166

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

turn." Meanwhile tlie Arclibisliop's own opinion, published in print not a dozen years before, held those who lacked " Episcopal succession," to " put it to a dangerous question whether they be within the pale of the Church." And in his Episcopal acts he assuredly did not take upon himself to contravene the express law of the Church, of which he was the Primate. A similar compromise, but one also distinctly involving a fresh and Episcopal ordination, was among the provisions of the various schemes of the reign of Charles II. for Comprehension (of Presbyterians) and Toleration (of Independents). And the further step of the Commissioners of 1689, which certainly would have distorted Bramhall's proceeding into a precedent for a merely conditional ceremony which should not be reordination, (as every one knows) came to nought.

Only one later act, acquiesced in, at any rate, by the English Church, seems to require mention. The Jerusalem Bishopric, although half forgotten, still exists, and by Eastern Churchmen is by no means forgotten. And it may be as well for us to be reminded, that, while the Enghsh Church autho- rities took special pains, on the one side, to keep clear of undue interference with the Churches of the East ', there is, on the other, not one word in any English Church document relating to the sub-

* See the Rev. G. Williams's recent republication of the correspondence on the subject.

jec Pr do Pr ■ei fro

of:

adji tie sig] Ger

tnzK

%

h.

term

lead

we

die

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 167

ject, expressing any judgment at all respecting tlie Prussian Cliurcli or foreign reformed orders ; nor does any Cliurcli act commit us to eitlier. The Prussian document of Nov. 14, 1841, no doubt con- templates tlie wliole proceeding, very naturally, from the point of view of " the Evangehcal Church of Prussia." But our own Archbishop's commen- datory letter of Nov. 23, in the same year, states simply, that he " has consecrated Alexander to be a Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, according to the ordinances of our Holy and Apostohc Church," in order " to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over the clergy and congrega- tions of our Church, which are now or hereafter may be estabhshed " in Syria and the countries adjacent. And Germans who are to minister there, are to be ordained after the Enghsh manner, signing the Confession of Augsburg, but using a German Liturgy " agreeing in all points of doc- trine with the Liturgy of the English Church." While the official statement issued at London Dec. 9, 1841, goes no further than to hold out in terms, as one motive of the scheme, a desire " to lead the way to an essential unity of discipline as well as of doctrine between our own Church and the less perfectly constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe:" a result, indeed, most devoutly to be desired, if only God's truth be not endangered in the bringing it about.

2. But besides these (to some extent) formal

T^

/. 2-6 VS^.

15;

:^^^^

i^

,i t\\t Sft^nlngfrer/

PRINCETON, N. J.

'H

%

'4

BV 665	.H3 :	188/	1
Haddan ,	Arthur	West,	1816-
1873.
Apostol	ical	succession	in
thP. r.h	nVrh	nf	Rnal and

35^^

I

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 3ti tl)e Cljurcl) of dEnslaiiO

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

31n tl^e Cl^urc]^ of CuglanD

By ARTHUR W. HADDAN, B.D.

LATE RECTOR OF BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD

RIVINGTONS

WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON

MDCCCLXXXVII

[New Editi(m\

PREFACE

rpiIE following Series of Papers upon tlie doctrine of Apostolical Succession lias no pretensions to be a complete or exhaustive treatise on tlie subject, altbougli tbe several sections follow some kind of argumentative order. The writer of tbem was led, many years back, in the course of other work, to examine thoroughly the one narrow branch of the question which concerns the bare facts of our own legitimate succession. He is asked now by some, to whose judgment and wishes he defers, to put into an accessible form the information then (in part for the first time) accumulated, and to add what might seem expedient under present circum- stances upon the doctrine generally. The present volume is an attempt to comply with these wishes. Its writer is painfully sensible how far it falls short, either of adequately meeting the over-kind

thoughts of friends, or of effectually dealing with

h

vi PREFACE

one of not the least important questions to the future of the English Church. The subject, how- ever, is one that must be dealt with, partly because some are disposed to think it too absolutely a vital one, but chiefly because people in general, even Church-people, if they do not shrink from it through ignorance or misapprehension, at least fail too often to appreciate its very great and real importance. Yet it is not too much to say, that our continuity through it with the Church of the Apostles, and so with the great Head of the Church Himself, alone gives us firm standing ground, both against the claims of Rome, and against the sects : that, as rightly stated, it marks out our Church, and those in communion with her, as alone afl'ording scope for the right adjustment of the respective claims of authority and reason, — for 'the heahng of that, which M. Guizot justly signalizes as the great defect of the Reformation movement, — and so as alone capable of retaining a hold upon the religious instincts of an age of gTcat mental activity ; that it is connected, in its natural issues, mediately but inevitably, with the very belief in a supernatural system at all, and ultimately with a belief even in the doctrine of

PREFACE vii

grace; and that, if the era of establishments is really passing away, it alone will permanently hold us together as a Church. Unhappily the under- rating, in times now long gone by, of the very fundamentals of the Gospel itself, followed as it naturally was by a revival narrow in proportion to its zeal, has brought it to pass, that this and other Church doctrines, when presented now even to Church-people, wear too often an air of novelty which does not belong to them, and are not felt to be what they really are, the staple teaching ot this Church at all times, and not least empha- tically at the time of the Reformation itself. The doctrine is one also, which, in one way or another, stands in the front of all questions respecting reunion with every religious body around us, and whether with Protestant or Roman Catholic, with Eastern or Scandinavian, abroad. It is one, again, which the tendency of modern belief or misbelief leads men to scorn as childish, or to denounce as uncharitable, misunderstanding its real bearings; and yet one also capable, with some tempers, of being lifted into undue impor- tance. And while that conventional and social acceptance of it, which has hitherto been its partly

viii PREFACE

serviceable but in many respects miscliievous sub stitute or safeguard in men's feelings among us, is now, it should seem, gradually wearing out, men are beginning, with it as with most religious truths, to accept, or, it may be, to reject it, upon some kind or other of real or supposed principle. Eomanists also, as a body, condemn our orders in the like spirit in which they condemn ourselves, and with a contemptuous self-complacency of assurance on the subject, singularly dispropor- tionate, to say the least, to the strength of their arguments. And one revered name among them, from whose lips one is pained indeed to hear such words, has actually stooped to deny the Anglican Priesthood, because Anglican Priests have " sur- roundings " different from those of Roman Priests ; or else would shelve the question with a foregone conclusion against us, because it is a "dreary" task to wade through minute answers to captious objectors. Our chief danger, however, is, no doubt, not from others, but from ourselves : lest, through misconception, or want of belief, or recoil from extremes, we allow ourselves to renounce, or forfeit, or be deprived of, the precious treasure of an Apostohc order and priesthood, which our fore-

PREFACE \x

fathers took such care and pains to hand down to us intact. In view, then, of these circumstances, and not without regard to the coming (Ecume- nical Council so called, which it is to be feared will in fact only repeat, with infinitely less pre- tensions to be either independent or really oecu- menical, and with an unspeakably greater rashness of innovation, the packed Tridentine Council, and which, let it be added, has precluded itself from all fair discussion respecting our orders, by de- liberately ignoring them ah initio; the writer would fain endeavour to add what little he may towards recalling the subject to its right footing, both with those who unduly slight, and with those (far fewer) who may unduly magnify it. It may help towards this end, if the real bearings of the case at present, after the abundant controversy that has been spent upon it, be summed up and concisely put together. May God give us aU the heart, needfal in this not less but more than in most cases, to hold the truth without compromise and yet charitably, but with no respect of persons. And while we seek to make truth, which alone can be so, the one basis of reunion, and that in both directions ; may God grant to us all mean-

X PREFACE

while a willing sympathy with every thing that is good and Christian in all communions, and a temper ready to make allowance, as for the preju- dices of others, so also for our own.

July, 1869.

CONTENTS

IHAPTER PAGE

I. IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL

SUCCESSION 1

II. OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST APOSTOLICAL SUC- CESSION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND . . 27

III. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION AS A DOCTRINE . . 37

IV. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL . . 74 V. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION . . . .100

VI. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THK DOCTRINE OF THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND . . . . .139

VII. CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER AND OF

BISHOP BARLOW 178

VIII. ENGLISH ORDERS CANONIC ALLY VALID . . 230

APPENDIX OF DOCUMENTS.

A. S. CLEM. EPIST. AD CORINTH., xl — xliv. . . .313

B. JEREMY TAYLOR, EPISCOPACY ASSERTED, § 32 IN PART 315

C. law's SECOND LETTER TO BISHOP HOADLY, pp. 69 — 75 320

D. RECORD OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER's CONFIRMATION

AND CONSECRATION, FROM THE LAMBETH REGISTER 322

E. bishop BONNER's testimony TO THE ACTUAL ORDI-

NATION OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS, AND ESPECIALLY OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER, BY THE

ENGLISH ORDINAL 365

P. EXTRACTS FROM THE DIARY OF HENRY MACHYN . 367 G. A MS. NOTE OF JOHN PARKER, SON OF THE ARCH- BISHOP 369

CONTENTS

H. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE IN THE HOUSE OP LORDS

AND UPPER HOUSE OF CONVOCATION . . . 369

I. GRADUAL ENLARGEMENT OF THE FORM OF ORDI- NATION 371

K. I. LETTER OP HENRY VIII. TOUCHING HIS TITLE

OF SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAK^ 374 II, EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS OF PARLIAMENT, TEMP. HENRY VIII., RESPECTING ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION 385

L. A DECLARATION OF THE QUEEN'S (ELIZ.) PROCEEDINGS

SINCE HER REIGN (1569) 388

CHAPTER I

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

THE doctrine of Apostolical Succession means that, according to tlie institution of Christ, a ministry ordained in due form by (Episcopal) suc- cession from the Apostles, and so from our Lord Himself, is an integral part of that visible Church of Christ upon earth to which Christian men are to be joined. It impHes, further, that the ministry so ordained is not a merely external office of con- venience and of outward government, but involves also the transmission of special gifts of grace, in order to the carrying on in the Church of the supernatural work of Christ by His Spirit. For although, no doubt, it might have been appointed that even a merely outward office of convenient order should have required a supernatural authori- zation, yet it is more intelligible, and seems more necessary, and is actually part of the doctrine as held by the Church, that a supernatural work should need a supernatural sanction, and that

B

IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

what is rightly held to be the grace of orders, and not a merely outward appointment, should be transmitted by those only who have themselves, in succession, received that grace, and the authority to transmit it, from its one original source.

