentes, fide in- signes, et literarum scientia preeditas, ac gravitate morum conspicuas, et aetate veneranda, de quarum probitate et circumspectione, ac charitatis zelo plena fiducia coiispici posset, ad prsemissa omnia, cum simili vel limitata potestate (absolutione et dispensatione clericorum circa connubia, ac unione beneficiorum, seu eonim fructuum et bonorum separatione, et applicatione, ac concordia cum possessoribus bonorum ecclesiasticorum et eorum libera- torum, duntaxat exceptis) substituendi et subdelegandi : ac diversas alias facultates per diversas alias nostras tarn sub plumbo quam in forma brevis confectas literas, concessimus, prout in illis plenius continetur. Verum cum tu ad partes Flandriae, ex quibus brevissima ad regnum transfretatio existit, te contuleris, ac ex certis rationalibus nobis notis causis inibi aliquandiu sub- sistere habeas, ac a nonnullis nimium forsan scnipulosis, ha?sitetur, an tu in partibus hujusmodi subsistens, prsedictis ac aliis tibi concessis facultatibus uti, ac in eodem regno locorum ordinarios, aut alias personas, ut prsemit- titur, qualificatas, qua? facultatibus per te juxta dictarum literarum continen- tiam pro tempore concessis utantur, ah'as juxta earumdem literarum pnedictarum tenorem substituere, et delegare possis : Nos causam tuse subsistentise in eisdem partibus approbantes, et singularum literanim prse- dictarum tenores, prsesentibus pro sufficienter expressis, ac de verbo ad verbum insertis, habentes, circumspectioni tuse quod quandiu in eisdem partibus de h'centia nostra moram traxeris, legatione tua prsedicta durante, etiam extra ipsum regnum existens, omnibus et singulis pra?dictis, et qui- busvis aliis tibi concessis, et qua? per pnesentes tibi conceduntur, facultatibus, etiam erga quoscunque archiepiscopos, episcopos, ac abbates, aliosque eccle- siarum tam saecularium quam quorumvis ordinum regularium, necnon monasteriorum et aliorum locorum regularium prselatos, non secus ac erga ah'os inferiores clericos, uti possis, necnon erga alias personas in singulis literis praedictis quovis modo nominatas, ad te pro tempore recurrentes vel mittentes, etiam circa ordines quos nunquam aut male susceperunt, et munus consecrationis quod iis ab aliis episcopis vel archiepiscopis etiam hsereticis et schismaticis, aut alias minus rite et non servata forma ecclesia? consueta im- pensum fuit, etiam si ordines et munus hujusmodi etiam circa altaris minis- terium temere executi sint, per te ipsum vel alios, ad id a te pro tempore deputatos, libere uti, ac in eodem regno tot quot tibi videbuntur locorum ordinarios, vel alias personas, ut prsemittitur, qualificatas, quae facultatibus per te, eis pro tempore concessis (citra tamen eas quse solum tibi, ut pra?- fertur, concessa? existunt) etiam te in partibus Flandriae hujusmodi sub- sistente, libere utantur, et eas exerceant et exequantur alias, juxta ipsarum literarum continentiam ac tenorem substituere et subdelegare. Necnon do ART. v.] for reconciling England. 327 personis quorumcunque episcoporum vel archiepiscoporum, qui metropolita- nam aut alias cathedrales ecclesias de manu laicorum etiam schism aticorum, et prsesertim qui de Henrici regis et Eduardi ejus nati receperunt, et eorum regimini et administrationi se ingesserunt, et eorum fructus, reditus et pro- ventus etiam longissimo tempore, tanquam veri archiepiscopi aut episcopi temere et de facto usurpando, etiamsi in hseresim, ut praefertur, inciderint, seu antea haeretici fuerint ; postquam per te unitati sanctae matris ecclesise restituti exstiterint, tuque eos rehabilitandos esse censueris, si tibi alias digni et idonei videbuntur, eisdem metropolitanis et aliis cathedralibus ecclesiis denuo, necnon quibusvis aliis cathedralibus etiam metropolitanis ecclesiis per obitum vel privationem illarum praesulum, seu alias quovis modo pro tempore vacantibus, de personis idoneis pro quibus ipsa Maria regina juxta consuetudines ipsius regni tibi supplicaverit authoritate nostra provi- dere, ipsasque personas eisdem ecclesiis in episcopos aut archiepiscopos praeficere : Ac cum iis qui ecclesias cathedrales et metropolitanas de manu laicorum, etiam schismaticorum, ut praefertur, receperunt, quod eisdem seu aliis, ad quas eas alias rite transferri contigerit, cathedralibus etiam metro- politanis ecclesiis, in episcopos vel archiepiscopos praeesse, ipsasque ecclesias in spiritualibus et temporalibus regere et gubernare, ac munere consecra- tionis eis hactenus impenso uti, vel si illud eis nondum impensum exstiterit, ab episcopis vel archiepiscopis catholicis per te nominandis suscipere libere et licite possint. Necnon cum quibusvis per te, ut praemittitur, pro tempore absolutis et rehabilitatis, ut eorum erroribus et excessibus praeteritis non obstantibus, quibusvis cathedralibus, etiam metropolitanis ecclesiis in epis- copos et archiepiscopos praefici et prseesse, illasque in eisdem spiritualibus et temporalibus regere et gubernare ; ac ad quoscunque etiam sacros et pres- byteratus ordines promovere, et in illis aut per eos jam licet minus rite susceptis ordinibus etiam in altaris ministerio ministrare, necnon munus con- secrationis suscipere, et illo uti libere et licite valeant, dispensare etiam libere et licite possis, plenam et liberam apostolicam authoritatem per prae- sentes concedimus facultatem et potestatem : non obstantibus constitutio- nibus et ordinationibus apostoHcis, ac omnibus illis, quae in singulis literis praeteritis voluimus non obstare, caeterisque contrariis quibuscunque. Datum Romae apud S. Petrum sub annulo piscatoris die 8 Martii 1554, pontificates nostri anno quinto. The words of this Bull are distinct. The prelates ordained under Edward, are not distinguished there from those ordained under Henry. But the validity of the Ordination of these latter was not disputed. The only busi- ness was to reinstate them. As yet then it was not believed at Rome that Edward's Ritual had affected the essentials of Ordination ; nor do the degrada- tions performed under Mary prove it any more, since the same conduct was observed with regard to the Bishops and Priests ordained under Henry. ARTICLE VI. A COLLECTION OF RECORDS RELATING TO PARKER. Cardinal Pole having died in 1558, the Archbishopric of Canterbury con- tinued vacant until the eighteenth of July 1559, when at the request of the Chapter, Elizabeth granted her Conge d'elire a . After the usual formalities, the election was made the first of August, and Matthew Parker having been elected, accepted this election the sixth of the same month. Bramhall has published the formal series of all these papers, but as they are not necessary for us, we have satisfied ourselves with transcribing the following, taken from the Register of Canterbury, or from Rymer's Collection. I. Elizabeth's first Letters Patent, for the Confirmation and Consecration of Parker. b Elizabetha, Dei gratia Anglise, &c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Cuthberto episcopo Dunelmensi, Gilberto Bathoniensi episcopo, David episcopo Burgi Sancti Petri, Antonio Landavensi episcopo, Willielmo Barlo episcopo, et Johanni Scory episcopo, Salutem. Cum vacante nuper sede archiepiscopali Cantuariensi per mortem natu- ralem Domini Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis, ultimi et immediati archiepiscopi et pastoris ejusdem, ad humilem petitionem decani et capituli ecclesiae nostrac cathedralis et metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis, eisdem per literas nostras patentes, licentiam concessimus alium sibi eligendi in archiepiscopum et pastorem sedis praedictse, ac iidem decanus et capitulum vigore et obtentu licentiae nostrae prsedictae, dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum Mathamm Parker Sacrse Theologiae Professorem sibi et ecclesiae prsedictse c elege- rint in archiepiscopum et pastorem, prout per literas suas patentes sigillo eorum communi sigillatas, nobis inde directas, plenius liquet et apparet ; Nos, electionem illam acceptantes, eidem election! regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter et favorem, et hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus ; Rogantes, ac in fide et dilectione quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter praeci- piendo mandantes, quateniis eundem Mag. Math. Parker in archiepiscopum et pastorem ecclesiae cathedralis et metropoliticae Christi Cantuariensis prae- dictae, sic, ut praefertur, electum, electionemque praedictam confirmare, et eundem Mag. Mathseum in archiepiscopum et pastorem ecclesias prsedictae consecrare, caeteraque omnia et singula peragere, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt officio pastorali, juxta formam statutorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum, velitis cum effectu. In cujus rei testimonium, &c. Teste Regina apud Redgrave, nono die Septembris. Per breve de private sigillo. Rymer, vol. 15. p. 536. b Rymer, vol. 15. p. 541. [ c In Rymcr clii.'rrint.'] ART. vi. 2.] Records relating to Parker. 329 II. Queen Elizabeth's second Letters Patent, for proceeding to the Confirma- tion and Consecration of Parker. As the first Letters Patent were without effect, the Queen granted others the sixth of December following, in which she added a clause, beginning with these words, Supplentes nihilominus, &c., from which has been drawn an objection against the validity of the English Ordinations ; but the most learned Canonists of England have found no difficulty in it : for here is the judgment they pass upon it. d We whose names be here under subscribed, think in our judgments, that by this commission in the form penned, as well the Queen's Majesty may lawfully authorize the persons within named to the effect specified, as the said persons may exercise the act of confirming and consecrating in the same to them committed. William May, Henry Harvey, Robert Weston, Thomas Yale, Edward Leeds, Nicholas Bullingham. e Regina, &c. Reverendis in Christo Patribus, Anthonio Landavensi epi- scopo, Willielmo Barlowe quondam Bathon. episcopo, mine Cicestrensi electo, Johanni Scorye quondam f Cicestrensi episcopo, nunc Herefordensi, Miloni Coverdall quondam Exoniensi episcopo, Ricardo Bedfordensi, Jo- hanni Thetfordensi, episcopis suffraganeis, Johanni Bale Osserensi episcopo, Salutem. Cum, vacante nuper sede archiepiscopali Cantuariensi per mortem natu- ralem D. Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis, ultimi et immediati archiepiscopi et pastoris ejusdem, ad humilem petitionem decani et capituli ecclesise nostrse cathedralis et metropoliticte Christi Cantuariensis, eisdem per literas nostras patentes licentiam concessimus alium sibi eligendi in archiepiscopum et pastorem sedis prsedictse, ac iidem decanus et capitulum vigore et obtentu licentise nostrse prsedictse, dilectum nobis in Christo Mag. Mathaeum Parker S. Theologise Professorem, sibi et ecclesise prsedictse elegerint in archiepi- scopum et pastorem, prout per literas suas patentes, sigillo eorum communi sigillatas, nobis inde directas, plenius liquet et apparet ; Nos, electionem illam acceptantcs, eiderri electioni regium nostrum assensum adhibuimus pariter et favorem ; et hoc vobis tenore present! um significamus ; Rogantes, ac in fide et dilectione, quibus nobis tenemini, firmiter preeci- piendo mandantes, quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum, eundem Math. Parker in archiepiscopum et pastorem ecclesise cathedralis et metro- politicae Christi Cantuariensis prsedictse, sic, ut prsefertur, electum, electio- d The Life of Parker, p. 55. and Bram- aswell &c.] hall, p. 102(5. [In Bramhall's Works, U'r * Rymer, vol. 15. p. 549. here subscribed, in this form penned, { [In Kymer Cecistriensi.~] 330 A Collection of Records [APPENDIX, nemque praedictam confirmare, et eundem Mag. Math. Parker in archiepi- scopum et pastorem ecclesise praedictae consecrare, caeteraque omnia et singula peragere, quae vestro in hac parte incumbunt officio pastorali, juxta formam statutorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum, velitis cum effectu ; Supplentes nichilominus, suprema auctoritate nostra regia, ex mero motu ac certa scientia nostris, si quid aut in hiis quae juxta mandatum nostrum praedictum per vos fient, aut in vobis, aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facultate vestris ad preemissa perficienda desit aut deerit eorum quae per statuta hujus regni, aut per leges ecclesiasticas, in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt, temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id postulante. In cujus rei &c. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium vi. die Decembris. III. Confirmation of the Election of Parker by the consecrating Bishops^. *In Dei nomine, Amen. Nos Willielmus quondam Bathon. et Wellen. episcopus, nunc electus Cicestren., Johannes Scory quondam Cicestren. episcopus, nunc Hereforden. electus, Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. episcopus, et Johannes Bedforden. episcopus, Serenissimse in Christo Prin- cipis et Dominae nostrae Dominae Elizabethae Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae et Hiberniae Reginse, fidei defens. &c., mediantibus literis suis regiis commis- sionalibus patentibus ad infra scripta Commissarii, cum hac clausula, (vide- licet) una cum Dominis Johanne Thetforden. suffraganeo, et Johanne Bale Osseren. episcopo, et etiam hac clausula, quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor vestrum &c. necnon et hac adjectione, supplentes nihilominus &c. specialiter et legitime deputati in negotio confirmations electionis de persona venera- bilis et eximii viri Mag. Matthaei Parker, Sacrae Theologias Professoris, in archiepiscopum Cantuariensem electi, factae et celebratae rite et legitime procedentes, omnes et singulos oppositores qui contra dictam electionem seu formam ejusdem, aut personam electam dicere, excipere, vel opponere voluerint, ad comparendum coram nobis istis die, horis, et loco, (si sua putaverint interesse), contra dictam electionem, formam ejusdem, aut per- sonam electam in debita juris forma dicturos, excepturos, et proposituros, legi- time et peremptorie citatos, saepius publice praeconizatos, diuque et sumcienter expectatos, et nullo modo comparentes, nee contra dictam electionem, formam ejusdem, aut personam electam, aliquid dicentes, excipientes, vel opponentes, ad petitionem procuratoris decani et capituli Cantuarien. pro- nunciamus contumaces, et in pcenam contumaciarum suarum hujusmodi de- cernimus procedendum fore ad prolationem sententiae sive decreti finalis in g It is to this clause that the preceding Bullingham and Will. May Dean of St. judgment applies. Paul's in London. h Parker was confirmed by Proxy. He ' Bramhall, Works, p. 1012. named liis Proxies Dec. 7 : they were Nic. ART. vi. 3.] relating to Parker. 331 hac causa ferendi, ipsorum sic citatorum et non comparentium contumacia in aliquo non obstante. k In Dei nomine Amen. Auditis, visis, et intellectis, ac plenarie et mature discussis per nos Will, quondam Bathon. et Wellen. episcopum nunc Cices- trensem electum, Joh. Scorye quondam Cicestr. episcopum, nunc electum Hereford. Milonem Coverdale quondam Exon. episcopum, et Johan. Bedford, episcopum, Serenissimse in Christo Principis et Dom. nostrae D. Elizabethan Dei gratia Angliae, Franciae, et Hiberniae Reginae, fidei defens. &c. medi- antibus literis suis regiis commissionalibus patentibus ad infra scripta Com- missarios, cum hac clausula, (videlicet) una cum Dominis Joh. Thetfordensi sufFraganeo, et Joh. Bale Osserensi episcopo, et etiam hac clausula, quatenus vos, aut ad minus quatuor vestrum &c. necnon et hac adjectione (Sup- plentes nihilominus, &c.) specialiter et legitime deputatos, meritis et circum- stantiis cujusdam causae sive negotii confirmationis electionis de persona venerabilis et eximii viri Mag. Matt. Parker, S. Theologise Professoris, in archiep. et pastorem ecclesiae cathedralis et metropoliticae Christi Can- tuariensis, per obitum bonae memoriae D. Reginaldi Pole, ultimi archiepiscopi ibidem, vacantis, electi, factae et celebratse, quod coram nobis aliquandiu vertebatur, et in praesenti vertitur et pendet indeciss. rimato primitus per nos toto et integro processu coram nobis in dicto negotio habito et facto, atque diligenter recensito, servatisque per nos de jure et statutis hujus regni servandis, ad nostri decreti finalis sive sententiae diffinitivae confirmationis in hujusmodi negotio ferendae prolationem sic duximus procedendum, et pro- cedimus in hunc qui sequitur modum : Quia per acta exhibita, producta et probata coram nobis in hujusmodi confirmationis negotio, comperimus, et luculenter invenimus electionem ipsam per decanum et capitulum ecclesise cathedralis et metropoliticse Christi Cantuar. prsedictse de prsefato ven. et eximio viro -Mag. Matt. Parker electo hujusmodi, viro utique provido et discrete, vita et moribus merito commendato, libero et de legitimo matrimonio procreato, atque in aetate legitima et ordine sacerdotali constitute, rite et legi- time fuisse et esse factam et celebratam, nihilque eidem ven. viro Mag. Matt. Parker electo hujusmodi, de ecclesiasticis institutis obviasse seu obviare quo minus in archiep. Cantuar. authoritate dicta? Illustrissimae Dominae nostrae Reginse merito debeat confirmari; Idcirco nos Will, nuper Bathon. et Wellen. episcopus, nunc Cicestrensis electus, Johannes Scory quondam Cicestrensis episcopus, nunc electus Herefordensis, Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. episc. et Johannes Bedfordensis episcopus, Commissarii regii antedicti, attentis praemissis, et aliis virtut' merit', super quibus praefatus electus Cantuariensis fide digno commendatur testimonio, Christi nomine primitus invocato, ac ipsum solum Deum oculis nostris praeponendo, de et cum consilio jurisperi- torum, cum quibus in hac parte communicavimus praedictam electionem de eodem ven. viro Mag. Matt. Parker (ut praefertur) factam et celebratam, k Here is given the Oath of Supremacy taken hy Parker. 332 A Collection of Records [APPENDIX, suprema authoritate dictse Ser. D. N, Reginae nobis in hac parte commissa confirmamus ; supplentes ex suprema authoritate regia, ex mero principis motu, ac certa scientia nobis delegata, quidquid in hac electione fuerit defectum, turn in hiis quse juxta mandatum nobis creditum a nobis factum et processum est, aut in nobis, aut ali quorum nostrorum conditione, statu, facilitate ad hsec perficienda deest aut deerit ; turn etiam eorum quse per statuta hujus regni Anglia?, aut per leges ecclesiasticas, in hac parte re- quisita sunt vel necessaria, prout ternporis ratio et rerum prsesentium necessitas id postulant, per hanc nostram sententiam diffinitivam, sive hoc nostrum finale decretum, quam sive quod ad petitionem partium ita peten- tium fecimus, et promulgamus in hiis scriptis. IV. Record of Parker's Consecration taken from the Registers of the Church of Canterbury^, and from Corpus Christi College Library at Cam- bridge. , m [N.B. The readings of the Cambridge copy are given in the text, the variations of that of Canterbury in the notes. ED.] n Rituum atque caeremoniarum ordo in consecrando Reverendissimo in Christo Patre, Matth. Parker, Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo in Sacello suo apud Manerium suum de Lambeth, die Dominico, xvii. viz. die mensis Decembris, Anno Dom. 1559, habit'. Principio, sacellum tapetibus ad orientem adornabatur, solum vero panno rubro insternebatur ; mensa quoque sacris peragendis necessaria, tapeto pulvinarique ornata ad orientem sita erat. Quatuor prseterea cathedrae, quatuor episcopis quibus munus consecrandi archiepiscopi delegabatur, ad austrum orientalis sacelh' partis erant positse. Scamnum prseterea tapeto pulvinaribusque instratum, cui episcopi genubus flexis inniterentur, ante cathedras ponebatur. Pari quoque modo cathedra, scamnumque tapeto pulvinarique. ornatum, ar- chiepiscopo, ad borealem orientalis ejusdem sacelh' partis plagam posita erant. Hiis rebus ita ordine suo instructis, mane circiter quintam aut sextam per occidentalem portam ingreditur sacellum archiepiscopus, toga talari coccinea caputioque indutus, quatuor prsecedentibus funalibus, et quatuor comitatus episcopis, qui ejus consecrationi inservirent (verbi gratia) Guilielmo Barlow olim Bathon. et Wellen. episcopo,? nunc vero ad Cicestren. episcopatum electo, Job. Scory olimCicestr. episcopo et q nunc ad Herefordensem vocato, Milone r Coverdallo olim Exoniense episcopo, et Job. s Hodgskinne Bedfordiae suf- fraganeo. Qui omnes postquam sedes sibi paratas ordine singuli suo occupas- sent, Preces continuo matutinse per Andream Pierson archiepiscopi capellanum clara voce recitabantur ; quibus peractis, Joh. Scory (de quo supra diximus) [' Bramhall's Works, p. 1044.] [ Exemplar Cantuariense, n'iUielmo m Bramhall, p. 1051. Buniet, vol. 2. Karloe quondam.] Collect of Records, p. 363. [B. 3. No. 9.] [P Ex. Cant, mine electo Cicestren.] [ n The title is worded rather differently 1 Cant, nunc Hcreforden. electo. in the Canterbury copy: see the Editor's [" Ex. Cant. Coverdale quondam.] notes.] s In Cant, deest Hodgskinne. ART. vi. 4.] relating to Parker. 333 suggestum conscendit, atque inde assumpto sibi in thema, Seniores ergo qui hi robis sunt obsecro consenior, fyc. non ineleganter concionabatur. Finita concione, egrediuntur simvd archiepiscopus reliquique quatuor episcopi sacellum, se ad sacram communionem paraturi; neque mora, con- festim per borealem portam l in vestiarium, ad hunc modum vestiti redeunt. Archiepiscopus nimirum linteo superpelliceo (quod vocant) induebatur. Cicestrensis electus capa serica ad sacra peragenda paratus utebatur. Cui ministrabant operamque suam prsebebant duo archiepiscopi capellani, u Ni- cholaus viz. Bullingham Lincolnise x arcliidiaconus, et Edmundus Gest Can- tuariensis >' quoque archidiaconus, capis sericis similiter vestiti. Hereford, electus, et Bedfordiensis suffraganeus linteis superpelliceis induebantur. Milo ver6 Coverdallus non nisi toga lanea talari utebatur. Atque hunc in modum vestiti et instructi ad communionem celebrandam perrexerunt, archiepiscopo genubus flexis ad infimum sacelli gradum sedente. Finito tandem evangelic, Hereford, electus, Bedfordise suffraganeus, et Milo z Coverdallus (de quibus supra) archiepiscopum coram Cicestrensi electo apud mensam in cathedra a sedenti, hiis verbis adduxerunt : Rev. in Deo Pater, hunc virum pium pariter atque doctum tibi offerimus atque prsesen- tamus, ut archiepiscopus consecretur. Postque hsec b dixissent, profere- batur illico c reginse diploma sive mandatum pro consecratione archiepiscopi, quo per d Rev. Thomam Yale legum doctorem perlecto, sacramentum de regio primatu sive suprema ejus authoritate tuenda juxta statuta primo anno regni Serenissimse Reginse nostrse Elizabeths e promulgata ab eodem archiepiscopo exigebatur, quod cum ille solemniter tactis corporaliter sacris evangehis conceptis verbis prsestitisset, Cicestrensis electus f qusedam praefatus, atque populum ad orationem hortatus, ad litanias decantandas choro respondente se accinxit. Quibus finitis, post qusestiones aliquot archiepiscopo per Cicestr. electum propositas, et post orationes et suffragia qusedam juxta formam libri s antedicti parliamenti editi apud Deum habita, h Cicfcstriensis, Herefordiensis, suffraganeus Bedfordiensis, et Milo Coverdallus, manibus archiepiscopo impositis, * Accipe (inquiunt Anglice) Spiritum Sanctum, et gratiam Dei quae jam per k impositionem manuum in te est excitare memento. Non enim timoris, sed virtutis, dilectionis, 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- ' In Cant desunt haec verba qntedam empl. eccl. Caut. deest in vestiarium. prafatus atque. [ u Ex. Cant, (riz.) \icliolaus.~\ * Melius Cant authoritate Par/. * In ex. Caut. deest archidiaconus. [ h Ex. Cant Cicestren., Hereforden., and f Cant, respective archidiaconi. Bedfordt'n.~\ [* Ex. Cant CoverdaJe.~\ ' In ex. (^ant haec formula Anglic6 legi- Ex. Cant sedente. tur. [dixerunt Anglice (videlicet) Take Sc.] b Cant, dijciiset. k Male leg. impositionis. [ c Ex. Cant. Regium.~] [* Ex. Cant. Hiis dictis.'] [ d Ex. Cant, per D. Thomam.} m In ex. Cant haec formula Anglice e Cant, edita et prom. legitur. 334 A Collection of Records [APPENDIX, vide diligens sis, atque ea meditare assidue quse in hisce libris scripta sunt : noli in his segnis esse, quo incrementum inde proveniens omnibus innotescat et palam fiat. Cura quse 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 hsec dixissent, ad reliqua com- munionis solennia pergit Cicestrensis, nullum archiepiscopo 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 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 vero 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 Bedfordise suffra- ganeus togis solummodo talaribus utebantur. Pergens deinde occidentalem portam versus archiepiscopus, Thomse Doyle 1 ceconomo, Johanni Baker thesaurario, et Johan. Marche computo rotulario, singuhs singulos 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 s ex ejus familia eum prsecedentibus, reliquis vero eum a tergo sequentibus. Acta gestaque hsec erant omnia in prsesentia Reverendorum * 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, Thomse Argall armigeri registrarii y Cicestrise prserogativse Cantuariensis, Thomse Willet et Job. Incent nota- riorum publicorum, et aliorum z quoque nonnullorum. After this Record we find several certificates. The following is that of the Notary : Concordat cum original! in bibliotheca Collegii Corporis Christi apud Cantabrigienses. Ita tester Matth. Whinn Notarius Public, et Jan. 8. 1674. Acad. Cant. Registrarius Principalis. Another Certificate. Camb. Jan. 11. 1674. We whose names are hereunto subscribed, having seen the original, n In Cant deest una. ' Cant, in Christo Patrum. Deest epi- Meliils Cant, orientalis. scoporitm. P In Cant deest scilicet. [ u Ex. Cant London.] [i Ex. Cant. Iconimo.~] [* So Cant. : Camb. Archiepiscopali.] r Melhls Cant. eos. * Melius Cant. Curite. ' Cant et. z 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 a beares. 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. c There is a second certificate in Burnet d : 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 hi the Book 6 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 benedicendumfore. 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^enr.] omitted. ED.] [ c In both Mr. Williams's Editions the [ d Also in Bramhall's Works. ED.T three following paragraphs were entirely [' In Courayer, intitule en Anglois.~\ 336 Certificates concerning [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 Anglia. Ibid. lin. 19. [p. 331. lin. 30.] Registrum legit: merito pro meris. Ibid. lin. 44. [p. 332. lin. 8.] Registrum legit: rerum praesentium. [Pro e- orum pr(Esentium.~] Ibid. lin. 47. [p. 332. lin. 11.] Registrum legit : ferimus yrofecimus. Pag. 1046. lin. 28. [p. 334. lin. 7.] Registrum legit: et quatuor illi. Given at the ArcJiiepiscopal Palace at Lambeth, this loth of March, O. S. 172^. Signed in the presence of William Ayerst, S. Th. Bac. et Eccles. Anglic. Presbyter. James Piers, Jurisconsult. Pat. Piers de Girardin, Doctor of the Sorbonne. Ed. Wilkins, Sacrse Theologize Prof. Cantabrigiensis, Canonicus Cantuariensis. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri ac D.D. Guilielmo Div. Prov. Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, a Sacris Domesticis. ARTICLE VII. ATTESTATIONS AGAINST THE FABLE OF PARKER'S CONSECRATION IN A TAVERN. I. The Attestation of the Bishop of Durham. a Whereas I am most injuriously and slanderously traduced by a name- less authour, calling himself N. .N. in a Book said to be printed at Rouen 1657, intituled (A Treatise of the nature of Catholick Faith and Heresie) as if upon the presenting of a certain Book in the Upper House, in the begin- ning of the late Parliament, proving, as he saith, the Protestant Bishops had no Succession, nor Consecration, and therefore were no Bishops, and by conse- quence ought not to sit in Parliament, I should make a speech against the said Book in my own and all the Bishops' behalf, endeavouring to prove Succession from the last Catholic Bishops (as he there styles them), who by imposition of hands ordained the first Protestant Bishops at the Nagges-head in Cheapside, as was notorious to all the world, &c. I do hereby hi the presence of Almighty God, solemnly protest and declare to all the world, that what this authour there affirms concerning me is a most notorious untruth, and a gross slander; for to the best of my knowledge and remembrance, no such Book as he there mentions was ever " Bramhall, vol. 1. [disc. 5.] c. 2. p. 432. ART. vii. 1.] The Nag' s-Head Fable. 