The doctrine so stated rests upon the com- mission given by our Lord to the Apostles, " As my Father hath sent Me, even so send I you;" and again, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose- soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained : " as that commission was continued beyond the limits of their own lifetime by the further promise of the perpetual presence of Christ Himself with them to the end of the world, in their office of baptizing and making disciples ol all nations ; and as it was interpreted and applied by their actual practice as related in the New Testament, viz. in the establishing of a Church organized under Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as we now term them, and with a commission to the first-named order, as in the cases of Timothy and Titus, to transmit those offices and functions to other " faithful men," to succeed in due course, if a ministry is an essential element of a Church, which was invariably appointed by the Apostles, as a fact, in each Church, and which also discharges functions bearing directly and in themselves upon the work of the Church of Christ in the saving of men's souls ; and if the authority to transmit the

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 3

grace of tliat ministry belonged from the beginning solely to the Apostles to whom the Lord gave it, and then to those to whom they delegated it, and does not, nor ever did, reside properly in the body of the Church at large at each successive time, or even in its presbytery by themselves, still less in any individual self-appointment, still less in the secular power ; then it is plain — since they only can give to others the gifts of God, who have received those gifts to give — that those alone can rightly claim to be sent by God, or to possess the grace of God for the discharge of their ministry, who are sent by such as possess the power of sending ministers, rightly transmitted to them from those to whom God first gave it, i. e. by duly consecrated bishops ; and that a Church is so, at any rate in its integrity, only when it possesses such a duly constituted ministry. And this doctrine — although, of course, not in the same sense de fide as, e. g. the doctrines of the Holy Trinity or of the Atonement, and although itself a subordinate portion of the doc- trine of the Church and Sacraments, and although it may in this or that case be impossible for indi- viduals to bring themselves within reach of what is part of an external and positive institution, and real necessity supersedes positive law, yet, — if it is indeed part of the means of grace appointed by Christ Himself through His Apostles, — plainly cannot be disregarded without sin ; or lost, still less put aside, without risking the loss or dimi-

B 2

4 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

nution of tlie gifts and promises which are bound up with it in that case by Divine appointment.

Apostolical Succession thus defined, is assailed upon two somewhat inconsistent grounds, as meaning either too Httle or too much. It is sometimes treated as a merely mechanical and official piece of external order, useless if an in- ward call is felt to exist, a mockery if it is not ; or as a purely historical fact (or assertion) of no moral significance or value, which is uncharitably and unreasonably exaggerated out of its proper place, if it is made a special mark of difierence between those who are, and those who are not, within the visible Chm-ch of Christ ; or as substituting in the place of the love of Christ, and of His hving presence in the heart, the empty hollowness of an outward form; or as a preposterous inversion of the essential order of truth and right, through which communion is refused to vital Christians, as such, and granted to thousands who are not vital Chris- tians; and which involves, moreover, the distasteful result of unchurching Nonconformists and foreign Protestants, while it recognizes the organized Churches of the East and of Eome as branches still of the Catholic Church. It is sometimes, on the other hand, rejected as drawing with it a whole system of doctrine, certainly the reverse of insigni- ficant or merely outward; and as an integral part of a view of God's deahngs with men in the Gospel, which, if it be true, is assuredly no empty form,

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

but a vital and deeply reaching reality, toucliing the very essence of Christian life; viz. as bound up with the principle of a Church Divinely appointed, and with the whole range of what is briefly called Sacra- mental doctrine. Now, whether men refuse the consequences and therefore deny that which im- phes them, or accepting the latter, accept the for- mer also, that does seem to be the truer view of the case, — and this, whether we regard the internal connexion, the general character, or the actual history, of the doctrine, — which looks upon the question of an Apostolic ministry as a part, and in the issue an essential part, of the broad questions of principle that divide Christian men at this day, essentially, if not fundamentally, under all more external controversies, respecting the anthropo- logical side of Christianity. The office of the Church, not as superseding human reason, but as furnishing, by God's appointment, one essential element towards its rightful instruction and guid- ance, as against the theory, according to which every one, competent or incompetent, is to make out a creed for himself out of some modern version of a Book, of which he hardly knows, it may be, the very elements of either the critical or the historical inter- pretation;— and again, union with Christ through union with His Church by the instrumentality of sacraments, as distinguished from union with Christ through an assumed inward consciousness of such union, testified solely by a peculiar condition of the

6 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

feelings of the individual believer; — mark out re- spectively two poles of religious antagonism, round wMch cluster differences of very wide and serious import. The grounds, the marks, the essential elements of the work of Christ by His Spirit in the individual soul, the laws by which that work is governed, and the temper in which it issues, assume a seriously different character, according to the acceptance of either of these views of doctrine. And ApostoUcal Succession is the key- stone of that which is the Church's view. Sacra- mental or Church doctrines may stand for a while without it; but if it be absent, they lose their bond of coherence, and, as a matter of fact, fade away from men's belief; while they are wholly alien to the temper and tone of thought, which that absence both springs ft'om and engenders. Not then as a dry question of antiquarian research, not as an alternative of merely human expediency between an outward government of the Church by one or by many, not as an unspiritual dispute about a bare outward fact or ordinance, repelling devout minds by its utter remoteness from all that their souls feed upon and cherish, — not as any thing of this kind, but as one link in the process of bringing about a real and living union with Christ through His Church, does the doctrine of the ministry, and of the succession as necessary to the proper validity of the ministry, become really important. So viewed, it cannot be surely any matter of

A FOSTOLICAL S UCCESSION

unconcerning facts or of words, bat is a vital doctrine, touching (not the absolute reahty, per- haps, but at least) the reasonable and comfortable certainty of God's gifts of truth and of grace, and involved in the duty of humble obedience in the seeking of those gifts where God has lodged them. The broad issue, practically and upon the whole raised by the question, is neither more nor less than the appointment of the Church to be primarily and ordinarily the Divinely instituted channel of the supernatural gifts of God, as set against the indi- viduahsm which evacuates all outward acts or in- stitutions of every other value than that of external signs or motives of the man's own will, and assumes the ordinary conditions of salvation to rest abso- lutely within the individual soul itself. And this issue inevitably leads in the long run to another, even more important, however for a while unin- tended or repudiated, viz. to a serious risk, at the least, of the denial or depreciation of supernatural truth and grace altogether. And these certainly are fundamental points of doctrine.

Let us consider, then, a little more in detail, what it is that a behef in an Apostolic ministry really implies; and how far, on the other hand, the belief in such a ministry is itself in turn re- quired, in order to the safety of those plainly soul-concerning doctrines which are implied by it. The particular fact indicated by the words Ues, no doubt, in small compass. But it is the com-

8 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

plement, and, as it seems, in actual fact the condition, of a whole body of truth, which affects the entire treatment of the Christian life from its beginning to its earthly close ; viz. of all that is involved in the doctrine of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed; and, more re- motely, even of the entire doctrine of grace. And although many may and do hold parts of these doctrines while striving to escape the obli- gation of accepting them as a whole, yet they do so, it should seem, rather by the force of tradi- tion, or from accidental causes, or because the belief of the Church around them externally up- holds their own belief, or (let it be freely said) as struggling to hold still to fundamental truth itself, and to the essence of the Gospel, while discarding the casket by which it has pleased God to protect, and through which it pleases Him to offer. Gospel truths and gifts. No doubt those who have pre- served an Apostolic ministry have not always preserved either spiritual life or truth. Suc- cession of order is a strong outward safeguard, but it is not an infallible pledge, either of suc- cession of faith or of retention of spiritual life. But they who have lacked that ministry have commonly in the lapse of time impaired both. If undue worship of the B. Virgin has crept in, in spite of Church organization (marred, however, by the assumption of Papal infallibility), certainly Naturalism appears to be the inevitable issue of

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

the uncontrolled results of casting off tlie Churcli altogether. But this here only by the way.

I. First, then — to begin at the fountain head — behef in an Apostoho ministry implies a belief in the continued existence and continued need of supernatural gifts : — that Christianity is neither a philosophy only, nor a moral system only, nor a change of feeling or sentiment or will, self-caused, and nothing more; but beyond all these, and, indeed, as the cause and foundation of all of them, first a revelation of supernatural truths which claim, not opinion, but faith ; and next, a super- natural deahng with the souls of men, whereby they are transformed by God's invisible work and operation, yet through their own will and moral nature, into a new and restored moral being, and are by like spiritual gifts retained in that new being or replaced in it : — a belief in a supernatural revelation of truth, and a supernatural gift of spiritual life ; — a belief in fhe grace of God : — a belief held, no doubt, also by thousands who try to dis- sever it from outward ordinances, yet which loses, in that case, by the sure operation of inevitable law, its sobriety, its certainty, and in due time, its reality also ; and a belief, moreover, which in such case speedily becomes limited to certain fancied occasions and self-made sacraments, to the moment of supposed conversion, to passing times of outward stir of feeling, to the excitement ol startling preaching, and the like : and which thus

10 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

asserts over again in a bastard form the very prin- ciple upon tlie rejection of which, as ordained of God, itself originally claimed to stand.

II. But then, secondly, the doctrine in question implies a behef that these gifts of grace are en- trusted to a corporate body, estabHshed and con- tinued in the world by God Himself, and that they are to be obtained ordinarily and primarily by the individual Christian, as in union with Christ through this His Mystical Body upon earth ; or, in other words, that the Church of Christ, to which Christians must be joined, is not a voluntary religious club, or a department of the State for re- ligious purposes, or a mere plurahty of individual Christians who happen to be moved by hke motives and to hold like opinions, and who put themselves into some kind of order, it matters little what, for order's sake ; nor yet that it is an invisible body, composed of those inwardly genuine Christians who are absolutely known to be so only by God Himself; but that it is a Divinely constituted and visible body, the appointed witness to God's reve- lation and the appointed channel of God's grace ; ordained for the purpose, both of extending itself by new conversions, and of tending and keeping its members already made, and through their joint Christian hves of glorifying God ; in a word, in order to convey spiritual gifts to the individual soul, which must indeed be prepared by a moral fitness of God's giving to receive those gifts, but

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 11

which cannot create them or call them down by its own will for itself, irrespectively of othei' Christian men ; — a belief in the Church.