337 presented to the Upper House in that or any other Parliament that ever I sate in ; and if there had, I could never have made such a speech as is there pretended, seeing I have ever spoken according to my thoughts, and always believed that fable of the Nagges-head Consecration to have proceeded from the father of lyes, as the authentique records of the Church still extant, which were so faithfully transcribed and published by Mr. Mason, do evidently testifie. And whereas the same impudent libeller doth moreover say, that what he there affirms was told to many, by one of the ancientest Peers of England, present in Parliament when I made this pretended speech, and that he is ready to depose the same upon his oath, and that he cannot believe any will be so impudent, to deny a thing so notorious, whereof there are as many witnesses living, as there are Lords and Bishops that were that day in the Upper House of Parliament, &c. ; I answer, that I am very un- willing to believe any Peer of England should have so little sense of his conscience and honour, as either to swear, or so much as affirm, such a notorious untruth. And therefore for the justification of my self, and mani- festation of the truth in this particular, I do freely and willingly appeal (as he directs me) to those many honourable persons, the Lords spiritual and temporal yet alive, who sate in the house of Peers in that Parliament, or to as many of them as this my protestation shall come to, for a true certificate of what they know or believe concerning this matter ; humbly desiring them, and charging it upon then- souls, as they will answer it to God at the Day of Judgement, that they will be pleased to testifie the truth, and nothing but the truth, herein, to the best of their knowledge and remembrance, without any favour or affection to me at all. I cannot reasonably be suspected by any indifferent man, of denying any thing that I know or believe to be true, seeing I am so shortly, in all probability, to render an account to the Searcher of hearts, of all my words and actions, being now (at the least) upon the ninety-fifth year of my age. And I acknowledge it a great mercy and favour of God, that He hath reserved me thus long, to clear the Church of England and my self of this most notorious slander, before He takes me to Himself. For I cannot imagine any reason why this shameless writer might not have cast the same upon any of my Reverend Brethren as well as me, but onely that I being the eldest, it was probable I might be in my grave before this untruth could be taken notice of in the world. And now I thank God I can chearfully sing my Nunc dimittis, unless it please Him to reserve me for the like sen-ice hereafter ; for I desire not to live any longer upon earth, than He shall be pleased to make me His instrument to defend the truth, and promote His glory. And for the more solemn and full con- firmation of this my free and voluntary protestation and declaration, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this seventeenth day of July, Anno Dom. 1658. THOMAS DURESME. 338 Certificates concerning a pretended Speech [APPENDIX, Signed, sealed, published, and declared in the presence of Tito. Sanders sen. Tho. Sanders jun. John Barwick, Clerk. R. Gray. Evan Davies. I Tobias Holder, Public Notary, being requested by the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Lord Bishop of Duresm, at the house of Thomas Sanders Esq., in the Parish of Flamstead, in the County of Hartford, in the year of our Lord, moneth, and day above specified, was then and there personally present, where and when the said reverend Bishop did sign, publish, and declare this his protestation and declaration above written to be his act and deed, and did cause his authentick episcopal seal to be thereto affixed, in the presence of the witnesses whose names are thereto subscribed ; And did there and then likewise sign, publish, and declare as his act and deed, another of the same tenor written in paper, which he signed with his manual seal, in the presence of the same witnesses. All this I heard, saw, and therefore know to be done. In testimony whereof 1 have subscribed, and thereto put mv usual and accustomed Notaries sign. Tobias Holder, Publick Notary. II. Certificate of some [f other} Bishops. b Whereas we the surviving Bishops of the Church of England who sat in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640, are required by our Reverend Brother the Lord Bishop of Duresm, to declare and attest the truth concerning an imputation cast upon him in the pamphlet of that nameless author mentioned in his protestation and decla- ration here prefixed ; And whereas we are obliged to perform what he re- questeth, both for the justification of the truth, and for the clearing of our- selves of another slanderous aspersion, which the same author casteth upon us, as if we had heard our said Reverend Brother make such a speech as is there pretended, and by our silence had approved what that libeller falsly affirmeth was delivered in it ; We do hereby solemnly protest and declare before God and all the world, that we never knew of any such book pre- sented to the House of Peers as he there pretendeth, nor believe any such was ever presented ; and therefore could never hear any such speech made against it as he mentioneth, by our said Reverend Brother or any other, much less approve of it by our silence. And if any such book had been presented, or any such speech had been made, there is none among us so ignorant or negligent of his duty in defending the truth, but would have been both able and ready to have confuted so groundless a fable as the pretended Consecration of Bishops at the Naggs head, out of the authentick and known Registers of the Church still extant, mentioned and faithfully transcribed and published by Mr. Mason so long before. For the confirma- tion of which truth, and attestation of what our said Reverend Brother hath [ b Ibid. p. 433.] ART. vii. 2.] of the Bishop of Durham. Barlow. 339 herewith protested and declared, we have hereunto set our hands. Dated the nineteenth day of July, Anno Domini 1658. London. M. Eli. Br. Sarum. Bath and Wells. Jo. Rojfens. Oxford. III. Another Certificate of some Peers. c We of the Lords temporal, whose names are here underwritten, who sat in the Parliament begun at Westminster the third day of November 1640, being desired by the Bishop of Duresm to testifie our knowledge concerning an imputation cast iipon him, about a speech pretended to be made by him in that Parliament, more particularly mentioned and disavowed in his pre- fixed protestation, do hereby testifie and declare, that to the best of our present knowledge and remembrance, no such book against Bishops as is there mentioned, was presented to the House of Peers in that Parliament. And consequently that no such speech as is there pretended, was or could be made by him or any other against it. In testimony whereof we have signed this our attestation with our own hands. Dated the nineteenth day of July, Anno Domini 1658. Dorchester. Rutland. Lincolne. Clieveland. Dover. Lindsey. Southampton. Devonshire. Monmouth. IV. Another Certificate of d a Clerk of the Parliament. c Upon search made in the book of the Lords house, I do not find any such book presented, nor any entry of any such speech made by Bishop Morton. Henry Scobel, Clerk of the Parliament. ARTICLE VIII. RECORDS CONCERNING BARLOW. Since Barlow makes almost as great a figure in this Dissertation as Parker, and as it is upon the Ordination of the first, that that of the other in part depends, I have thought it essential to join to the preceding Proofs those which relate to Barlow, in order to leave nothing wanting in a matter so important. Some extracts from a Letter which a learned English Bishop wrote me not long ago, and which I shall place at the end of the Proofs, will serve to supply the place of some documents which we want, and fortify still more the convincing reasons we have produced to establish the consecration of Barlow. I. Commission to consecrate Barlow, dated the 22nd of Feb. 153f . a Rex reverendissimo in Christo patri Thomse Cantuariensi archiepiscopo, totius Anglise primati, salutem. Sciatis quod electioni nuper factse in ec- [ cc Ibid. p. 434.] [ d Bramhall has the.] a Rymer, vol. 14. p. 559. z 2 340 Records concerning Barlow. [APPENDIX, clesia cathedral! Assavensi, per mortem, bonse memorise, Domini Henrici Standishe ultimi episcopi ibidem, vacante, de venerabili et religioso viro Dom. Willielmo Barlowe priore domus sive prioratus de Bisham, ordinis S. Augustini Sarum dioecesis, in episcopum loci illius et pastorem, regium assensum adhibuimus et favorem : Et hoc vobis tenore prsesentium signifi- camus, ut quod vestrum est in hac parte exequamini. In cujus, &c. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium 22 die Februarii. II. The restitution of the temporalities of the Bishopric of St. David's, dated the 26th of April 1536. b Henricus VIII. &c. Sciatis quod, quum cathedralis ecclesia Menevensis per mortem Richardi Rawlins, nuper episcopi Menev., nuper viduata, ac pas- torah' solatio fuerit destituta, et vacaverit, eo prsetextu omnes exitus, et pro- ficua, firmae, redditus, reversiones, cum commoditatibus et emolumentis temporalium episcopatus illius a tempore mortis prsedicti nuper episcopi, durante tempore vacationis episcopatus illius, nobis jure prerogative nostrse regise pertinuerunt et spectaverunt, ac pertinere et spectare dignoscuntur ; quumque praecentor et capitulum dictae cathedralis ecclesiae post mortem praedicti episcopi, licentia nostra inde prius obtenta, dilectum et fidelem nostrum Wilh'elmum Barlow, nunc dictae c ecclesiae cathedralis Menevensis per nos nominatum episcopum, in suum elegerunt episcopum et pastorem, reverendiss. in Chr. pater Thomas archiep. Cantuar. electionem illam ac- ceptaverit et confirmaverit, ipsumque sic electum episcopum predict* eccle- siae Menevensis praefecit et pastorem, sicut per literas patentes ipsius archie- ]>iscopi inde directas nobis constat ; Nos nunc certis de causis et consi- derationibus nos specialiter moventibus, et ob sinceram dilectionem quam penes prsefatum nunc episcopum gerimus et habemus, de gratia nostra speciali, ac ex certa scientia et mero motu nostris, dedimus et concessimus, ac per praesentes damus et concedimus, pro nobis, heeredibus, et successori- bus nostris, quantum in nobis est, eidem nunc episcopo, omnia et singula, exitus, firmas, redditus d , proficua, reversiones , advantagia, commoditates, feoda, et alia emolumenta quaecunque, cum omnibus et singulis suis perti- nentiis et dependentiis omnium et singulorum honorum, castrorum, &c. In cujus rei testimonium, &c. Teste rege, 26 die Aprilis, &c. III. Parliamentary Writ[i\ for the year 1536. e f Rex Archiepiscopo Cant., totius &c. Teste Rege apud Westmonaste- rium 27 die Aprilis, anno regni sui vicesimo octavo. Consimilia Brevia diriguntur .... Episcopo Bangorensi ; Episcopo Menevensi ; Custodi spiritualitatis Episcopatus Wintoniensis, ipso Episcopo in remotis agente ; &c. b Mason de Ministerio Anglicano, lib. 3. where.] cap. 10, p. 365. e According to the la\vs of England the cc So Courayer : Mason has dicti and Writs are addressed only to consecrated reventiones. Bishops. [ d Read redittis, hoth here and else- * Rymer, vol. 14. p. 563, 4. ART. vin. 4.] Records concerning Barlow. 341 IV. Writ[s] for the year 1541, wherein Barlow is named before many Bishops certainly consecrated. eRex Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, totius &c. Teste Rege apud Westmo- nasterium vicesimo tertio die Novembris, anno regni sui tricesimo tertio. Consimilia Brevia diriguntur Episcopo Menevensi, Episcopo Nor- wicensi, Episcopo Landavensi, Episcopo Herefordensi, &c. V. Conge, d' Mire for a Bishop for the See of St. Asaph, after the translation of Bishop Barlow, dated the 29th of May 1536. h Rex dilectis sibi in Christo decano et capitulo ecclesiee nostrse cathe- dralis Assavensis, salutem. Ex parte vestra nobis est humiliter supplicatum ut, cum ecclesia nostra prsedicta, per liberam transmutationem Willielmi Barlowe ultimi episcopi ibidem electi, sit pastoris solatio destituta, alium vobis eligendi in episcopum et pastorem licentiam concedere dignaremur, Nos precibus vestris in hac parte favorabiliter inclinati, licentiam illam vobis tenore praesentium duximus concedendam ; mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in episcopum et pasto- rem qui Deo devotus, ecclesise vestree necessarius, nobisque et regno nostro utilis et fidelis existat. In cujus &c. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium 29 die Maii. Per Breve dc privato sigillo. VI. Commission to consecrate Robert Warton Bishop of St. Asaph, dated the 24th of June 1536. 'Rex reverendissimo in Christo patri Thomse eadem gratia archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, totius Anglise primati et metropolitano, salutem. Cum nuper, vacante sede episcopal! Assavensi per liberam transmuta- tionem Willielmi Barlowe ultimi episcopi ibidem electi, ad humilem suppli- cationem dilectorum nobis in Christo decani et capituli ecclesise nostrae cathe- dralis Assavensis, eisdem per literas nostras patentes licentiam concesserimus alium sibi eligendi in episcopum loci praedicti et pastorem, Ac iidem decanus et capitulum, preetextu licentiae nostrse praedictae, dilectum nobis in Christo Robertum Warton abbatem exempti monasterii S. Salvatoris de Bermondeseye sibi eligerint in episcopum et pastorem, .... Nos, electionem illam accep- tantes, eidem electioni regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus et favorem, . . . Rogantes, &c. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium 24 die Junii. Per Breve de privato sigillo. We might have added here Cranmer's Commission, directed in 154^ to John Bishop of Salisbury, William (Barlow) Bishop of St. David's, and John Bishop of Gloucester, for the Consecration of Arthur Bulkeley ; but as the greater part of it will be found in the fragments of letters printed among the Proofs, it will be sufficient to have mentioned it. f Ibid. p. 737. h Ihid. p. 570. ' Ibid. 342 Records concerning Barlow. [APPENDIX, VII. Writ of nomination to the Bishopric of Bath, dated Feb. 26, We have inserted this Record entire, because it is the first given in Rymer's Collection by which it appears that the King had ap- propriated to himself the nomination of Bishops, talgng away from the Chapters the right of Election. J Rex omnibus ad quos &c. salutem. Cum, per quendam Actum in Parlia- mento nostro inchoato apud Westmonasterium 4 die Novembris anno regni nostri primo, ac ibidem tento, inter alia statuta pro Republica nostra edita, ordinatum enactum et stabilitum fuerit quod nullum Breve de Licentia Eligendi (vulgariter vocatum Conge d' Eslier) deinceps concessum foret, nee electio alicujus Archiepiscopi seu Episcopi per Decanum et Capitulum fieret, Sed quod nos, per Literas nostras Patentes, quolibet tempore cum aliquis Archiepiscopatus seu Episcopatus vacaret, alicui personse k quern nos idoneum existimaremus, eundem conferre possemus et valeamus, Et eadem. collatio, sic per Literas nostras Patentes hujusmodi persons factas et delibe- ratas, cui nos in eundem conferremus Archiepiscopatum seu Episcopatum, seu ejus sufficient! procuratori vel attornato, staret et foret, ad omnia inten- tiones constructions et proposita, tanti et consimilis effectus quanti et qualis foret, sive Breve de Licentia Eligendi concessum, electio rite facta, et eadem confirmata fuissent, Et quod, post hujusmodi collationem, eadem persona, cui hujusmodi Archiepiscopatus seu Episcopatus foret collatus seu datus, posset consecrari, et habere liberationem suam, seu Breve de Amoveas manum, ac omnia alia agere prout eaedem ceremonise et electiones fuissent factae et actae, prout in eodem Statuto plenius liquet ; Ac cum Episcopatus Bath, et Well, hoc tempore sit A r acuus, suoque idoneo Pastore destitutus, morte Rev. Patris, piae memorise, Willielmi nuper illius loci Episcopi, et ob id ad munus nostrum Regium pertinere dinoscatur alium in ejus locum surrogandum, qui ob eximias animi dotes populum nostrum illius dioecesis late patentis, juxta Divi Pauli normam, digne pascat ; Sciatis qu6d nos, Existimantes Rev. Patrem Willielmum Menev. Episcopum ad Episcopatum praedictum modo vacantem idoneum tarn propter singularem sacrarum literarum doctrinam, moresque probatissimos, quibus idem Rev. Pater modo Episcopus Menevensis praeditus est, quam propter hoc quod juxta Salvatoris nostri elogium judicamus ilium virum imprimis dignum esse, ut super multa constituatur, qui super pauca fuerat fidelis, Ex gratia nostra speciali, ac ex certa scientia et mero motu nostris, necnon de avisamento et consensu praecarissimi Avunculi et Consiliarii nostri Edwardi Ducis Somer- setiae, personae nostrae Gubernatoris, ac Regnorum, Dominiorum, subdito- rumque nostrorum quorumcumque Protectoris, caeterorumque Consiliariorum nostrorum, Contulimus, dedimus, et concessimus, ac per praesentes conferi- mus, damus, et concedimus praefato Rev. Parri Willielmo nunc Menev. J Ryiner, vol. 15. p. 169. [t So Rvmer : Couravcr has qnam nos idoncam.~\ ART. vni. 7.] Records concerning Barlow. 343 Episcopo prsedictum Episcopatum Batlion. et Wellen., ac eundem Williel- mum in Episcopum Bath, et Well, transferimus per praesentes, ac ipsum Willielmum Episcopum Bath, et Wellen. ac Dioecesanum Bathon. et Wellen. prsedictse nominamus facimus ordinamus creamus et constituimus per prsesentes, Habendum, tenendum, occupandum, et gaudendum praedictum Episcopa- tum Bathon. et Well, eidem Wilhelmo, durante vita sua naturali, una cum omnibus dominiis, maneriis, terris, tenementis, hereditaments, possessioni- bus, et juribus, tarn spiritualibus quam temporalibus, ac cum omnibus aliis proficuis, commoditatibus, emoluments, auctoritatibus, jurisdictionibus et pneeminentiis quibuscumque, eidem Episcopatui Bath, et Well, quoquo modo spectantibus, pertinentibus, sive incumbentibus ; E6 quod expressa mentio &c. In cujus rei &c. Teste Rege apud Westmonasterium tertio die Februarii. Per Breve de privato sigiUo. 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, whereby 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 d' lire to the Bishopric of Bath, vacant by the resignation of Barlow, dated March 13. 155|. n Regina dilectis nobis in Christo Decano et Capitulo Ecclesiae 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 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, Ecclesiaeque nostra; prsedictse necessarius existat. In cujus rei &c. Teste Regina apud Westmonasterium, 13 die Martii. Per Breve de privato sigillo. 1 Vol. 15. p. 171. [ For duximus concedendum, read or m Book 3. c. 1 0. p. 367. understand the regiilar form, liceiitiam per n Rymer, vol. 15. p. 369. prtesentes duximus concedendam.~\ 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. P 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 Ecclesise (licentia prius a nobis per eos alium eligendi in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem petita pariter et obtenta) discretum virum Magistrum Gilbertum Bourne, S. Theologies Bachalareum, in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem ^canonice elegerunt et nominaverunt, sicuti per eorum literas, quas vobis mittimus prsesentibus inclusas plenius 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. 1554. i Regina Escaetori suo in Comitatu Somersetise, salutem. Vacante nuper Episcopatu Bathoniensi et Wellensi per liberam resigna- tionem ultimi Episcopi ibidem, Decanus et Capitulum Ecclesise Cathedralis Wellensis prsedictse (licentia nostra primitus petita pariter et obtenta) dilectum nobis Magistrum Gilbertum Bourne S. Theologise Bacalarium in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem elegerunt. Cui quidem election! et personae sic electee 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 prsecipimus, quod eidem Electo, temporalia praedicta cum pertinentiis in Balliva tua sine dilatione liberes in forma prsedicta; 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 Rymer, vol. 15. p. 376. 1 Ibid. p. 384. ART. vin. 10.] Records concerning Barlow. 345 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 Angliae Primati et Metropolitano, salutem. Cum, vacante nuper sede Episcopali Cicestrensi 8 , per mortem Johannis Christopherson ultimi Episcopi ejusdem, ad humilem petitionem Decani et Capituli Ecclesise nostra? Cathedralis Cicestrensis, eisdem per literas nostras patentes licentiam concesserimus alium sibi eligendi in Episcopum et Pastorem Sedis prsedictse, iidemque Decanus et Capitulum vigore et obtentu licentise nostrse predicts dilectum nobis in Christo Magistrum Willielmum Barloo Sacrse Theologian Professorem, ac nuper Episcopum Bathon. et Wellen. sibi et Ecclesise Cicestrensi pradictse elegerunt in Episcopum et Pastorem, prout per literas suas patentes, sigillo eorum communi sigillatas, nobis hide directas, pleniiis hquet et apparet, Nos electionem illam acceptantes, eidem election! 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 prancipiendo mandantes, quatenus eundem Magistrum Will. Barloo in Epi- scopum et Pastorem Ecclesia? Cathedralis Cicestrensis praedictae sic ut prae- fertur electum, electionemque praedictam confirmare, caeteraque omnia et singula peragere, qua? vestro hi hac parte incumbunt oificio pastorah, juxta formam et effectum statutorum in ea parte editorum et provisorum, velitis cum effectu. In cujus rei &c. Teste Regina, apud Westmonasterium 18 die Decembris. ' Examinatur cum Recordo Junii 19, A. D. 1721. per me Robertum Sanderson. In this Record as published by Rymer u , after these words: electionemque presdictam confirmare, we read these : et eundem Magistrum Willielmum Barloo Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesice prce- dictcB 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 x above by Mr. Sanderson, and by others who have consulted the original of this Record. r Pat. [f 14.] 2. Eliz. m. 5. Reg. Par- u Vol. 15. p. 550. ker, fol. 24. 40. * So Mr. Williams : compare note t. [ Rymer has Cicestrensis. ] The French has, " by those who since his [' This Certificate is not in the French time have examined the originals of this edition. ED.] Record." 346 Records concerning Barlow. Fragments [APPENDIX, XII. Writ for the restitution of the temporalities of the Bishopric of Chichester, granted to Barlow by Queen Elizabeth, March 27. 1560. yRegina Escaetori suo in Comitatu Middlesexiee, salutem. Vacante nuper Episcopatu Cicestrensi, per mortem naturalem Reverend! in Christo Patris Joh. Christoferson ultimi Episcopi ibidem, Decanus et Capitulum Ecclesise Cathedralis Cicestrensis prsedictse, licentia nostni petita pariter et obtenta, dilectum Capellanum nostrum Willielmum Barlow Sacrse Theologies Professorem ac nuper Episcopum Bathon. et Wellen. in eorum Episcopum et Pastorem elegerunt, Cui quidem electioni et personse sic electse Regium assensum nostrum adhibuimus pariter et favorem, ipsiusque fidelitatem nobis debitam pro dicto Episcopatu recepimus, ac temporalia ejusdem Episcopates (exceptis omnibus maneriis, terris, &c.) ei restituimus per prsesentes. Et ideo tibi prsecipimus, quod prsefato Electo temporalia prsedicta cum pertinentiis (exceptis prseexceptis) in Balliva tua, una cum exitibus et pro- ficuis inde provenientibus sive crescentibus a festo S. Michaelis Archangeli ultimo prseterito, 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 OP LETTERS** 1 WRITTEN TO THE AUTHOR. De Consecratione Barlovii nihil in Registro Cranmeri occurrere, et tu ipse observas, et ego, nisi ssepius evoluto Registro illo maxima 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 tantum ex instrumento publico comperi, a " Robertum " Farrar, Barlovii in Episcopatu Menevensi successorem, authoritate Regia " Sedis suse libros Ecclesiasticos, Martyrologia, Portiforia, Missalia, cum " Calendariis in quibus nomina Episcoporum tempusque eorum admissionis, y Vol. 15. p. 576. " Inquisitio facta 1 7. April. 4. Ed. VI. de ["" See the introduction to Article vacatione Episcopi Menev. inter MSS. VIII.] Wharton L. p. 239. ART. ix.] of Letters written to the Author. 347 " mortis, translations inscribi solebant," flammis commisisse, ex quibus aliter haec tarn anxie quaesita consecratio fortasse probari potuisset. In Ecclesia Metropolitana Cantuariensi unde commissiones pro conse- crationibus Episcoporum Provinciae extra Ecclesiam suam Cathedralem con- cedi solebant, ex minis variis nuperoque incendio quaedam 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. Csetera Provincial Registra eo minus moror, quod ex more discipline nostrae, ubicumque demum consecratus fuerit Barlovius, sive in Ecclesia aliqua Cathedral! sive (quod potiiis crediderim) in sacello alicujus Episcopi, alteriusve cujusdam in dignitate Ecclesiastica constituti, et oratorium intra sedes suas habentis, Acta Consecration! s non in Registrum 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 Champnteum impulerit, ut de consecratione Barlovii dubitaret? An fama publica ad ejus cognitionem hie defectus per- venerit, quae quamvis saepius mendax, aliquando tamen vera refert ? An aliquo idoneo authore rem didicit ? nee hoc quidem dicere potuit. Sufficit ei quod in Cranmeri Registro hujus consecrationis acta non occurrant b , ac proinde de consecratione ejus merito esse dubitandum. Fatemur libenter. Sed nee aliorum plurium Episcoporum, de quorum tamen consecratione, nee Champna3us, si viveret, dubitandum censeret : imo de quorum consecra- tionibus, ex aliis publicis instrumentis cert 6 nobis constat. Foxius Herefordensis nullibi in illo Registro consecratus invenitur. Ex Rymero c consecratum fuisse comperimus, idque 26 die Septembris anno 1535, uti in ipsius Registro inter nuperi Episcopi Ehensis Codices MSS. asservato, expresse refertur. d Sampson Cicestrensis, e Latimerus Wigorniensis, f Hilsley Roffensis, omnes pro non consecratis habendi sunt, si quidem recte Champnseus ex Registri Cranmeriani silentio ea in re concludit. At ex publicis tabulis plane apparet 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 Archiepiscopo, et attestante, qui consecration! ipsius interfuit, Notario Publico. Gardineri Episcopi Wmtoniensis nee confirmatio, nee consecratio, in Warhami Archiepiscopi Cantuar. Registro hodie invenitur. Hoc eo magis b Champn. de Vocatione Ministrorurn, e Ibid. p. 553. cap. 14. p. 489491. f Ibid. c Rymer, vol. 14. p. 550. K Regist. Cranm. fol. 212. d Ibid. p. 573. 348 Fragments of Letters [APPENDIX, considerandum, quia consecrari quidem ab aliis potuit, confirmari nisi ab Archiepiscopo ejusve commissario non potuit : adeo tamen de hujus Episcopi et confirmations et consecratione omnes tabulae publicse silent, ut inter eruditissimos harum rerum investigatores, nee 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 consecratione Bonneri Londi- nensis Episcopi, proximi eorundem zelotarum post Gardinerum ducis atque signiferi. Ab illo, assistentibus sibi Cicestrensi atque Herefordensi Episcopis, sacratus fuit Bonnerus '. Si igitur Parkeri consecratio ideo pro invalida sit habenda, quod de Barlovii ordinatione sileant Registra, sequetur nee Bonnerum fuisse a Gardinero legitime sacratum. Infinitus essem si ad alios omnes ordine transirem, ab hujusmodi Episcopis sacratos. Unum omnino prseterire non possum, eminentissimum Parkeri prsedecessorem, Cardinalem Polum ; cujus benediction! sex aderant Episcopi. Horum duorum, Nicolai Heath Eboracensis Archiepiscopi, et Thomae 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 quaesitas, 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- crates fuisse contendant, non obstante Registrorum silentio, de quo nos minime dubitamus ; quod aequum, quod justum, quod verum est fateantur, neque de consecratione Matthaei Parkeri dubitari posse : praesertim 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 et variis exemplis, apparet quam infirmum, quam incertum, quam plane nullum sitChampnsei argumentum contra Barlovii consecrationem. 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 praecipue illorum Episcopo- h Godwin de Praesulibus, an. 1534. sic pro ejus consecratione emanavit 27 Nov. Whartou, Anglise Sacrse vol. 1. p. 519. at ejusdem an. ut ex Regist. Cantuar. patet. Rymer. vol. 14. p. 429. temporalia ei resti- ' 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 factae, in Registro Cranmeri desiderantur ? Post ducentos et amplius annos, de hujusmodi defectibus vix autne vix quidem hariolari datur. Ego sank adeo longe absum ut quaeram, cur quaedam 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 quaerantur. Certe suspicione non caret, quod tot Episcoporum conse- crationes eodem tempore facts ex illo exciderint ; quorum plerique notorie dignoscuntur Regio Suprematui et Reformation! Religionis impense favisse. Fortasse nee ab initio in illud referebantur. Ut enim de cseterorum 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 run consecratus. Eo ipso tempore quo haec facta fuerint, mortem obiit Ricardus Rawlins Menevensis Episcopus 18 die ejusdem mensis. In ejus locum substitutus est Barlovius tanta cum celeritate, ut decimo die insequentis Aprilis ilhus electio per Praecentorem 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 tarn brevi temporis curriculo faciendis, quaedam negligerentur, quae ordinarie fieri consueverunt ? et consecrationis Barlo- vianae 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 electionis successoris sui Roberti Warton, dictus fuit Assavensis Electus. Cum enim certum sit, ilium nunquam pos- sessionem Episcopatus Assavensis habuisse, cum nee in sedem Episcopalem installatus fuerit, neque a Rege temporalia acceperit ; cum denique nee de 350 Fragments of Letters [APPENDIX, confirmatione, nee de consecratione illius Capitulo Assavensi aliquo legitimo modo constiterit ; ut non solum ex Actorum Publicorum hac in parte silentio, verum etiam ex ipsa temporis brevitate inter confirm ationem ejus in Episco- pum Assavensem, et electionem in Episcopum Menevensem, merito concludi possit ; sequitur eum quantiimvis 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 nee confirmatio nee consecratio illius Ecclesise 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 qusecumque dicta sint de Barlovio in illo elec- tionis et confirmationis Wartonianse processu, respiciunt solum illud tempus quo fuerat Episcopus Assavensis. Et vel intra illud spatium consecrari potuit Barlovius Episcopus Assavensis, ac nihilominus recte appellari Episcopus Electus, si nee ilia consecratio Decano et Capitulo Assavensi rite significata fuerat, nee ulla installatio, aut temporalium restitutio exinde sit secuta, ut sane clare apparet nullam secutam fuisse. Atque in hoc consentientem no- biscum habemus ipsum Champn8eum k , ne quid dicam de Henrici VIII. Sta- tuto l de creandis Episcopis facto ; ubi omnes Episcopi tamdiu pro Electis habendi censentur, donee omnia quae 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 clariusque exponam. Atque hie ante omnia observandum, in m Statuto de electione, confirmatione, et consecratione Archiepiscopi sive Episcopi duos tantum titulos recenseri eorum, qui ad hujusmodi dignitates admittuntur : quorum alter est restrictior, dum processus adhuc incompletus manet, nee ad finem, modo lege ilia constituto, perducitur ; scilicet Domini Electi: alter generalis, Episcopi, sive Archiepiscopi Dioeceseos, 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 Dioeceseos gaudere decernitur. Postquam vero authoritate Regia confirmatus et consecratus fuerit, virtute ejusdem statuti in omnibus accipi jubetur juxta nomen, titulum, gradum, et dignitatem Episcopi Dioeceseos ad quam electus fuerat, omniaque munia 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. lm Stat. 25. Henr. VIII. cap. 20. ART. ix.] written to the Author. 