III. And then, farther, the same doctrine im- plies also a belief that in this Church there is a Divinely constituted ministry ; that the body cor- porate called the Church acts ordinarily through an order of men, set apart by God's ordinance from their fellow- Christians as ministers of the spiritual gifts entrusted to it ; stewards of the mysteries of God, to give to each his portion in due season : — a behef in an order of clergy ; i. e. an order of men, who are not simply convenient ministers of material charities, or lecturers on Christian morals, or expounders of a theory of theology, or official commentators on a Book, or State officers to maintain a moral pohce, or, again, the mere mouthpiece necessary to make united worship possible, or the self-elected officers of a voluntary rehgious club, or men with a special education quahfying them as a professional class of rehgious teachers, or who think themselves called to preach to others ; not even simply men sent to proclaim certain truths ; but beyond even the last of these, men to whom God by His appointed instruments has entrusted certain authority and powers, a message of truth to be dehvered, and gifts of grace to be dispensed ; ministers of the Word and Sacra- ments; — ministers who do not, indeed, claim by virtue of their office, either to do more than authori-

12 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

tatively proclaim God's truth, and lead men on both to see and to feel for themselves, upon its proper grounds, that it is indeed His truth; nor yet, again, to be in such sense of the essence of sacra- ments, as that absolutely and under all possible circumstances sacraments administered by others shall be void, to the extent of requiring, e. g. in the case of Baptism, their repetition; but who, nevertheless, possess exclusively the commission of Christ both to teach and to administer sacraments, and whose ministry, therefore, vindicates to itself alone the authoritative sanction of God's institution and promise in such ministrations, and is alone lawful, not by man's law simply, but by God's.

IV. And this view of the ministerial office leads necessarily to a farther step ; viz. to a belief that the ministers of the Church are not authorized or enabled to exercise their office, simply by an inward sense of fitness or by an inward longing to minister to souls, as might be the case, perhaps, were their ministry purely a moral or an intel- lectual function; nor, again, by any authority residing absolutely in the Church at large, in such wise as that any number of Christian men can re- create that ministry at will; still less by that which has no spiritual powers at all, by the secular authority ; but, inasmuch as their work is really God's work by them and not their own, must needs derive their qualification and appointment from God Himself, and therefore only in the way that God

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 13

has appointed, viz. from those wlio themselves, ori- ginally or by commission, have received authority to transmit such a supernatural gift ; for they who give must, in such a case, first have received ; — a behef in the grace of Orders ; i. e. in the necessity, and in the spiritual efiectiveness, of a proper for- mal ordination.

V. And then we are further limited, upon Scriptural and historical grounds, to a belief that the ofi&ce of ministering the outward call and appointment, thus rendered necessary, belongs to a special class of the ministry, to whom alone the Apostles gave it, viz. to Bishops; — a behef in Episcopal ordination.

yi. Lastly, if the grace of orders be a grace at all, we are brought in the end to that which is specially intended by Apostolical succes- sion; viz. to a belief that the gift of orders, so transmitted by the Bishop, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, must needs have descended in unbroken line from those who first had it, viz. the Apostles ; inasmuch as nothing short of a new revelation or a new commission from God can create afresh that gift, which Christ gave once for all at the beginning. In this, as in all cases, — as in revelation generally, as with the Creation, as even (it may be) with miracles, as in the whole kingdom, indeed, of nature as of grace, — we hold the work of God to have been initiated once for all by His creative word, and sent forth to fulfil its

14 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

appointed task, as it Tvere of itself, thenceforward by the power then inaugurated. And we beHeve accordingly, not only in the need of a ministry, but in the need of one derived by unbroken series from the Apostles, — in Apostolical succession.

Now all this scheme of doctrine obviously is of one piece, and holds together as one complete and homogeneous view of the way of God's deal- ings with Christian men. It means, in few word?, without Bishops no Presbyters, without Bishops and Presbyters no legitimate certainty of sacra- ments, without sacraments no certain union with the mystical Body of Christ, viz. with His Church, without this no certain union with Christ, and without that union no salvation. Yet with these necessary provisoes at each step, by the very- nature of the moral laws and attributes of Al- mighty God, — first, if those outward things may be had ; and next, with every allowance for igno- rance, prejudice, or necessity; and lastly, and above all, as a system subservient and ministering, both to a true faith, and to a hving religion and hearty love of Christ in the soul. The units of God's Church must each be themselves centres of God's truth and grace ; they must be living stones — and yet, none the less, built into the one Temple. Any one, then, who holds Apostolical succession, which is, indeed, otherwise unmeaning and superfluous, holds of necessity the whole of this scheme of doctrine also. But, further still, the reverse also

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION Ig

seems to hold good ; and tliey who do not hold Apostolical succession are almost necessarily led on to deny likewise the larger portion, at the least, of that scheme of doctrine to which it belongs, and naturally tend towards a denial of the whole of it. Those who deny the need of a transmitted Divine commission, commonly and naturally do so as denying also the grace of Orders. Any one can appoint to a merely human office. And although sacraments might conceiv- ably be ministered (had it been so ordained) by one appointed by the congregation or by any one at all, yet a Divine commission seems surely appropriate to the administration of sacraments that convey real gifts; and they who hold the contrary are quickly found, as a matter of fact, to evacuate the sacraments of grace, and to regard them as merely acted prayers. And Zwinglian doctrine respecting the sacraments imphes also a conception of the Church, that reduces it to a merely outward co-operation of individual Chris- tians for the sake of order and expediency, and regards each really Christian soul as in such sense in separate union with Christ, as to require no union with His mystical Body in order to union with Himself. And while all will freely and sadly allow that dislike of the Church system and of sacramental grace has actually arisen with many good men out of a desire — honest, although illo- gical and perverse — to vindicate the living action

16 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

of the Holy Spirit in men's souls, yet the result has surely been the very opposite of that at which they aimed. It seems obvious that they who look for the proof of grace merely to their own emo- tions, are not only fearfully liable to deceive them- selves, but will be tempted naturally to ignore, and so in time to deny, that very supernatural gift of strength which is to them inextricably mixed up with the action of their own wills and feelings. And the very tone of all theology of the kind has been such throughout, that not only naturally, but as a matter of history actually, it has tended to supersede in the end a supernatural, by a purely naturahstic, system.

On the ground then of the precious truths, of which it is both the seal and the safeguard, the doctrine of Apostolical succession is not one we can afford to treat lightly, be the consequences what they may. The system of which it is a part may be held in a doctrinaire spirit. It may be exaggerated into one-sided and narrow inferences. It may be emptied of its moral power and held as a form. It may look Hke a hopeless barrier in the way of possible reunion in either direction. It may, on the other hand, be maintained broadly and generously ; it may be the living spring of a humble, earnest, and holy type of Christian life, with special characteristics of soberness and of self-negation ; it may be apphed to the shifting and confused complications of actual fact in a spirit of

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 17

love and forbearance as well as of truthfulness. But it cannot be put aside, or any part of it, as a thing merely superficial, upon which it is unworthy and narrow to lay stress, or as one which, even if true, may safely and allowably be waived for union's sake. If the voice of the Church proclaiming the truth be practically an essential element towards the preserving that truth in its purity; and if not simply the historical witness of the Church of all times, bearing upon its very face the fundamental truths of the revelation upon which that Church was founded, but the teaching office also of the present Church, guiding, reminding, enforcing, regulating, be part of the Divine appointment for pressing re- vealed truth, as such, upon men's consciences and reasons ; and if God have indeed committed this office of teaching, primarily and as their proper function, to an order of men whose mode of appoint- ment He has Himself marked out ; the doctrine, apart from its truth, is assuredly not one to be shelved as unimportant. And if it is, again (1), not possible — or if possible, not sufficient — for a man of himself to put away both guilt and sin, and of his own strength to live a Christian life; — if (2) a man may not effectually, and in truth cannot truly, repent (being a heathen), and so attain to the new creation in Christ, without going on to be baptized; or be placed in the way of salvation without being added to the Church ; or, being so added, become partaker of Christ (ordinarily

18 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

speaking) without sacramentally (if it be in his power) eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood ; — if (3) it be evident, by the very nature of the case, as well as by the language of the New Testament, that mysteries must needs be authoritatively and safely dispensed by those whom Christ has made the stewards of them, and the message of sal- vation rightly applied by those whom Christ has appointed to be His ambassadors; — if (4) it is plain, further still, in Scripture, that by Apostolic rule the gift so given to the ministry is given by the laying on of hands of the Apostles, or of one delegated in succession by the Apostles, although conjoined subordinately " with" the like act of the presbytery ; — and if (5) it be palpable, further, that the unvaried rule of the Church from Apostolic days inclusive has recognized as Christ's ministers those only who were so called and sent by Apostles, or by Bishops who succeeded to the ordinary office of the Apostles; so that the charges to Timothy by himself to appoint faithful teachers in his own room., and to both Timothy and Titus to ordain elders in each church (of course within the districts which St. Paul had assigned to them), with no mention of any other as required in order to such ordination, stand at the head of an unbroken line of like rule, maintained when at length after a long while assailed, but unbroken in fact for 1500 years, and only broken then (where it was broken) reluctantly and in the

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 19

despairing effort to escape from greater evils ; — if all the links of this chain hold firm (and cer- tainly they rest upon the 'prima facie and obvious teaching of Scripture and of the primitive Church, and upon undoubted history, however each may have been denied at times in the interest of errors which it condemns) ; — then it can be no super- fluous or curious trifling, exaggerated out of due place, and certainly it can be no want of charity towards others, to inquire, as into a serious and soul-concerning question, whether the super- natural system thus built up is brought home to ourselves or no by the possession of an Apostolic ministry. Assuredly it cannot show any reverent value for truth to depreciate the value of such a gift, or to contrast it contemptuously with that of which it is really (if true) the support and strength, viz. vital religion, or to make light of the loss of it.