351 ante electionem factam, Regique certificatam, nullum omnino titulum de jure habere ; postquam hoc fuerit perfectum, titulo Domini Electi insigniri : ubi vero 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 exhibebit 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 praesentari jubetur, idque ut in Episcopum consecretur. Prsesentatus his verbis juramentum obedientise canonical Archiepiscopo prse- stat : " Ego Electus Episcopus tahs Ecclesiae et Sedis, promitto, &c." In Litania, suffragium pro consecrando hoc modo concipitur : " Ut DeusFratri Electo benedicere dignetur." Examinatione peracta, Episcopus Electus habitu se Episcopal! induit. Et denique caeteris 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 ulterius addis, nullum tibi exemplum adhuc occurrisse ahcujus 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 quern 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 n 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 transut, 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. HEXRICUS VIII. , Dei gratia Anglige et Francise Rex, Fidei Defensor, " Reg. Cranm. fol. 241, 243. Reg. Cranm. fol. 260. 352 Fragments of Letters [APPENDIX, Dominus Hyberniae, et in terra supremum caput Anglicanse Ecclesise, Rev. in Christo Patri Thomse Cantuariensi Archiep. totius Anglise Primati et Metrop. saluteni. Quia nos de gratia nostra speciali, ac ex mero motu nostro, election! nuper de dilecto et fideli consiliario nostro Edmundo Bonner, Episcopo Ecclesise Cathedralis Herefordensis Electo et Confirmato, ac jam in Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesise nostrae 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 tarn 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. . , , H. Assheton. In hoc Brevi ilia equidem crassa vel ignorantia vel negligentia scriptoris observanda est, quod Regio nomine Bonnerum mense Novembri antea con- firmatum, nihilominus (pro more horum instrumentorum) confirmari ac consecrari jusserit. Illud recte factum, qu6d eum respectu utriusque sedis, tarn Herefordensis quam Londinensis, non simpliciter Episcopum, sed Elec- tum nominat, utpote nunquam illius, nondum hujus Dioeceseos Episcopum. Tertius post hunc sequitur Rev. P. Gulielmus Juxon 9, 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 confinnationis electionis factce de persond R. viri W. 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 Electus T ; in procura- torio Decani et Capituli ; in commissione Archiepiscopi ; in summaria petitione pro confirmatione coram judice exhibita ; in certificatorio de elec- tione Archiepiscopo misso, alioque 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 vroidcelebrata add [Electo]; 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 Elect! insignitur ; etiam in actu consecrationis, consecratores dicuntur muuus consecrationis Rev. viro Gul. Juxon Legum Doctori Herefordensi Electo, in Episcopum et Pastorem Ecclesiae Cathed. D. Pauli London, electo et con- finnato, impendisse : adeo nihil singulare in ilia designatione Barlovii fuit ; qui tamen in sua confirmatione in sedem Menevensem, solo Episcopi nomine ubique appellatur. Sed ne te ulterius offendat titulus Electi Barlovio attributi, ad tuura te Rymerum remitto ; ubi in Brevibus Regiis pro restitutionibus temporalium centies invenies Episcopos non solum confirmatos, sed et consecratos, eodem illo Electorum nomine appellatos. Cranmerus consecratus fuit 30 die Martii an. 1533. At nibilominus in Brevi pro restitutione temporalium suorum dato 29 die Aprilis proxime insequentis 8 , dicitur tantum, Nuper Electus, et sub illo titulo, temporalia illi restituuntur. In restitutionibus 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 : l Nos confirmationem et consecrationem illus acceptantes, fidelitatem ipsius Electi et Confirmati cepimus, Et idea tibi prcecipimus quod 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 pr&dictum pertinent, intendentes sint et respondentes . Atque hsec de titulo Episcopi Electi respondisse sufficiat. Quod vero scribis a quibusdam excipi contra Barlovii consecrationem, ilium scilicet non tarn Episcopum quam usufructuarium suorum Episcopa- tuum fuisse, adeoque nulla benedictione Episcopali opus habuisse, facile refellitur. u Ad Assavensem quippe Episcopatum modo legibus nostris praescripto nominatus, electus, confirmatus fuit. Hsec in usufructuario neque fiunt unquam, neque fieri debent. Ut enim totum hunc processum paulo distinctiiis consideremus ; primo Capitulum Assavense Regi significant mortem nuperi sui Episcopi Henrici Standish, ac petiit licentiam alium in locum illius eligendi. De quo hie Episcopo agitur ? De usufructuario, an de Dicecesano Episcopo ? aut qualem sibi petunt eligendi facultatem ? Alium in locum defuncti Episcopi, id est talem qualis ille mortuus Episcopus fuerat, et qualem Ecclesia sua atque Dicecesis 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 ceconomiim, qui temporalia, uti vocant, Episcopates administraret, et ex iis laute viveret ? an Pastorem, qui veri Episcopi officium ad commodum Eccle- Kymcr, torn. 14. p. 4J(>. l Ibid. p. 487, &c. u Regist. Cranm. fol. 179. A a 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 Dicecesani Episcopi et Pastoris, qualis et fuit et semper habitus est Baiiovius. In altero illo Episcopatu Menevensi sumendo iisdem gradibus per omnia progressus est. Capitulum Regi significavit mortem sui Episcopi, vidui- tatem Ecclesise, vacationem Episcopates, et licentiam petiit alium sibi eligendi in Pastorem atque Episcopum suse Dioeceseos. Concessa est a Rege quam petierat licentia. Electio a Capitulo facta, a Rege accepta, ab Archiepiscopo confirmata est ; atque hsec 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, quse 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 Dioecesani Episcopi distet usufructuarii constitutio, ipsse ejusmodi ceconomorum literse, quales apud Rymerum x plures occurrunt, satis per se ostendunt. Et ne hac de re ullatenus dubites, alio argumento, ex tabulis publicis, perspicue ostendam. In Summonitionibus ad Comitia Regni, quse 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, Gustos Spiritualitatis summonetur. Ut vero cognoscas, quis sit ille Gustos Spiritu- alitatis, sciendum est quod quoties aliquis Episcopatus Pastore suo desti- tuitur, jurisdictio illius spiritualis ad Archiepiscopum Provincial devolvitur, uti 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 Gustos Spiritualitatis vocatur. Hujus authoritas infra Dioecesim vacantem, vigore commissionis Archiepiscopi tarn 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 Gustos 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 Gustos Spiritualitatis nullus esse potest. Quibus sic expositis, clarissime patet quod Episcopus 1 Vol. 14. p. 268, 287, 8 ; [364 ;] 387, 8 ; [481, 2 ; 486.] ART, ix .] written to the Author. 355 ad Parliamentum summonitus nomine Episcopi cujusvis Diceceseos, necessario pro vero loci illius Episcopo habendus sit. At in Summonitionibus duorum Parliamentorum, quorum alterum fuit anni 1536, statim post promotionem Barlovii ad Episcopatum Menevensem, alterum anni 1541, Barlovius summo- nitus fuit sub titulo Episcopi Menevensis. Nee inter Custodes Spiritualitatis ad ilia Parliamenta summonitos, ullus Episcopates Menevensis Gustos ejus- modi occurrity; ac proinde certissime constat Episcopatum Menevensem eo tempore non vacasse, sed Episcopum suum Dicecesanum, quales alii omnes 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 Synodos Pro- vinciales eodem nomine vocatum ; atque in iis cum cseteris Episcopis, tan- quam Episcopus, deliberasse, conclusisse, et conclusis cum fratribus sub- scripsisse. Hujus argument! vim ut claries percipias, notandum erit Archiepiscopos nostros ad Synodos suas Provinciales, literis suis mandatoriis, citare omnes suse provincial 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 electorum et confirmatorum. Cum igitur Barlovius absque aliqua hujusmodi nota, ad has Synodos ssepius 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 Dicecesanum, non Custodem Spiritualitatis; Episcopum consecratum, non electum et confirmatum tantum, cum nulla ejusmodi restrictio nomini ejus adjecta appareat ? Anno 1536, paucis post promotionem ejus ad Episcopatum Menevensem mensibus, Synodo Provincial! Londini interfuit, atque Articulis Religionis in illo Concih'o editis, penultimus Episcoporum, tanquam Episcopus Mene- vensis subscripsit 2 . In eadem Synodo, declaration! ejus de Generalibus Conciliis eodem modo manum suam apposuit a . Anno sequent! 1537, et Synodo interfuit, et libro de Institution Hominis C/iristiani, cum reliquis Episcopis subscripsit, ut ex ipsa ejus praefatione apparet. r Rymer, vol. 14. p. 564, 737. " MSS. Coll. Bened. Cantab. MiscelL 1 Buniet, Hist. Ref., Appendix, p. VIII. fol. 401. 314. A a 2 356 Fragments of Letters [APPENDIX, Anno 1540, Nationali Synodo aderat, ac sententise ejus contra matrimo- nium Regis cum Anna Clivensi subscripsit b . Anno denique 1552, Synodo Provincial! tempore Edvardi VI. et praesens interfuit, et Articulis Religionis subscripsit c . In his omnibus, cum reliquis Episcopis, tanquam Episcopus egit ; neque alio quam Episcopi nomine perpetuo indigitatur. Quod ex his exemplis apparet illi in publicis Prwtncue 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, eum 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 egit e , ut non solum non ad rogum condemnatus fuerit, verum etiam e carcere dimissus ; Episcopatu suo tantum, quem antea in manus Regias resignasse videtur, privatus. An sic credas illos hominem tractaturos, quem noverant per tot annos duos Episcopatus, absque aliqua consecratione tenuisse, etiam officium Episcopi impie atque prophane, si quidem ita se res habuisset, exercuisse ; et pcenam adeo tali flagitio condignam meruisse ? Quid vero ipsa Regina, zelo seu potius furore contra Reformatos usque ad insaniam percita ? Resignationem etiam ilia Episcopatus Wellensis a Barlovio accepit : eumque, in Licentia Eligendi novum Episcopum, vacare pronunciavit per resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem f . Et rursus in BreA'i pro restitutione temporalium successori ejus recitat Episcopatum vacasse per liberam resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem^. Fidem tuam appello. vir eruditissime, siccine Regina locuta fuisset, si Barlovius nunquam fuisset sacratus ? an non potius 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 suum libere resignasse, in alio tamen Brevi, de significavit, ponitur deprivatus ; et Episcopates ejus per deprivationem et amotionem ejus vacasse declarator ? Quamvis de hac re nihil extra conjecturas proferre valeam, dicam tamen quod sentio, eoque liberius, quod vel in illis literis, 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, Ecclesiae suse Praebendario in carcerem conjectus. Non diu illic detentus fuerat, cum timore mortis per- b Regist. Cranm. fol. 141, 142. > Fox, Book of Martyrs, vol. 2. p. 714, 715. e Heylin, Quinquarticular History, chap. Id. vol. 3. p. 246. XIII. 3. [See the Editor's notes.] l Rymer, vol. 15. p. 369, 384. ART. ix.] written to the Author. 357 culsus, ut, si qud posset arte, salvus inde evaderet, Episcopatum suum in manus Regias resignavit : quam resignationem Regina accipiens 13 die Martii proxime insequentis, ' Decano et Capitulo Wellensi Licentiam Eligendi alhim Episcopum in Ecclesiam suam Cathedralem' concessit, 'per liber am et spontaneam resignationem ultimi Episcopi ibidem Pastoris solatio destitutam,' 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, e6 quod nuptias de facto, cum de jure non deberent, contraxissent. In hac commissione Barlovius omittitur, utpote qui jam antea Episcopatu suo ultro se spoliasset. k Duobus postea diebus, 15 die Martii, altera eisdem Episcopis commissio directa est, ad procedendum contra tres alios Episcopos, Lincolniensem, Wigorniensem, atque Herefordensem ; eosque (vigore clausulae in conces- sione Episcopatuum illorum ab Edvardo VI. Literis suis Patentibus insertae, quod nimirum eos tenerent, quamdiu se bene gesserinf) de sedibus suis ex- pell endos. Barlovius interim adhuc in carcere custoditus, ut a mortis periculo se liberaret, nullum non lapidem movit, nee dubitavit etiam cum conscientiae jactura saluti suae consulere. Hinc primo librum olim contra Lutheranos a se scriptum, dum adhuc Regularis esset Canonicus, Gardinero caeterisque Reginse 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 fuit m , cum Prsefatione nova Ad Lectores contra Reformatos, quos deterrimis coloribus Editor depingit, et furiosa rabie acriter perstringit. Neque hoc contentus, etiam petitionetn Reginae exhi- buit, qua omnes suos hbros contra Rehgionem Catholicam scriptos ipse simul damnat ac revocat, Deoque gratias agit, quod ex infinita sua bonitate se a tenebris in lucem, ex ignorantia mortal! ad vivam veritatis cognitionem perduxisset ; et sic denique Reginse misericordiam implorat, seque illius beneplacito in omnibus submittit. Dum hsec 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 ah' quid alibi occurrit), turn ex tenore commis- sionum jam supra citatarum, turn ex toto processu Barlovii ante descripto, h Rymer, vol. 1 5. p. 369. m A Dialogs describing the originall [' Ibid. p. 370.] ground of these Lutheran factions, and many k Ibid. p. 370, 71. of their abuses ; compiled by Syr William 1 Strype, Memorials Ecclesiastical and Barlowe Chanon, late Bysiiop nj huthe. Anno Civil, vol. 3. c. 18. p. 152 1,1 K 1553. 358 Fragments of Letters [APPENDIX, sequetur eura vel conjugii sui causa", quod nullatenus dissimulare potuit, vel ob haereticse pravitatis crimen a seipso, ut ostendimus, recognitse, a dig- nitate sua fuisse amotum : neque enim in tota petitione sua Reginse oblata, aliud aliquid, nisi erronese doctrinae confessio occurrit. Et cum coram Com- missariis Regiis una cum Pnebendario suo Cardmakero comparuit, et de fide atque doctrina sua ab iis interrogaretur, illeque adeo vel caute vel falso respondit, ut quasi Catholicus ab iis dimitteretur, de immani illo facinore, atque ultimo supplicio eorum sententia digno, quod non consecratus, per tot annos oflicium 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 confess^ haretica 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 Catholicos edita revocasset ; librum in Reformatos olim publicatum rursus in lucem emisisset ; errores tot annis a se rejectos pro veris fidei articulis denuo recepisset ; sed prsecipue Episcopatum suum in Regias manus resignasset ; si tantum adhuc ac tarn nefarium facinus sibi objiciendum cognovisset, quod nulla arte vel dissimu- lare poterat, vel excusare ? Aut quis credat Reginam resignationem Epi- scopatus 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 tarn dignitate sua merito 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 vitse 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 ; nee verebatur ne in eo Reginse displiceret, quse tales omnes, sive Episcopos, sive " Hoc innui videtur in illo Decani et nationem Will. Barlotcc conjugati ; cui suc- Capituli Cantuar. Registro, ubi sic anno- cessit Gilber/ns Bourne. tatur : Bathon. ft H'el/fus. raravit per resig- 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 acciderit Miloni Coverdallio Episcopo Exoniensi. PVoyseius, predecessor ejus, Episcopatum Exoniensem in maims Regis Edvardi VI. resignaverat. 'Undecim ilia graves atque eruditos viros ad varies regni Episcopatus simul eligi curavit. Hos omnes utpote adhuc in ordine tantum Sacerdotali constitutes, ab Archiepiscopo confirmari et consecrari mandavit. Et ex ipsis actis publicis constat hos omnes fuisse confirmatos primuin, ac deinde in Episcopos consecrates. Duos alios antea Episcopos Barlovium atque Scorseum 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 Champuseo z 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 Elizabetha Regina, ferri potuisse, aut etiam relationem ejus cum permissu publicari. Sed salva res est ; neque hie ego tarn falli Champnseum dico, quam ea retulisse, quae certo novit falsa omnino fuisse. Primo quippe, ut exinde incipiam, ait, z Judices Regni sub ipsamet Elizabetha 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 Elizabetha 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 Champnseo fides, hoc de Elizabethse Judicibus scripsit. At ipse collectionis illius titulus plane ostendit, Brookium illos Casus Novellas 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 1 Rymcr.vol. 15. p. 169, 70: comp.p. 174. ** De Vocatione Ministrorum, p. 432. r Epist. de Succ. Episc. Angl. p. 18. " Wood, Athens 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 Graund Abridgement, composed per Sir Robert Brooke Chivaler #c. London. 1587. Atque hinc denique apparet, quomodo tota haec res se habuerit. D. Ro- bertus Brookius Capitalis Justitiarius fuit sub Regina Maria, vir in legibus nostris eruditus, sed pro ratione illorum temporum, contra Reforniatos avitae religionis propugnator acerrimus. Librum hie utilissimum composuit, post mortem ejus hoc titulo editum ; La Graund Abridgment collect et escrie per le Judge tres reverend Sir Rob. Brooke Chivaler, nudgairs Chiefe Justice del Common Banhe. In illo libro sub certis capitulis totam illam partem Legis nostrae Municipals digessit, quae pendet vel a sententiis per Judices latis, vel a responsis et argumentis Jurisprudentum, quaeque turn demum vim legis obtinere censentur, cum nulla lex scripta occurrit, ex qua judicium in causa aliqua ferri possit. Opus laboris maximi, nee minoris utilitatis. Ex hoc corpore juris ab illo collecti Casus Quosdam Novellos excerpsit anonymus quidam temporibus Henrici VIII, Edwardi VI, et Mariae Reginae agitates : et ne de annis, quibus ilia quae ab ipso referuntur, vel discussa, vel judicata fuerint, dubitetur, ad suos quaeque Reges et annos regnorum 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- sultis allegata. Verba Brookii ita se habent : Dicitur que Evesques in tempore E. 6. ne fueront sacres, et ideo ne fueront Evesques, et idea lease pur ans per tiels, et confirme per le Deane et Chapter, ne lier b le successor. Car tiels ne unques fueront Evesques. Contra de Evesque deprive que fuit Evesque in fait tempore dimissionis c per conjirmationem factam. Nota diusitie A . (2 Mariae. Atque haec, si Champnaeo credamus, fuit Judicum Regni eo tempore sententia. Utinam profect6 sic se res habuisset ! Invictissimum id nobis praeberet argumentum pro consecratione Barlovii tantopere controversa : 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 vero plane apparet hanc non fuisse Judicum Regni sententiam. Xulla [ bc Both editions of the Ascuns Novell present Work, and the Editor's notes.] Cases read Her a and et canfirmac' fact', i.e. [ d Head dirersitie, i. e. difference; and see et confirmalio facta. See p. 131 134 of the the Editor's notes.] ART. ix.] written to the Author. 363 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 Judicum opiniones, aut Curice sententiam refert. In hoc ipso titulo, Judicum sententias a Jurisperitorum opinionibus clare distinguit. Faucis exemplis rem manifestam efficiam. Nota, inquit, per Tibeh. 6 , Shelley, et Balduin Justices, n. 2. per totam Curium, n. 1. per Tibz. ( 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 Curice, 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- gato, prater unicum illud, Dicitur. nihil apponitur. Nullum hie Curice judicium, nulla vel unius Judicis opinio : etiam hanc rem prorsus indecisam fuisse relictam, ex iis quse de Ridleii locationibus contra eundem Champnaeum jam observare libet, mihi plusquam verisimile videtur. Illius causa sic se habet. sfionnero Episcopatu Londinensi per Commissarios Regies judicialiter amoto, 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. h Hac occasione inter Car et Letchmore de Manerio de Bushley orta Iis est, quod priori concesserat Ridleius, posteriori Bonnerus. De consecratione Ridleii in tota actione nulla mentio. In eo causse 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 malse fidei possessor, elocaverat, omni juris vigore destitueretur. Summa 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 irritse pronuntiarentur, nihil obtinuerunt, neque aliquid amplius ea in re factum fuisse comperimus. Atque hinc patet consecrationem Ridleii nulla sententid judicial! 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. creates post finem anni 1549, nostro [ e Quaere, Fitzh. ? see the next note.] * Rymer, vol. 15. p. 222. [ f "Read Fitz., i. e. Fitzherbert." Cou- h Strype, Memorials Ecclesiastical and RAVER, Defence of the present Work, vol. Civil, vol. 3. p. 57, 58. IV. p. ccxxxv.] 364 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 modo ac forma qua consecrabantur, satis alibi dictum. Nos utrumque asserimus, neminem scilicet Edvardo regnante ad munus Episcopi absque praevia consecratione fuisse admissum ; eorumque consecrationes rite ac valide factas, neque ali- quibus adversantium exceptionibus ullatenus convelli posse. Quod ad consecrationem Barlovii spectat, jam ostendi quse fuit legum nostrarum cura, ne quis officium Episcopi usurpet, nisi prius ad illius exer- citium consecratus. Unicam adhuc hujus disciplines nostrae confirmationem hie adjiciam, ut plane perspicias Barlovium haudquaquam 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 Pontificate Ecclesise Anglicanse, 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 Ecclesise, cum Barlovius factus est Episcopus "NVel- lensis. Quis credet ipsi soli hanc praerogativam 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 1 . 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 1'investiture du temporel de leurs Evechez avant leur Consecration, nous empeche de regarder comme demonstratif 1'argument qu'on pourroit tirer en faveur de la Consecration de Barlow, de ce que le temporel de 1'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 1'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 1'election des Eveques, qui se trouvera dans nos Preuves b , le suppose ouvertement. L'auteur de la Police de 1'Eglise Anglicane le dit encore bien plus positivement, et marque meme dans quel ordre tout se faisoit a 1'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 Cathedralium Ecclesiarum infra Diceceses 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 possessions 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 1'installation, lorsque ce n'etoit qu'une translation. Or nous avons c 1'Acte d'Investiture du temporel de rEveche" 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 os IX, X, and XI.] omitted the third Article (or " N", as he [ b See p. 304, 305.] translated it) of the Author's Appendix c Vind. Eccl. Angl. p. 365. [See p. (see p. 311, note a); these three Extracts 340.] 366 Cancelled passages [MR. WILLIAMS'S Godwin, Wharton, et tous les e'crivains qui ont touche 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, 1. 13) the beginning of the next, as follows : 3. Get 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 meme 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. N3. This following passage the Author has thought fit to expunge, and to insert another in the room of it [p. 275 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 discipline varie selon les differentes conjonctures ou se trouve 1'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 meme 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 1'invalidite d'une Ordina- tion. Or tel est, ce semble, celui, que nous propose un scavant Theologien Anglois, nomine Herbert Thorndike, dans un livre intitule : Origines Eccle- siastics, et qui emporteroit avec lui 1'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 merite bien qu'on y fasse quelques reflexions. 1. II suppose avec S. L^on d , que deux choses sont necessaires pour la validite de 1'ordination, le rit prescrit, soit par J. C., soit, a son defaut, par 1'Eglise, et 1'autorite de d Leo Mag. Ep. 2. inquis. 1. [See p. 276.] APPENDIX, N 3.] of the Original. 367 1'Eglise, uuctoritatem acjus Ecclesia ;tumConsecrationis solennitatem ; et cet article ne doit point paroitre extraordinaire, puisqu' en effet on ne croit qu'un sacrement confere dans 1'heresie est valide, que parce qu'on suppose que ce qui se fait dans 1'heresie, est une suite du pouvoir de 1'Eglise, que 1'erreur ne scauroit suspendre. Mais si la profession de 1'erreur ne S9auroit suspendre le pouvoir de 1'Eglise, 1'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 1'auteur, ces deux choses sont egalement necessaires ; comme il est certain que 1'omission du rit ane"antit le sacrement, le de"faut de 1'autorite de 1'Eglise doit produire le meme effet par une consequence ne"ces- 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 1'Eglise et de 1'Etat sont violees ; puisque par le defaut d'autorite, le mariage est mil, de 1'aveu de tous nos theologiens. Non Deo rife sacratum videri debet, quod non sit jure Ecclesia Deo consecratum, etsi servato ritu Ecclesiae. 3. On conceit ainsi aisement, comment une ordination, d'invalide qu'elle e'toit, peut devenir valide ensuite, sans que rien de sensible y intervienne de nouveau. Car le rit essentiel ayant ete administre, 1'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 Ecclesite, non de ritu ordinandi, non est mirum, accedente auctoritate Ecclesiee, valere ordinationem non jure factam, ad id ad quod valere earn vult accedens auctoritas Ecclesia. 4. Rien ne semble plus propre a expliquer tous les faits rapportez ci- dessus, et les variations qu'on a remarqees dans 1'Eglise sur cette matiere : car des la qu'on admettra pour principe, que 1'autorite de 1'Eglise est aussi essentielle a la validite du sacrement, que 1'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 ; 1'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, qu& 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 aestorum rationem inibimus frustra, hdc repudiatd, qucerendam. 5. On leve par ce principe toute 1'ambiguite, et il ne reste plus aucun scrupule ; parce que la declaration de 1'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 ea apud Deum, in quibus sequuntur fidem Ecclesice. 368 Cancelled passages of the Original. [MR. w.' 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 1'affaire du bapteme des here- tiques on ait raisonne sur ce principe. e Sclo aliter decretum esse de baptismo hcereticorum, . . . Sed hoc ad ordinationem trahendum non est ; . . . Non est necesse ratam hcereticorum confirmationem concedere, quorum ratus sit bap- tismus ; mulfb minus 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 1'ordination, ils ne se seroient pas ecartez de la pensee de 1'auteur. En effet il semble que S. Leon ait remis la validite de rordination au bon plaisir et a 1'autorite de 1'Eglise, comme il le marque dans la lettre a Rus- tique de Narbonne. Si qui autem clerici, dit ce grand Pape f , ab istis pseudo- episcopis in eis Ecclesiis ordinati sunt, qui% ad proprios Episcopos pertinebant, et ordinatio eorum consensu et judicio prcesidentium facta est, potest rata haberi, ita ut in ipsis Ecclesiis perseverent. Aliter autem vana habenda est creatio, qua nee loco fundata est, nee auctore munita. C'est la precisement tout le systeme de 1'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 1'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 reu jusqu'ici dans toutes les Ecoles Catho- liques a lieu, on ne peut contester aux Anglois la validite de leur ordination. J'ajouterai, en finissant, que 1'adoption que Ton pourroit faire de cette maxime dans la suite, ne pourroit en rien deroger a la validite des ordina- tions Anglicanes, qui ont precede ; parce que ces sortes de maximes n'ont point de pouvoir retroactif, et que cela ne pourroit avoir lieu que pou? la suite, si un Concile General, ou 1'Eglise en corps, s'accommodoit d'un tel principe. [ e See p. 278.] f Leo Mag. Ep. 2. inquis. 