It is true, no doubt, that those Christian com- munities who have no such ministry, do neverthe- less, on the one hand, cling to parts of the scheme of doctrine, some more, some less, to which it belongs ; and repudiate, often, and many of them, extreme opposite views; and that, on the other, they show proofs, in Christian love and earnest- ness, that the grace of God, from the ordinary channels of which they have cut themselves ofi', has nevertheless overflowed its boimds and reaches over to them. Yet the general tone of Dissent

n 2

20 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

now, compared witli that tone as it was in the 17th century, seems to show only too plainly, as a matter of historical fact, that loss of the ministry has been followed by loss of doctrine. Even if we leave out of sight the notorious fall of the older English Presbyterians into Unitarianism, as part of that blight of dead mischief which at the same period affected the Church likewise, — although it should be remembered that the Church recovered her faith, while those bodies did not ; — still the con- trast as respects the whole body of Dissent is such, that many portions of the works of the great Non- conformist writers of the earlier period would notoriously sound in the ears of their traditional descendants as though from some obnoxious Church writer of the present. And even "Wesley himself (if Dr. Rigg will pardon an assertion which really is palpably true) is full of doctrine which would be unhesitatingly condemned by his nominal followers as Tractarian, if they met with it any where else, not knowing it to be his. And to come to particulars, not only have the sacraments among such communities become commonly evacuated of their supernatural power, and reduced to mere acts of man himself; not only has the sense of the sin of schism, and of the duty of unity, either faded into the vaguest of unmeaning sentiments, or vanished altogether with that idea of the Church which alone renders either the sin or the duty possible : but it seems sadly questionable, whether the very

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 21

conception of the supernatural working of the Spirit of God in the soul is not at best seriously- weakened, let us trust not obliterated, in that popular religionism which disclaims Church doc- trine. How otherwise is it, that the invisible but most real operation of the Holy Spirit is too often confounded with mental emotions or even merely physical excitement, and doubted or denied unless testified by sensible or conscious workings of the feelings of the man himself? Or how again is it, that the power of the Holy Ghost, when spoken of as a spiritual gift conveyed to the believer by out- ward sacraments, and as wrought in the soul through those sacraments, not by any act of the believer himself but by the promised power of God, is so commonly denied, or (let us charitably hope, through mere confusion of thought) blasphe- mously stigmatized as " magic ?" Surely there is here a latent unbelief in the grace of the Spirit — a breath of that temper which in days of old demanded a sign. And whatever be the case in fact with others, it is a pure want of charity to ourselves, to make light of what we have, because they have it not. If Christ has ordained, that union with Himself shall be con- veyed, as by its ordinary outward channel, through union with His visible Church ; and if the Church by His appointment is continued in its visible and organic existence through an Apostolically ordained ministry; we must indeed

22 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

make the best case we can for those who have lost, even for those who wilfully throw away, such a blessing; but no man can doubt either that it is our own plain duty to cling to it for ourselves, or that it is a thing too important for a reasonable man to make light of, or for a reverent man to ridicule.

As part, then, of that great question and broad difference of tone and principle which underlies most of the present differences between beheving Christian men, at least among ourselves, the question between Individualism and the Church; and as part, ultimately and by no remote con- nexion, of a yet deeper question, to which the other tends in the natural course of thought, the question between Naturalism and the Grace of God ; — it cannot be waste of labour to help in any degree, however humble, towards placing upon its right footing, and vindicating, our own claim to Apostolical Succession and to a rightly ordained ministry. It is an outwork at least, and an im- portant one, of the doctrine of grace. It is the seal and security of our being within the reach of the ordinary plan of Almighty God for the salva- tion of souls. And it is simply want of thought, at best, that ventures to stigmatize it as formal or unspiritual or insignificant.

And there are circumstances also at the present moment which seem to call for some notice of the subject, more than commonly, and upon several sides. Increased Church feehng has given it an

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 23

importance within our own communion which a few years since it would have seemed extravagant to expect. And although a few extreme and para- doxical men in that communion, who out of a childish love of mischief say startling things at random, seem to make a parade of vilifying our claim to it, the body of earnest and sensible Church people feel a more than hitherto serious interest in maintaining the claim. The transition again from a traditional acceptance to a pronounced assertion of it, perhaps sometimes to high claims based upon such assertion, and scarcely enough sustained by other qualifications, has challenged men's belief, and thrown them upon examining the grounds of this, as of almost every other religious tenet. An excessive reaction from deadness and formalism has led many, on the other hand, into the error of thinking all forms to be formal, and of imagining the appointed means of spiritual life to be inconsistent with spiritual life itself. And a longing for unity, together with that faint appre- ciation of the value of either dogma or ordinance, which shows itself in vain efforts to unite Chris- tians upon a vague basis of sentiment, — aided by the intellectualism which rebels against the shackles of either doctrine or rite, — and by the social courtesies which make it hard to obtrude disagreeable differences, — is tempting even good and able men among ourselves to strive to get rid of what seems the most rigid barrier between

24 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

the Churcli and Dissent : — unconscious, seemingly, that to remove that one barrier effectually would require a total revolution of principle and sentiment far wider than its own narrow limits ; or rather, it is to be feared, ignoring and undervaluing the truths which would so be sacrificed. And, looking be- yond ourselves, the great revolution of the century, the enormous, rapid, and intimate intercourse which is bringing all parts of the world for the first time face to face, as it is preparing a trial for the faith itself by bringing it into practical collision with false religions, so much more effec- tually is making the question of Christian divi- sions a pressing and importunate one. The Eastern Church in all its portions, Russian, Greek, Arme- nian, Georgian, nay the Nestorians also, — the Western Church, with its imposing extent and greatness, as well as its corruptions, — the Churches of our cousins in blood, and why not in faith ? the Scandinavian nations, — are no longer distant communities, scarcely known even to exist save by vague hearsay, but are as it were at our doors; so that we are no longer able to drift on in the comfortable ignorance en- gendered in times past by our own insularity. And the validity of our ministry stands unques- tionably prominent in the judgment which either of those great communions forms about ourselves, and in the decision which we ourselves must make respecting efforts for unity with them or with

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 25

other Christian bodies, or respecting our own claim to be a portion of the Church of Christ as well as they. Upon all grounds it is indeed to be desired that the question should be pressed on men's thoughts upon its right footing, in the interest of the laity quite as much as in that of the clergy, in the interest indeed of the whole Church alike; as a matter, not of setting up one class above another, or of unduly thrusting man between God and the soul, but of obediently cleaving with stedfastness to the Gospel plan for man's salvation ; as itself indeed relating to a subordinate, but to an integral portion, and of a Divine scheme ; as touching, not outward acts only, but real and sober heart- religion ; as no matter of censorious condemnation of others, but as one part of the outward means, in the humble use of which we trust to be saved our- selves : or yet once more, not, let us trust, as the stumbling-block to be smoothed down, and upon which, if rashly dealt with, schemes of union on either hand are too likely to be wrecked, but rather as the bridge by which, if rightly handled, the shattered fragments of the once undivided Church, which found its outward bond of union in this very doctrine, may perhaps, by God's miracle of mercy, once more some day again come together.

And then, yet further, if the sustaining as well as cramping hand of human law is indeed, in God's providence, to be withdrawn from our own branch

26 IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE, ^c.

of the Cliurcli as well as from others, and the Church of this land also is to be " disestablished," the doctrine of an Apostolic ministry must needs start up into yet redoubled importance, as the very life and strength by which a Church in its outward organization is held together. In default of State support, men must needs be thrown back more consciously and more intelligently upon the spiritual being of the Church. And that which God has appointed to be the real bond of its organization will take its proper place in men's thoughts perforce, when the outward props that have concealed or obscured, or perhaps, with many now, supplanted it, shall (if such be the will of God) have been removed.

CHAPTER II

OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION JN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

THE doctrine of a ministry inheriting a special grace and office by unbroken descent from the Apostles meets with two classes of objectors as claimed for our own branch of the Church.

Eoman Catholics, of course, admit the doctrine, although they have seriously tampered with it by Ultramontane theories respecting, first of all, in- fallibility, and next the relation of Papal to Epis- copal power, and by Papal dispensations in the matter of ordination. But as regards the Enghsh Church, they deny the fact. And they do so, either upon alleged historical grounds, relating to the bare fact of ordination of some kind or other, or by denying the validity of our orders assumed to have been actually conferred. And in the latter case, they either rest their denial upon the broad principle of the invalidity of schismatical or still more heretical orders, not indeed, perhaps, univer- sally and absolutely, but at any rate in cases

28 OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST

parallel with ours, or in cases where the Pope has enunciated a formal judgment, or until duly re- conciled and admitted; or profess to find fatal defects in the form of our Ordinal, either in its present form, or still more in that which was in use from Edward VI. and Elizabeth down to 1601 ; or if our form might verbally suffice, deny a sufficient intention in the use of it ; or, lastly, granting English clergy to be after some suffi- cient form ordained, refuse to admit that they have rightful mission to enable them to use their orders. And almost all grounds are mixed up together in the one-sided and collusive Papal determination on the subject in 1704.

Analogous, but in large part not identical, difficulties, hinder the recognition of our orders by the Eastern Church. But while both East and West demand not only the transmission of an office, but that the office so transmitted shall include the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the sense in which they themselves respectively hold it. Eastern theologians appear disposed to insist also that the infallibility of General Councils shall be bound up with the doctrine of the Succes- sion, and that the united voice of the Bishops of the whole present Catholic Church shall — in the intention of our Church in conferring orders — absolutely conclude, as by an immediately in- fallible authority, the behef of each smaller and national branch of it.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 29

And modern Romanists seem disposed still furtlier to argue, — if indeed it can be called argu- ment,— tliat English Priests are no Priests, be- cause they lack the mark of sacerdotal caste that is indelibly impressed upon the whole being of a Roman Priest ; or because the doctrine of Succes- sion has not been, and is not held, with a pervading belief by Enghsh Churchmen ; or because some clergymen, even High Churchmen, have been at times careless about Baptism, and therefore perhaps it may have been just possible, that some Bishop or other, in old days, may perhaps have joined in a consecration when perhaps he was not baptized himself: — in a word, because, although " anti- quarian " arguments might or might not issue in a result favourable to us, if it were worth while to undergo the weariness of examining them, yet meanwhile the whole air, and ways, and " sur- roundings" of Anglican Churchmanship, stamp our orders, by a kind of intuitive proof, as incapable in the nature of things of being any orders at all, and supersede inquiry altogether by the short argument of the look of things. Alas ! the worst foes of the Church of England are, no doubt, her own shortcomings, and those of her members who do not believe in her. Yet surely both the keen logic and the generous temper of the writer of these (as I must needs call them) hasty sophisms, ought to have made him the last to give them utterance.