1. [See p. 278.] [? See p. 278.] [MR. WILLIAMS'S INDEX 8 .] {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.15^2 34 Bruce, a whimsical Scots Presbyterian, against all Ordination, excepting Elections - - ib. Bishops restored in Scotland 35 Bishops abolish'd in Scotland - ib. [ R 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 ' trover sy 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 Englandjustify'd. Defence of the present Work, published the " Wherein the first Protestant Bishops are same year.] Bb 370 Mr. Wllliams'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 Bramhall'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 117 C. Champney's, an insufficient answer to Mason's book Ceremonies, none changed in Henry VIII. ['s] days - 31, Ceremonies were alter'd by Edward VI. Charles II. restor'd [the Anglican] Religion Cromwell's alteration does not affect the English Hierarchy Commission the first for Parker's Ordination, to whom directed Commission the second, to whom directed Camden [" no doubt"] drew his account of Parker's Ordination out of the Registers Camden's account agrees with the Journal of Parker's Life Champney's account of Parker's Ordination 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] Cranmer's Registers [Register] ; the silence of it is no proof that Barlow wanted Consecration Mr. Williams' s Index. 371 Cranmer's Register does not mention several others' Conse- cration as well as Barlow's - - 60 Chapter cannot elect without a Conge-de-eslire - - 63 Convocations meet [rather, The Convocation of 1536 met] the same time with the Parliament - - - 65 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 84 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 two b ] 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 Eccles. 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 - - - - 65 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 two b ] 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 [ bb See the Editor's Further Notes.] Bb2 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 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 Mary, Queen, the Succession preserved in [i, e. up to] her time 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 note c - 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 Thenforth, Regius Professor of Hebrew in marked thanks. For further particulars the University of Oxford from 1558* to respecting him, see Wood's Athenae 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. 3a\. 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 theM 1 , 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 (\ol. 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 Inn e 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, a. 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. 1S7 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 Cramner. 145, 16. ut priiis] 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". Buruet, 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 \ears 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 1.01 H 14. In fact, if the invocation &c.] Elsewhere (p. 155 B) he is more cautious, 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 fonns even of these may be altered, and that by particular Churches. CHAPTER X. 156 B 7. John the Faster] In the French Jean le Jetineur : in both Mr. Williams's Editions John the younger ! ].~>l> 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 ought 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. 1 67 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."] l, 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 1 ! ! 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 &c.] 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 does " 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 been 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 the Editor. 172, 25. namely generally] The present Editor has thought it best to insert these words themselves, rather than a mere 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.] Bead, " the possession and practice " which the heretical Churches have had of composing raised against them with " 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 : TO?S 07/015 Sou airoffrA- \ois KOI pafrfiTcus, 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 &c. 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, 1. ult. no other foreign Power] The word foreign must be understood as explanatory of the word other. 1 92 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 Anonymns, and after- " wards published with the Praemonition under His Majesties owne name. P. 247." " A Praemonition to all Christian Monarches, Free Princes and States, written "both in English and Latine by his Majestic. 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 Apologiam ederem, in qua susci- "piebam probandum, nihil in eo contineri, nisi quod ad obedientiam mere civilem " ac temporalem spectat, qualis summis 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 Praemonition, Works, p. 293. That it was first published anonymously (see above) is also stated in the same paper, p. 290. The Praemonition 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 ordinatiouem 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. 20 1 , 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. Ordinatio 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, 810. Utrum hescientis.] 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 vicinos.~] 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. Dummodo characterem.] 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 &c.] 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. Eeg. Gen. p. 78.] In the English translation by " E. S. [Edward Sheldon k ] Esq.", Paris, 1660, p. 65, with which however should be compared an explanatory observation, pp. 67 69. CHAPTEB XIII. 237. In the side-titles, for " First" read " Second", and for " Second" " First". 238 B 5. Qui &c.] Harding's work was written in English ; and as the second reference given by 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 Kavenna, 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 illi] 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 Eeg. and Maz. MSS. : in which however (see below) the preceding clause is also in the plural. 2 and 3. susciperent 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 pristiuum honoris sui " gradum reverterentur. Et si placibile fuisset omni populo civitatis suse, 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 habituui reverterentur. Et post- k Bodleian Catalogue and MS. addition in Bodleian copy. Notes by the Editor. xxi " inodum si qui eorum placibiles extitissent, antefatus beatissimus Pontifex presby- " teros eos aut diacones consecraret [a/, conciliaret]." An. 769, v. torn. 9. col. 373 A: Ed. Col. Agr. 1609. It is clear that 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 clero for quumcum c/ero, or (keeping Anastasius's idiom of venissent for venirenC) omitted the conjunction at the beginning of the following clause, using ab eodem for et 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 placabilis (the reading of the Reg. 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. ut ipsi i //i, si qui presbyteri aut diaconi futrunt, in pristinos honoris sni gradus 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. Wir- ceburgi 1782. 248 B 13. et reordinationes] The canon proceeds vel translationes Episco- porum. Nam Cresconius $-c. ; the remainder being occupied with that Bishop's self-translation. 249 D. Morinus goes farther (plus loin)] Farther than these principles admit of, or than Divines in general. One should rather have expected trap 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. Ilia? 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 16. 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 with- 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- " daiued 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. Ibid. 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 matrem] The present Editor has given Cyprian's own words: oui' 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 Primus. 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 G 2. St. Athanasius &c.] 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. Commelinianae, 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, rlva o3v \6yoi> x l > says he, rb rovrwv frdimo'/jLa 4yKpi6rii>ai, rS>v frairri&VTaiv els Harepa, Kal fibv, Kal Vlovravbv t) TlpiffKi\\av ; (" How then IS it " reasonable that the Baptism of these should be received, who baptize into the " Father, the Son, and Montanus or Priscilla ?") ov 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. auftrre'] In Courayer, as in Morinus, aufert. 267 B 7. acceptam denuo benedictionein] In Courayer acceptd denuo bene- dictinne. 268 B. 6. fj.trara.vra &c.] Of this passage our author had given only the Latin translation as follows : "Secundiim hj /ITJ yivo/u.err/s \oyio(j.ft>T>i$ t eav fiera rrjs KavovtKris aKpifieias avaKpii'6/J.fvos 6 ovrws opOoSo^ffas, Kal Siv irorf jSe'/STjAos Itpevs, irepl rov ixrrfpov ainov fliov a-Karaucpiros a.vatj>aveii\, a^i(i>8eir) ov novov lepartKou a|ico/iOTOs, aAAo Kal firiffKoiriKov, Sia ruv ' ov s> 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 Xftporovfiv is employed. 270 B 16. the words of the Canon] The Canon itself is as follows: 8. Tlepl yia^i/jiov TOV K.WIKOV, Kal rfjs tear' avrbv ara^ias TTJJ ev Kcai'ffTa.vTit'ovir6\fi yevo/j.fvris. Siffre ^re rbv Mo| 7j5ui/7j0jj Sowai &COTIOS e/crbj KaTaxpiffews, T)S fffx e ^'* T ^ s iirtOfffftos TTJS ;ce, Photius nihil dare potuit prater damnationem, quam per impice manus impositionem 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 &c. In the Greek-Latin Edition, o&s avrbs iv oiifSriirort Notes by the Editor. xxv &a9/j.f irpof&d\fTo, cuj>opiofjifi' eira^ius. quoscunque ille in quocunque Clericorum gradu cnllocavit, merito exortes communionis /admits. " Those whom he ordained to " whatever degree, we deservedly excommunicate." (Ibid. coll. 1296, 5 ; D, E.) 273, 4. Eos . . . in (Eos generaliter in) &c.J In the shorter Greek-Latin Edition we have only, xp^i vat SfX^w \eyoftey } recipiendos dicimus, " we say should " be received". (Ibid. coll. 1297, 8, A.) 273 B 23. isdeiri] 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 Keg, and Thu. Maz. read iteranda esscnt, 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. 242,710.) 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 Ecclesia 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 1'Ordination P.F. 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. xxvi Notes by the Editor. 277 ; 5, 6. error cannot error] an error does not an error D.W. 1'erreur ne S9auroit 1'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 ivhole argument. 277, 8. as her work what has been 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 soutient P.F. 277, 10. at what point it could be disputed] how it can be disputed with him D.W. par ou 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] by a comparison of it with Marriage, where the matter and form would be in vaiu 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 con$oit ainsi aisement P.F. 277 C 2. that was invalid] More exactly, perhaps, as in the P.F. " from " invalid, which it was, (d'invalide, qu' elle etoit,)"- 277 C 3. without any thing new intervening [therein].] More probably, as in the P.F. " without anything visible intervening anew therein (sans que rien de " sensible y intervienne de nouveau)". The word therein ought clearly to be added as in the P.F., being necessary to the sense, and Mr. Williams's omission or insertion of such words being, as may be seen through his whole version, and not least in these altered pages themselves, a mere matter of chance. 277 C 4. the Church, &c.] " the Church, which at first in refusing her " consent hinders this Sacrament from having its effect, but afterwards, taking " away this incapacity, by her consent, she redintegrates what at first was done ; " and that nothing more is wanting &c." D.W. Such is the "translation" (!) which Mr. Williams continues unchanged in his second "corrected" (!) Edition, and which he has the assurance to tell us "is " sufficient for the English reader" ! (See his Preface p. 10.) To the present Editor it appears better calculated for puzzling a Sphinx. He has therefore translated according to the Printed French, the whole difference between which and the above unmeaning jargon, if one may judge from past experience of Mr. W.'s random blundering is most probably all his own. 278, 3. as a principle] for a principle D.W. 278, 4. of the Sacrament] of a Sacrament D.W. du Sacrement P.F. 278, 6. and that others (or, the rest) have been received ;] and that the Church has received others: D.W. et que on ait re$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 Ecclesice read JEcclesice auctoritate. 278, 15. the reconciling of] the reconciling D.W. 278, B 1. that in the case &c.] So the P.F. Mr. Williams, most ridi- Notes by the Editor. xxvii culously, "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 was pretend, i. e. maintains. 279 B 5. in yielding themselves] in abandoning themselves D.W. en s'en 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 ^ith 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 " 1'Eglise, pour expliquer la difficulte dont il est question" ; from which, and the following sentence it appears most probable that the corrected French was, et 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 CIS. 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, 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 " English" read " Anglican" : compare the note to p. 17 B 15, &c. 282, 18. "all such, &c."] Courayer had given this quotation in Latin: "illam " (Irmhm Divina Officia et Sacramento, celebrandi formulam, qua ultimo Henrici " VIII anno, vulgari in usufuit" m So in the Edition of 1610, of which " Ordination, when they were commonly Courayer himself makes use: in the Edition " said, and by the English laws themselves of 1585 the expression is still stronger, viz. " were truly proved, not to be Bishops, &c." " being therefore destitute of any legitimate (fol. 166). nd xxviii Notes by the Editor. 282, 27. For " has preserved several for us" read "has preserved us many". 284, 285. In the headings, instead of " The new Form $-c." 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 toute 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 icas about to lay waste all Christendom : the Royal family was destroyed, and his ou-n powerful for ever ; without a little grain of sand, which fixed itself in his ureter. Rome 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 King 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." CHAPTEK XVII. 293 D 3. there is no dispute] I. e. none with any show of reason. 294. In the first side-tide, 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. $-c." "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 Bramhall 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, $-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. 