The opposite class of objectors supersede all

30 OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST

need of inquiry into the fact, by denying tlie doc- trine, of Succession. That the power of appoint- ing ministers resides absolutely and always in the general body of Christian men, and needs no trans- mission ; that all Christian men who are inwardly conscious of fitness for the office, have their com- mission in themselves ; that the outward appoint- ment is not essential, but merely a matter of decent order ; and that the office of the ministry needs no special gift to be given, because indeed it has none to give, but is limited to a merely moral instrumentality ; — such are in the main (apart fi'om pure Erastianism, which recognizes in fact no spiritual ministry at all) the views of those who separate from the Church, and approximately at least of those who profess to be Churchmen, but in this particular symbolize with Nonconformists. Even the many varying Presbyterian views of Succession seem now pretty nearly to have resolved themselves into one broad opposition between an Episcopal Succession on the one hand, as opposed to an election by the congregation together with an inward call ; and again, between a belief in the spiritual power of the ministry, as distinguished from a purely human conception of the office.

And such naturalistic views rest, first and pro- perly, yet hardly most, upon historical assertions: as that the primitive Church either had no Apostoli- cally-ordained form of government at all, but crys- taUizcd by force of natural circumstances into the

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 31

successive forms wliicli it actually and finally assumed; or that if tlie Apostles did initiate a government as well as a faith, that government was Presbyterian; or again, that the English Reformers, and notably Cranmer, either denied the necessity of any ordination at all, or at any rate of Episcopal ordination; and when they spoke, as in English Church formularies they indisputably did speak, of three orders, and appointed three distinct forms of Ordination, meant all the while only two, hold- ing Bishops and Priests to be the same ; or again, that the Enghsh Church under Elizabeth and James I., and again, the Irish Church at the Restoration in the person of Archbishop Bramhall, acknowledged Presbyterian orders, either foreign or Scottish, or again accepted as a Church what is now the Presbyterian Scottish Establishment ; to which might have been added, with equal relevancy, the faint attempts, upon the accession of the Hano- verian family, to fraternize with the Lutherans, and the half-forgotten but still existing Jerusalem Bishopric of still later times; or lastly (if so silly and extravagant an argument can claim mention), that our orders are professedly derived through the Romish Church, and that the Romish Church is idolatrous, and no Church at all. But historical facts are not the hinges upon which the question really turns as between ourselves and Noncon- formists. Putting aside the personal question of re- ordination, which, however enormous as a practical

32 OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST

hindrance, only affects individuals, and does not toucli the real dispute ; principles of a far deeper kind, and claiming far more respectful mention, lie at the root of the difference. Immediate union of the individual soul with Christ as the one ulti- mate and primary need ; direct access to Christ as the privilege of all believers ; the inward call and fitness as the essentially valuable qualification for the ministry ; the transmission of a true and living faith as the one bond of continuity that is of vital consequence, between the Church of successive times, as opposed to the mechanical and external bond of a merely official organization ; or yet again (and, as an argument upon this question, more perversely still), trust in the Atonement and not in Sacraments, as though the latter were not the very means appointed by Christ Himself whereby to appropriate the former ; these and the like funda- mental truths are held to be inconsistent with the Church system as a whole, and by inclusion w^ith this part of it. That which is outward, positive, formal, material, is strangely supposed to be, in its own nature, not a help, but a hindrance, to that which is and ought to be inward, and moral, and real, and spiritual. That which God has appointed as a means, is still more strangely supposed to defeat the end itself, for the realization of which lie has appointed it. And those are accused of under- valuing spiritual and living religion, who seek it no less earnestly than they do who accuse them, but

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 33

who seek it by tlie path which God has marked out for its attainment. It comes to pass, un- happily, by an inevitable Nemesis, that an over- strained effort to attain to an impossible spiri- tuaHsm commonly defeats itself. It first sets aside what God has appointed, and then sinks gradually and by necessity into an equally outward system, but one of its own devising. And God, after all, is found to know better for men, than men know for themselves.

To these considerations are to be added perhaps some others of less importance, bearing more special reference to the doctrine of the Succession in itself. As, that it is preposterous to regard as important to tie salvation of Christian men a matter dependent upon a complicated historical proof, or one incapable (so it is afl&rmed) of reason- able certainty, or one again in itself morally insig- nificant ; to suppose, e. g., to take an extreme and indeed a captious case, that a default or fraud on the part of a Bishop hundreds of years back, of whom people possibly never heard the name or knew the existence, could affect a man's soul now. Or again, that it is a gross materiahzing of the grace of God thus to tie it to material acts, and to make it depend upon the acts of a special class of men, as though (if indeed one may conde- scend to cite so flippant and irreverent a piece of shallowness) it could possibly be the privilege of any particular man to regenerate his brother's

34 OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST

soul whenever lie pleased. Or yet again, as though the fire of God's grace had been kindled once for all, and (more earthy than even earthly fire) must be rekindled, if any where extinct, by a fresh spark from a fire still burning.

And considerations like these, some of which are after all only perverse misapplications of truths really most precious, are practically strengthened by that logic of consequences, which weighs more in practical questions than the logic of reason, or even of right feeling. And not only Nonconformists themselves, as is natural, but many within the Church, whose sympathies lie in the Nonconformist direction, shrink from a position, however true, which (1) is held to un- church, or at least to rank as imperfect Churches, all Protestant bodies, here and elsewhere, and (2) is supposed to be mixed up with that doctrine of the Priesthood, which in the feeling and temper of Englishmen has not yet recovered fi'om the dis- credit of its medi83val perversion.

If there still remain any where objectors holding an intermediate position, who, e. g., maintain a su- pernatural outward ministerial succession, but hold it to be Presbyterian ; partly they are too few to claim special notice, and partly an answer to other views involves an answer to their view also. Nor need any thing be said here in reference either to worldly or to rationahst objectors ; either in answer to those, some alas! themselves clergymen, who dis-

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 35

parage their own ordination, and of whom it is enough to say, that by their own assertion of its hy- pocrisy they mahgn others but condemn only them- selves ; or to those who deny a ministry, but simply because they deny the Gospel, and reject ministerial gifts as believing in no spiritual gifts at all ; or worse still, who perforce cannot recognize the ambassadors of One Whom they hardly believe to have a personal existence, or if He have, to be ca- pable, ffom His very perfections, of sending a message at all to mankind.

The following Papers, then, will speak of Apos- tolical Succession, first, as involving the principle of an outward ministry and of a Church and Sacraments, and of the difficulties that men appear to feel about it in consequence ; and will pass next to the special difficulties asserted to attend upon the doctrine in itself. And when presumptions against it have thus been removed, it will follow next to comment upon the direct proof of its truth. Scriptural and patristic ; and to point out that it has been the doctrine of our own Church at all times, both in its formularies and in its deahngs with other Christian bodies, down to the Lambeth Pastoral of 1867. The position in which we are thus placed with respect to foreign or other Pro- testants, who either disclaim or do not possess the Succession, must needs force itself upon our attention while thus reviewing the grounds upon which the truth of the doctrine rests : a delicate

D 2

36 OBJECTIONS RAISED, &>€.

and a painful subject, with respect to wMcli, as with respect to our relations to other Churches, only one remark shall here be made; viz. that no sentimental iffnorino: of real differences, and no effort to blink our own Church doctrine, or to force it into verbal harmony with what is really opposed to it, nothing in short save honest efforts to bring men to the one truth, with a humble willingness to be convinced ourselves where we may be wrong, can do aught else but patch up a hollow interchange of smooth speeches, to be followed by worse alienation than before : and this, whether our efforts be turned in the direction of Dissent or in that of Rome. It will still remain, after discussing both the doctrine and its consequences, to meet the historical and ca- nonical objections advanced by the Roman Church or by Eastern theologians against the vahdity of the English Succession ; and to remark, first, upon the futihty and unworthiness of the " historical" objections raised against the bare fact of the trans- mission of our orders ; and next upon the argu- ments relating generally to our orders or Ordinal — arguments, at any rate, suicidal as they mostly are, yet not so pitifully unworthy of reasonable or fair-minded divines and scholars as are those mis-named "historical" figments, — and which turn either upon the nature of the orders intended to be transmitted, or upon our own alleged condition of heresy or of schism, or upon the form of our Ordinal itself, or upon om* relations to the State.

CHAPTER III i

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION AS A DOCTRINE.

THE doctrine of an outward ministry sent by God witli special and supernatural powers, and requiring accordingly an ordination derived from the Apostles, is not uncommonly cliaracter- ized as Sacerdotalism. And Sacerdotalism meets in the very outset with a twofold objection, directed against the thing in itself. First, through the nature of its peculiar office, men are found capable of thinking that such a ministry interferes with the fundamental doctrine of the one finished Sacrifice of the Cross ; and next, it is often regarded as unduly interposing a human medium between the behever and his Saviour. The former objection, however, is really directed against exaggerated doctrine respecting the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and has nothing to do with our orders ; who, whatever doctrine we hold of Eucharistic Sacrifice, repudiate carefully any repetition or supplementing thereby of the one great and only proper Sacrifice. We have here, then, to deal only with the latter.

38 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

But first it ought seriously to be considered that the arguments which really sway people most upon this and like subjects are precisely those — naturally, indeed, but very wrongly — which ought to sway them least. If a doctrine is true, we have no right to shrink, under certain obvious limitations of common sense, either from its infer- ences or from its consequences. If the need of an Apostolic ministry is established ]3lainly by the evidence of Holy Scripture, and still more plainly when that evidence is read in the Hght of the interpretation put upon it by primitive practice; then it is both dishonest and suicidal to form our decision on the subject, either by considera- tions as to whom it may or may not unchurch, or as to the probable effect of such decision in aliena- ting those whom we would fain conciliate, or by any difficulties we may find in harmonizing the doc- trine itself with our own apprehension of other Gospel truths. And yet it is obvious that the considerations which practically determine men's minds against doctrines Hke that of the Succession are drawn precisely from these really secondary grounds, viz. from their belief that it clashes with certain theories respecting faith and justification, or fi-om their sympathies with religious bodies that lack an Apostolic ministry, and their desu'e to re- unite such bodies to the Church. At the same time, while the truth of the doctrine is the primary question, we may profitably also bestow some

AS A DOCTRINE 39

thouglits, as upon its importance, so also upon its due relation to other truths, especially to truths which obviously touch the foundation more nearly than itself. It is as well to see that objections are worthless, even although upon any sound principles men have no right to make objections at all.

I. First, then, the tendency of the present time, by the natural law, perhaps, of human progress, is to Individuahsm. As classical habits of thought merged the individual in the pohtical unity, and mediaeval Christianity lost sight too much of the life of the individual Christian in presence of the overpowering and intrusive greatness of the cor- porate Christian Church ; so modern times, as the progress of thought and education has made it more and more impossible to merge the individual in the body corporate, have come to dwell in a one- sided way in rehgious matters, as in others, upon the isolated life and activity of the Christian man in himself, while disregarding too much his union with, and consequent dependence upon, his fellow- Christians. And this tendency shows itself, among other ways, in the disparagement of all outward ordinances, as set in (unfair) contrast with the con- science and the feelings of the man himself. The Quaker, indeed (unless we are to add the Plymouth Brother), alone carries the principle to its fair and necessary results, and discards sacraments and a ministry altogether. But the general tone of thought among the bulk of even religious persons

40 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

of the present day, and even among many who are members of the Church, retains the bare shell of sacraments, but treats them exclusively as acts of simple obedience to a positive command, or as ap- propriate outward expressions of the feehngs and determinations of the individual man, or as moral and sentimental incentives to rouse the heart and affections from without to greater warmth and activity, or as outward signs of agreement in faith and love with other Christian men ; in a word, as belonging to the natural and not the supernatural order of things, to acts of men and not of God : while it fails to recognize in them also the ap- pointed means of real spiritual incorporation into a corporate body appointed by God Himself to be the channel of union with Christ, or even to see in them in any sense an occasion and mean of conveying a spiritual gift, or the infusion into the soul by God through their means of supernatural strength. And, in like manner, the ministry is currently regarded as an instrument for awakening men's consciences by such outward means as effec- tive preaching, or the power of Christian experience, or of special knowledge or training, but as nothing more. Sacraments in their proper sense, and a duly authorized ministry as the proper dispensers of sacraments, are held too often to have an effect — strange inversion of the truth I — inconsistent with the purity and fulness of the Gospel ; and this (1) as limiting the freedom of access to their

AS A DOCTRINE 41

Saviour, claimed for all believers by right of their OTvn inward faith ; and (2) as apt to withdraw the soul from a due appreciation of the need of vital rehgion, and from a hearty seeking after it.

Now (1) the assertions that there is a rightful minister of sacraments, and that sacraments are generally necessary to salvation, imply necessarily, no doubt, the principle of the necessary and right- ful intervention of some man or men in the con- cerns of a man's soul besides himself. And this may of course be called a limit upon the access of man to God, in so far as the pointing out a right and authorized way of formally attaining that access is to put a limit upon it. But it might, with like relevancy, be said, that the existence of a road limits a traveller (as in one sense it does) to one ordinary and sanctioned way of reaching the place whither the road leads ; or, again, that a man is limited and hindered in obtaining justice because he must needs go to a magistrate to obtain it ; or, to go deeper still, that language is a limit to thought, or the body a limit to the activity of the soul. These are all alike, upon some ground or other, either necessary or helpful limits, as men are now constituted. But they are so, not in the way of hindrance, but in that of guiding us to certain modes, according either to the conditions of our present being or to positive ordinance, of securely and effectually attaining that to which they sub- serve. Union of the soul with Christ, consciously,

42 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

securely, and soberly, by its own bearty and living faitb, is the one priceless pearl wbicb all Christians seek wbo are Christians indeed. The sole ques- tion is J — since in a matter concerning God's gifts we must needs follow in humble faith the path by which His hand leads us, — by what means He has bidden us, either by His providence or by His Word, to look for such union ? Is it really the way which God has appointed, that each man may for himself, and by an act of his own will, appropriate this blessed gift, and make sure of the appropria- tion, when and how he will, and without any re- ference to any other man or body of men, or to any outward act or institution ministered by men ? And that he may do this, and know that he has done it, — not, let us say, by any sort of spasm of inward feeling, or as the result of a sudden and unaccount- able excitement, or upon an arbitrary or uncertified belief in his own individual predestination, or upon a mere self-complacent or despairing resolve that he will, once for all, throw off all trouble of con- science and take salvation to himself, or upon no better ground than that he chooses to be sure he has the gift, because he is sure he has it; but (however common perversions like these are) upon the most and not the least favourable view of the theory — through some mental self-conscious state or change, connected with ever so real and genuine a spirituality of deske and will, but shut up within the man himself, and sufficient without further act

AS A DOCTRINE 43

of otliers ? Is a man in sucli sense justified by his own inward faith, as that his faith forthwith jus- tifies him who has it, without his seeking any outward means of receiving the gift of justifica- tion ? The very institution of Church and sacra- ments, and the Scriptural statements about both — the very words, " Believe and be baptized" — con- clusively negative any such view. If Scripture and Church history be not a dream, then, beyond a doubt, some act of some other man is — speaking generally — indispensable instrumentally to the true union of the soul with Christ. Men cannot make God's gift. They must needs receive it, and receive it as He wills to give it. And that gift is in the plainest of terms attached to union with His Church through His Sacraments, and there- fore to the acts of men as His ministers.

And if the principle of such intervention is thus established, then neither exaggerations nor doctri- naire and narrowly drawn inferences from that prin- ciple can be of weight to overthrow it. We refuse, e. g., to allow, that the untenable claim of a present infallible earthly teacher, through behef in whose words, as the one Divine voice to us, a truly rehgious faith is asserted to be alone possible, can in any way invahdate the Divine institution of the Church and ministry as an element in the rational grounds of our behef, as the appointed teacher of the flock of Christ, as the Divinely-appointed wit- ness and preserver of the truth. The clergy do

44 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

not teacli because they have a monopoly of truth ; or because they are the one channel, behef in the teaching of whom, as such, whether of one singly or of all collectively, constitutes alone religious faith. They teach as God's authorized ministers, the organs of His Church, whose work it is by Divine, not by human, appointment; and they speak none the less as God's messengers because they are not in- spired or infalhble in their own persons. We refuse again to allow, that any alleged absolute necessity of formal ecclesiastical pardon for all deadly sins, or any unauthorized extension of what is purely a human appointment into a Divinely- sanctioned law, whereby a confessor or even a director is made indispensable to a soul's spiritual welfare, can rightfully put aside the " power and commandment," which God has " given" to His ministers, to " declare and pronounce to His people the absolution and remission of their sins;" or do away with either the blessing of " ghostly counsel and advice," or the "benefit of absolution," to those who freely seek both where God has placed them. Those who stumble at the doctrine upon this kind of ground, appear to confuse two widely different conceptions of the priestly office, that of a spiritual substitute, and that of a spiritual minis- ter. Vicarious salvation, or subserviency of con- science, or the necessity of a director superseding the man's own responsibihty, or the substitution for living grace in the heart itself, of a supposed power

AS A DOCTRINE 45

of absolutely forgiving sin lodged essentially and unconditionally in acts or words of another man — if any one really holds any such extreme errors — are totally different things from the doctrine, that Christ ordinarily dispenses His gifts of grace, to be had freely by all who rightly seek them, by His Church and by the hands of His ministers, and therefore that men must needs seek those gifts there where they are promised. Again, it is an equally groundless exaggeration, to imagine, that any one so holds the necessity of coming to Christ by Baptism, and of continually renewing the Presence of Christ in the soul through the Eucharist, or again, the comfort and the real power of the solemn words of absolution, as to go on to debar the individual Christian soul from direct access to Christ by its own prayer and inward communion. The former are indeed in order to the latter. They are the wholesome and visible sup- ports of it ; the pledges of Christ's promise to grant it ; the channels by which Christ actually conveys it. And they who partake of them do so profitably only if the means bring about the end. Inward spiritual life is no more tied to the special moments of such acts, or confounded in the outward act itself, than is physical life with respect to the earthly food, by which, and by which alone, that too is sustained. All Christian men are in a most true sense priests to God. They are so for the very reason that they are baptized. Their baptism, as

46 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

tlie Fathers tell us, was their ordination. And in that capacity all Christian men live in a real relation to the supernatural and to the spiritual. If the seed of their baptism has taken root and grown, and they are Christians indeed, their prayers, and the devout hfe of their soul, draw down the Presence of God and of Christ from Heaven to dwell within them by grace unspeak- able. Yet none the less has God joined the gift of His covenant with us in Christ, primarily and formally, to certain outward acts, which require the instrumental co-operation of other Christian men appointed thereunto, and which find in the inward religious life of the recipient the condition and not the cause, the result and not the efficient, of the profitable or real reception of that gift. And the priesthood of laymen no more sets aside the official priesthood of the clergy, thus externally empowered to place and to keep men in covenant with God through Christ in His Church, than did the like priesthood of every circumcised member of the Jewish Church set aside the independently transmitted and official priesthood of Aaron and his descendants. And let it be remarked, by the way, that if any Christian man whatever can by prayer draw down the Holy Spirit into his own heart, or by intercessory prayer move the Almighty to pour down that Spirit into the hearts of others, no diffi- culty can be made, as a matter of principle, about accepting the special grace of orders. If Christians,

AS A DOCTRINE 47

as such, are in communion witli tlie supernatural, and can affect their brother's soul by their prayers, it is but of the same order of truths that Christian priests can do so likewise. If a word of prayer from the one has power to guide the influences of the Spirit, so may a word of prayer from the other. And he who affirms the priesthood of the former, has no right, as a matter of principle, to deny the priesthood of the latter. But, lastly, and to re- turn— it is equally a mistaken inference from this doctrine to confound a delegated with an inherent power, or to assume that the power of the keys either places one man's soul at the arbitrary dis- posal of another, or can alter the relation of a man's soul to God apart from any appropriate change in that soul itself. No doubt, in one sense, he who can remit can also retain ; he whose inter- vention is the rightful instrument to convey, has by the force of the words a power also, in some sense, to withhold. Absolution, Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, if they may be given, may also be re- fused. But God is not tied by the imperfection, or sin, or default, of His instruments. A delegated authority is not the less real in its own sphere, because it is void whenever, either positively or negatively, it oversteps the will of Him Who dele- gates it. And Almighty God, from Whom alone comes the whole blessing when rightly ministered and rightly received, as He does not make His gift depend upon the goodness of the minister, so does

48 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

not allow the withlioldiiig of the gift to depend upon that minister's sin, or neglect, or default.