296 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 Eutychians, 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". (AUTHOR'S 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 virtu, 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- " c,oise 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 ad; 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. <$ 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, 1. 1. "Statute concerning the necessity &c."] Rather "Statute 'shewing 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 grant such dispensations as they thought reasonable, they nevertheless did not attempt to grant them with their own hands, but only by menacing him, and Dd2 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 Ahp 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. 6 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 Home. 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] I. e. nominates, nominated. The more usual way is to turn the Latin participles, nominate, corrupt, &c. 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 cor- 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 Whit- 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 t 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 modern 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 & 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 y to give the English reader, not a mere Latin translation, which, however " authorized in the Realm", 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 RITUS ORDINANDI PHESBYTEROS. Post Exhortationem, qualis " describitur in Ordinatione Diaconorum, sequatur statiin S. Ccence administratio. " Epistola rero prcelegatur ex Act. cap. 20. a versu 17. ad 36. vel si forte contingat " eodem die et Diaconos et Presbytcros ordinari, totum cap. 3. 1. ad Timoth. " Postea legatur etlam pars Evangelii extrema secundiim Matth. a versu 18. ad " finem ; vel illud 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 contingat 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. &c. 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 world's end for unto [unt6] 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 Whitchurche had ceased to be actually pronounced, as the i 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 awne 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, tharchbishop, 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 Whitchurche retains to geve, &c., which in Grafton's impressions are to give or gyve, &c. Grafton has also in some instances (perhaps by mistake) ministrie, 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 Parvum 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, spirilualis. For perpeti 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 UapdK\r]Tos, first the e became I by inta- cism (a particular case of a general principle which, though hitherto unnoticed by grammarians, has had the most extensive and important influence on the develop- Notes by the Editor. xxxiii 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 *; where the metre forbad this, the place of the accent was changed. Of the same iotacism other instances are acidia (or accidia), for 0/078/0, sloth, eleison for ^AeTjo-ov, have mercy, first e-le-l-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 crasis to the preceding Kyrie (Lord) or Christe (Christ), so as to make the whole Ky-n e-lei-son or Ky-ri-e-lei-son, Christ' e-lei-son or Chris-te-lei- 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 Letania and (thence derived) the old English Lelany for Litania and Litany, but also in the English of the present day it has become the law of the language to iotacise the e 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 modern pronunciation, and the differences 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 diaeresis 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. 6. Med." of the Bodleian Library, one of Whitchurche'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 sound, but only marks that the n (I or >) is viewed as forming with the preceding consonant a distinct syllable, so its withdrawal takes nothing away, but merely shews that what might other- wise be regarded 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 i, 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 the Saxon (dioful), and in the German both words having only a mute e, the forms in that sister language being Teufel (pronounce nearly Toift) and Uebel, pronounce nearly Eebl ; or, to be quite exact, ubl with the Freuch u ; but the German ue or u (French u) becomes ee in English in the regular course of etymology ; just as the Greek v (y) 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 divcl, 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 doubly incorrect to resist at once the re- ceived pronunciation and the etymology. The word devil it will be observed occurs in these verses, and that probably 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 syllabic) might not be objected to at the division of the verses ; although, it must 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 Sp'rit (i. e. Spreet) : compare the French Esprit and our spright. 313, 6. spir'tuali. Or spr'ituall. 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. Worldes 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. Diaconatus] 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. in" 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 know- legying : the present Form acknowledgment. 318, 27. forth] in the old Editions furth. 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. n 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 Sec.] Neither is this altogether correct. Iii the old service a choice of three, in the new a choice of two, Gospels is allowed ; the second Gospel beiug 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. ecclesis] In Courayer ecclesia. 320, 2. quae in] In Courayer in quce in. 327 ; 3, 4. eoruni] Bead 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 appears in our author's Work. 33(>, 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, 19 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. 336, Art. VII, title. Attestations against the fable &c.] Bather, "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. 339, 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. Ixxxv 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. 564 and that at p. 737, before "Episcopo Meneven." "7 1 ." is put by mistake for"JF." 346, aa. To this note add, " with the Editor's note". 349 B 1 11. This suspicion as applicable to the case in question, will be negatived by an inspection of the Begister 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 celebrate] Not after the word celebrate, but after the word London, in the preceding line. xxxvi Notes by the Editor. Ibid. Bead, [Electo~\, and for this reason it is that it ought p. cxxxiv. 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 both in spirituals and temporals. On p. 387, 8 Hemy 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 Lichfield 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 and 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, 1 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. tick} Or tielz as in Courayer, where however it is spelt tiels in thu following line. 362 C 3. With Her (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 Ascuns $-c. the following side-title : " Lease per Evesque nient sacrc, et per Evesque deprive : " diversitie ." And as the Ascuns fyc. 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 title P; 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- veiling line. Case 463 however falling on " firm at 'Ion." opposite the word " confirme". the first page of leaf 101, the words " Anno P The 2d year of Mary beginning on the " secundo Maria?." have been six times 2d line of the back of leaf 98 (Case 451), printed distinctly before we arrive at it. the printer has rather awkwardly made The year ends on the next page, the run- the running title to supersede the proper ning title of which is the same with that in title of the year, notwithstanding the inter- the middle, " Anno tertio Mariae." Notes by the Editor. Addenda to d. xxxvii 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 saltern : see p. Ixxxviii at the end of the Epitome. MR. WILLIAMS'S APPENDIX. 368 F, 3. s' il est permis de 1' adopter, &c.j 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 ABE ALSO, THE TBANSLATIONS OF QUOTATIONS NOT ALBEADY TBANSLATED : SEE P. XII OF THE EDITOfi's INTBODUCTION. 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 Gondi 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 Renaudot, 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 " Epistola." 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 Anglicana add, [" Annals of the Anglican Church"]. 51, 1 3. Quatenus ejfectu.] 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. Nee poteris.~\ Add, [" Nor will you ever be able to shew the " accustomed vocation or Consecration."]. 63 B 8 14. Confirmati Parliamento.] Add, [" When confirmed they are " consecrated ; and when after their Consecration they have taken the oath of " homage to the King, 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, &c. . . . 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 consecrare 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 Cantabriyienses, unpublished, in the British Museum) M. p. 527, 528. 73 3. peragere $-c.~] 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 &c."] 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. consecrare.'] Add, [" The aforesaid election to confirm, and the same " person as Archbishop and Pastor of the aforesaid Church to invest and consecrate."] 74, 3. consecrare.'] Add, [" And the same Hugh as Bishop and Pastor of the " aforesaid See to consecrate."] 74, 8. consecrare.] Add, [" The same Richard as Bishop and Pastor of the " aforesaid Church of Chester to consecrate."] 74 C 5. consecrare.] Add, [" To Confirm and . . . consecrate."] 74 D 2. After consecrare 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 " and invest, and all and singular the other things to perform . . . you be pleased."] 75, 5. and 75 B 6. inveslire.] Add, [" to authorize and invest."] 75 C 7. perimplere fyc.] Add, [" The aforesaid election to confirm, and all " and singular the other things to perform and fulfil &c."] 75 D 8. facere fyc.] 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. Romanies 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, 1923. Cum $e.] Add, [" Whereas the Episcopal See of Hereford, as " well by 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, &c."] 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 h " add, [" are subject to the Archbishop alone"]. 90 B 6. After addictissimus add, ["greatly attached to the Popish doctrine"]. 104 B 5, &c.] Accipe Spiritum 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 spectanf] add, ["regard only the solemnity of the Sacra- " ment, and the fuller expression of its meaning"]. 1 28, 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 8fc.~\ 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 may be 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. Conveniunt Carliolens.~] Add, [" They agree except the Bp of " St. David's that the nat\ire of the seven Sacraments is given us in the Scriptures. xl Addenda to the preceding Notes. " The Abp of York enumerates their several 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 Episcnpos] 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 2227. Eboracen, Edgeworth.~\ Add (before the bracket), " The Abp " of York appears entirely to deny this authority to others. Redmayn, Symmons, " Robertson, Leighton, Thirleby, Curren, 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, 19. Respondent $-c.~\ Add, ["The Abp of York, the Bps of London " and Carlisle, Leighton, Tresham, Robertson, Edgeworth, Curren, Day, and " Oglethorp, 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 $"C.] 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."] 156 B 4. Deus est,~\ Add, [" God Who for our sakes was made man,"]. 162 m, col. 1, 1. 10. After " sensibilia," Morinus proceeds, " quae sufficienter " significarent collationem potestatis tradita^ in qualibet Ordinatione ;" (which should sufficiently signify the conferring 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 fixam 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 &c."] 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 fonnce (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 PRESENT WORK,* FOUND IN THE AUTHOR'S HANDWRITING b IN HIS OWN COPY OF THE DEFENCE, PRESERVED IN ARCHBISHOP TENNISON'S LIBRARY I 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,) fan* (without) is corrected in the margin to sur (upon). This correction, however, appears to he 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." (hy Mr. de Paris, then Coadjutor and now Bishop of Orleans.) In the last paragraph of the same Article, opposite the words " 1'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, and the most judicious writer whom the Galilean 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 y e wife of y e late Revd Father in God John Skory " late Bishop of Hereford. The said R d Father in y e reign of King Edward y c sixth was " Bishop of Rochester, and translated from thence to Chichester. He departed this life at " Whitborne in y e County of Hereford y e 26th day of June anno Dom. 1585, and y e said " Elizabeth deceased in Holywell in this Parish y e 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, "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 be. for the Defence and Supplement. and 1756 and 1760 in two, volumes, which are mentioned by Lowndes, and of which that of 1739 is most probably the one referred to by our author, the present Editor has been unable to see.] [2.] " Autre preuve pour 1'Episcopat de Barlow, tire"e 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 Marriner 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, POUND IN THE SAME HANDWRITING IN THE AUTHOR'S OWN COPT OF THE SUP- PLEMENT, PRESERVED IN ARCHBISHOP TENNISON's LIBRARY : SEE PP. IX AND LXV OF THE FHESEXT EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION. I. Three MS. corrections, of which the first is found both in the margin and in the Errata, the second in the margin, and the third in the Errata, alone. " (1.) P. 293, 1. 27, achevee,je crois] Read, achevee, soit malfondee, je crois. " (2.) P. 502, 1. 15, Censures'] Read, Censeurs. " (3.) P. 590, L 12, FEveque de SegUa] 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, un Memoire justifcatif 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 centre 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)1 844. I - "'""""'"HMIHII A ooo