Finally, it is no new observation, but it is a con- clusive one, that almost every analogy of the deal- ings of God with man throws its shield over the prin- ciple of tying God's most precious gifts ordinarily to human ministries. The dependence of children upon parents, of every man upon his neighbour, of the moral and mental conditions of all men upon the several places and times and the varying social conditions of their respective births into the world, the very providence which gives us the best of all knowledge, the knowledge of Christ Himself, not by an equal communication of equal knowledge made at once with hke power and clearness to all alike, but as spreading fitfully and laboriously by the irregular efforts of human will and abihty under every conceivable variety of effectiveness or the reverse, — these and like analogies cut short all antecedent moral difficulty in the case, and prove indisputably that Almighty God does so trammel Himself (if men will needs call it so) as to deal with man through man in the world and in the Church ahke. And if we turn from analogies to results, at least it is no want of charity to look to the special type of humble and self-forgetting devo- tion which the appointed Church system of thought and doctrine has ever produced; to point to the contrast between the devotional books to which either school has given birth, and to the abundant

AS A DOCTRINE 49

crop of helps to personal religion which, spring up always wherever Church principles have taken root ; and to remember, that while even formahsm is scarcely worse than spiritual pride and self- delusion, abundant signs indicate that the Church system is the rightful and fostering home of hu- mility and of reverence.

But, again (2), it is said that the entire system of sacraments and of a priestly office does engender formalism; that it tends to make men trust to mechanical acts done by another, in lieu of vital religion within themselves. Now undoubtedly all men are tempted to substitute some easier thing for the daily self-control of a truly godly hfe, and outward acts take their place among other such substitutes. But the objection proves too much. Another man's acts, no doubt, are outward forms to the object of those acts. But all forms are not formal. And some forms are unavoidable. And forms are not the only substitute with men for vital religion. And the abuse of a thing is no argument against the thing itself. In truth, it is impossible either to preserve, or even to have, a healthy religion without clothing it in outward forms ; as impossible, practically, as it is to think without words, or indeed to think in any other than the words that happen (however artificially) to be the particular tongue of the thinker. And the real question lies, not between forms and no forms at all, but between forms authorized and forms

E

50 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

unauthorized; nor again between priests and no priests, but between priests whom God has com- missioned, and teachers whom men have " heaped to themselves." If any one really thinks the merely mechanical participation of the Sacrament at the hands of a right minister to be of value to his soul, of course he is very wrong. Assuredly the like kind of participation at the hands of one who is no minister at all, is equally useless or worse, with the additional disadvantage of being a sacrilesfe as well. And formahsm attaches itself quite as readily to the inventions of men as to the institutions of God. It belongs quite as much to the recollection of the past moment of conversion as to that of the past rite of Baptism, and to the hearing of a sermon as to the mechanical partaking of the Lord's Supper. And it changes all alike into outward and empty things, if they are severed from present moral influence. Certainly, of the two, that which has the promise of God's grace, can scarcely, for that reason, be more formal than that which man has invented. And that which comes from the man himself, and looks as though it were his own, is far more likely to engender spiritual pride, than that which is confessedly a gift — the act of God from beginning to end — giving strength to those who in themselves have none, and received as an act of free and undeserved mercy from God.

No doubt, there has been occasionally a tone of

AS A DOCTRINE 51

thouglit, colouring the defence of the ministry, and in particular of Episcopacy, which has repelled men of devout temperament rather than sound judg- ment. The dry assertion of one ruler as against many, treated as an historical fact, or again of priestly power, severed from any spiritual use of the ministry, wears, no doubt, an au^ of formalism. The ofl&cial technicality, severed from the thought of the living grace which it is meant to convey, shocks earnest minds : especially if not over hum- ble, and apt to take their own f I'st impressions of fitness as the one standard of Divine truth to which they are disposed to yield submission. But a system is not to be confounded with the tone of some of its defenders. Neither can it be needful to argue at length, that they (if there be any) who in their own thoughts evacuate God's mysteries of spiritual life, while they defeat the purpose of those mysteries for themselves, and may be a scandal to weak brethren besides, yet cannot alter God's ordinances, or defeat His grace to others.

II. But to pass from an outward ministry in rela- tion to those who are its objects, to the same in relation to its subjects — from the members of the Church at large to the clergy in particular. And here we are again met by an unfair and unsound contrast between the inward call and the outward ordination : unfair, because it opposes two things which (as the Church holds quite as much as any dissenters) ought to go together, and unsound, be-

E 2

52 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

cause it is based upon an inadequate conception of the ministerial office itself. It is, first of all, an ad captandum argument ; an inference from the short- comings of individual men to the detriment of a general principle; and from palpable and imme- diate results, or want of results, to the denial of a doctrine. And it is also based in effect upon a Hmitation of ministerial functions to a purely human sphere. Of course it is easy to point to or imagine men, burning with zeal to save souls, quahfied by learning and ability to preach, and gifted with the earnest and single heart and the winning temper and unwearied perseverance, that draw other souls to love and fear Him whom they themselves love and fear ; and to contrast with these the pitiable and useless repulsiveness of a mere official, who treads mechanically a routine of heartless forms; and then to ask, what the laying on of the right hands, or indeed the laying on of hands at all, could add to the former, or what else it is with the latter but a mockery and a pretence. But the Church at all times, and our own branch of the Church in terms so strong that men sometimes demui' to them, has required the inward call as well as the outward appointment. And they who seek the latter while they have not the former, are doubtless a scandal to others, and do fearful wrong to them- selves, but cannot commit the Church to thai which the Church condemns. And besides this, the very assumption that an inward call is sufficient,

AS A DOCTRINE 53

betrays a disbelief of the real character of the ministry. If all that is required were indeed narrowed to merely natural powers af persuasive- ness, or of government, or of counsel, — ^if we struck out " the benefit of absolution," and left only " ghostly counsel and advice," — a conscious- ness of the possession of such natural powers, and of the earnest will and power to exercise them, might supply sufficient qualification, although hardly even so a sufficient sanction, for the assump- tion of the office. It would remain still scarcely justifiable or reverent in men to speak for God, when God had not sent them; but at least they would have the capacity to discharge the office which they had arrogated to themselves. But if God give gifts by His ministers, how can any one claim the power to dispense those gifts to whom it has not been given ? A man is not sent unless some one send him. An ambassador cannot efiec- tively negotiate a treaty without credentials, any more than he can conclude it without a ratification. I^either is a messenger one who repeats a state- ment that he has heard, but one who is com- missioned from him who sends the messaofe to deliver it as a message. And a steward must first receive of his master's goods, before he can dispense to others their proper portion of them. The answer, that " Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye ? " is one surely that ought to make men both shrink from venturing uncalled

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

upon tilings sacred, and feel tlie need of God's sanction to tlieir labours, if they would expect a blessing to rest upon them. An outward ordina- tion at the hands of one empowered to ordain, is plainly the appropriate correlative of a real ministry. The grace of God conveyed as He wills to convoy it, can alone, by the very nature of the case, make the fittest of men into a really autho- rized minister of God's gifts. And if there be others more or equally fit, their fitness can no more supply the needful authority and confer the office upon them, than does the fitness of a man to be an ambassador of itself constitute him such. Meanwhile it remains to be added, first, that after all the one question is, not what ought or might be expected to be, but what is, the ap- pointed Apostolic or Scriptural way of access to the ministry ; and, next, that in respect to moral influences, the outward call, transmitted from Christ Himself through His appointed ministers, supphes precisely those helps and protections to human infirmity, which in its absence are often sadly lacking. It furnishes (1) a wholesome check upon self-deception and fanaticism ; (2) a safeguard of order ; and (3) a healthy source of humility to those who feel the awful character of that call, and of strength to those who would otherwise shrink from an office of which the dis- charge is so difficult and the issues so momentous, and, lastly, of reverent comfort to the humble-

AS A DOCTRINE 55

minded minister, conscious of his own unwortlii- ness, but strong in the strength of Him "Who thus deigns formally and expressly to work through his weakness.

III. If we turn from the minister himself to the Church whereto he ministers, an objection of a like character and of a hke one-sidedness and misconception meets us here also. A succession of faith is opposed to a succession of order. And the question is asked, of what importance it can be, whether we are linked to the Apostles by the outward chain of a transmitted ministry, provided we are so linked by an identity of faith. The answer is obvious. Christianity is something more than a philosophy or a set of opinions ; which if we hold correctly, there is nothing else that signifies. And even if it were this (as it is) and this only (as it is not), an organized Church is a more effective instrument for the transmission of truth than the incompact school of a philosophical sect. Doubt- less the Church exists, among its other highest pur- poses, for the transmission of a true faith. But what if an organized transmission of orders be among the conditions actually necessary, upon the whole and in the ultimate result, to enable it to fulfil this very purpose ? Valid orders, no doubt, have not always carried with them an uncorrupt faith. Yet precisely there where valid orders have been want- ing, has the faith also been most impaired or failed altogether, as with Socinian or Unitarian

56 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

communities. And taking a broad view of the whole case, the faith has been, humanly speaking, preserved at all, solely by the existence as a whole of the Church ; and the Church as a whole has been held together compactly by the very fact of its transmitted orders. The faith has become corrupt in this or that part of the Church, no doubt : but had there been no Church, it must be very seriously doubted whether there would have been any where any faith, or any inward life to rise up from within and recover the faith half lost ; and had there been no ordained clergy, it must be still more seriously doubted whether there would have still been any Church. And however this maybe, — if to be a Christian man is not simply to hold a particular belief, but to be the subject of God's work of grace ; and if the work of God's grace be wrought, not merely through separate individual prayer or act, but through incorporation into the body of Christ's Church ; then it plainly becomes a very serious question where the Church is to be found, and whether the transmission of orders within it be not an ordinary condition of its exist- ence. And if it be, then a succession of order is of importance as well as a succession of faith. No doubt, when the two are unhappily placed in opposition, and the question is not of what is absolutely right or best, but of a choice between surrendering one or other, men may be rightly, because unavoidably, driven to choose the latter

AS A DOCTRINE hi

before the former. There are truths, plainly, the loss or denial of which would find no remedy or compensation in the retention of an otherwise valid, but (in this case, by the supposition itself,) heretical ministry. But a valid ministry is gene- rally necessary, none the less. The outward in- struments of grace are by their very nature subor- dinate in all cases to the grace itself which is ministered by them. They are no substitutes for it. They are worse than useless, if grace goes not with them. Neither are they the exclusive, or in themselves and mechanically the necessary, chan- nels of it. And it is, or may be, given apart from them where they cannot be had. It is so given, we may trust, upon the broad principle, that moral right overrules positive ordinances, wherever ne- cessity, or ignorance, or inveterate prejudice, or the inability to obtain such ordinances save as mixed up with things fundamentally evil, have debarred men from them. And if ever the choice is forced upon men between the loss of them and the acceptance of false doctrine, there can be no question but that the loss of privilege is a less evil than the commission of sin, and the forfeiture of outward communion less deadly than the sacrifice of truth ; and that it is better to suffer wrong, than to do it. But it remains still no less both true and a truth of deep concern to men's souls, that if God has appointed a definite way of both securing truth and transmitting grace, it is at once a plain duty, and

58 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

a comfortable source of assurance, and a pledge to the recipient of the falfilment of God's promises, that he should seek that truth and those gifts where God has deposited them.

IV. But another plausible presumption weighs still more with many minds. A doctrine that con- stitutes a Church by the condition of an Apostolical ministry, and determines the question of commu- nion or the opposite, not by the presence or absence of the love of Christ, but by the possession or the want of a vahd ministry, is supposed to be self-condemned. It includes within the line of acceptance all those who belong to Churches or- ganically complete but doctrinally corrupt, and those also who are dead or ungodly members of any such Church ; while it excludes all, whatever vital religion they may have individually, who are severed from the integrity of Church order. Yet here, too, as before, the misconception arises simply from a lack of belief in the truth. It rests upon a denial of the general necessity of belonging at all to the one visible Church upon earth. If the fitness of joining this or that body of Chris- tians depended upon nothing more than upon such considerations as (for instance) the moral effect of living among each, so that a man were free upon his own judgment to choose whatever communion ho thought most favourable to his spiritual hfe, and to join that at his own pleasure; — if it were not, on the contrary, an integral part of the Gospel of Christ,

AS A DOCTRINE 59

that individual Christians be joined to Him in His Church ; and this, an outward and visible Church set up here upon earth by Himself; — then it would, no doubt, be an unjustifiable dividing of Christians, one from another, upon a principle, which in that case would be utterly indifferent, to rank the Church on one side and sects on the other. There would indeed be then no sects, because (in any valuable sense of the word) there would be no Church. And they who are swayed by the motive in question as though it were unanswerable, are right, of course, in rejecting things indifferent as grounds for se- paration between Christian men. Their error lies in holding Church communion to be a thing indiffer- ent. Yet truth is none the less to be held fast, because there are good men who unhappily for themselves do not hold it ; least of all, truth that forms part of the elementary creed of Christendom. The Hmits of a rightly organized Church are, doubt- less, not the limits of Christian love, or of sympathy with that which is really good although held to- gether with error, any more than they will be hereafter the limits of the Church triumphant in heaven. But love and sympathy are not to obliterate the boundary marks of truth. We who adore our blessed Lord as God, may well appreci- ate goodness nevertheless in Unitarians (so called) ; but objectors of the class we are considering could not themselves, for that, think it allowable to join with Unitarians in Church communion. And

60 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

SO, altliougli in a lower degree, we who believe in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and regard communion with that Church as necessary if it may be had, are neither precluded from recog- nizing with heartiness the grace of God in those who unhappily deny that truth, nor bound to allow or approve either of sin or of other (and it may be worse) error in those who are so far right as to have retained Church communion ; and yet cannot but regard such denial as in the abstract sinful and wrong. Exaggerated worship of the blessed Virgin may perhaps sever men more widely, in the matter of sympathy, from any who practise it, than the sin of schism ignorantly committed. But it leaves schism a sin still. And if it is a sin, and a very serious sin, then we may not act as if it were not. And can we deem it other than serious, with the fearful leverage before our eyes that this very sin gives to wickedness and unbehef ; or even the power drawn from it by that very communion from which such objectors chiefly shrink ? Lastly, that the hollow or ungodly Churchman should be still in outward communion with the Church, is simply in accordance with the express teaching of our Lord Himself: — teaching, let it be added, which im- plies, unanswerably, that visible organization of His Church, which draws with it the necessity of be- longing to the Church ; and which condemns as un- answerably the gloss that is at the bottom of the misconception we are here considering, — the gloss

AS A DOCTRINE 61

that explains away the Church into an invisible communion, composed of those who, however out- wardly differing, are now true servants of their Lord, and shall be hereafter members of the Church in heaven.

There is then no presumption, but the con- trary, against the principle of the general necessity of an outward ministry, deriving supernatural powers from Christ Himself, through His Apostles, by outward laying on of hands. Such an appoint- ment is in harmony with the true character of the Gospel of Christ, as a supernatural system whereby men are saved through a spiritual union with Christ, given to them of His own free gift by His appointed instruments, and not created by their own act for themselves. It is one also in harmony with other Gospel truths. It is suitable to the ordinary pro- vidence of God, and to the nature of man. And it results in moral helps and benej&ts, such as flow from no other scheme of man's salvation.

y. But it still remains to consider the like fitness in the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, in the precise point indicated by the words. An outward ministry administering outward sacraments is one thing : we have now to consider such a minis- try as conditioned by the necessity of an outward continuity from the Apostles. And the need of such a continuity involves the farther need of an historical proof of it as a fact. Is it reason- able, then, either to make the salvation of a

62 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

man's soul even remotely dependent upon (not one but) a series of facts, in themselves of no moral import at all ; or to suspend it in any degree, however slight, upon that which requires a com- pHcated proof at best, and is alleged, however igno- rantly, to be incapable of proof at all ? If indeed a ministry is necessary, and if neither the words of Scripture, nor the practice of Apostles as there recorded, recognize any other mode of constituting ministers than the laying on of hands by Bishops, themselves similarly constituted, and so back to Apostles themselves ; and if the very Scriptural principle, that " no man taketh this honour to him- self, but he that is called of God," sends us back of necessity to the same one source of all rightful ministry : then it is of no consequence what difficulties may be in the way. There can be no ministry save where the Apostles have lodged the power of appointing one. Let us see, how- ever, that the mode which they actually have appointed, is really not opposed to, but in ac- cordance with, the ordinary providence of God and His methods of communicating supernatural gifts to men.

1. Fu'st, then, it is not only not improbable, but exceedingly likely, that it would please God to connect the gift of His grace with a series of historical facts, let them be ever so much destitute in themselves of direct moral import. Pascal's well-known saying is true in theology as well as

AS A DOCTRINE 63

in secular things. Mankind is so intimately bound together into one body, that any historical fact, however apparently small and however remote in time or country from ourselves, may nevertheless exercise a very material influence upon the moral and spiritual conditions of our own lives ; at the least in the nature of an out- ward condition, modifying the circumstances with which we have to deal, and even the inward powers whereby we have to deal with those cir- cumstances. And if we confine ourselves to purely theological relations, it has certainly been the character of every revelation of God to man from the beginning, that it has been bound up with a long and complicated and at first sight often apparently irrelevant history. It is no new thing, in revelation any more than in nature, that the salvation and healthy spiritual state of indi- vidual souls should be connected with a con- tinuous outward organization, which must needs have an objective history because it has an ob- jective existence. The historical form of the Bible and the historical form of the Church may well run parallel with each other ; and this in the matter of orders, as in many broader points of doctrine. Just as the political inter-relationships which bind men into an involuntary dependence upon the suc- cessive developments of historical facts affecting them, and the family inter-relationships which bind up children by the past lives of parents or grand-

64 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

parents, may well shelter both Church and Bible by the analogy of secular things. It is indeed, with the Christian Church, no longer a single locality for God's worship, and a single family to supply His priests, and a single nation to be His people. But the typical resemblance holds good in the way of analogy between the Jewish and Christian Church in these points. The facts of a kingdom spiritual but visible, and of a government of that kingdom transmitted though not inherited, and of an historical identity between the successive periods of that kingdom wrought by a continuous and permanent organization, are, by the testimony of Holy Scripture and by the creed and practice of the Early Church, among the resemblances and not the differences between the earher and later Churches of God. That Church is one vineyard, taken from its first cultivators whose sin had for- feited it, to be given to others who should re- tain their privilege by rendering its fruits in due season. It is one body, of which Christ is the Head. And all are to be baptized by one Spirit into that one body, and to retain communion there- with by being partakers of that one Bread which is the communion of the Body of Christ. It is a single city built upon the foundation of Apostles and of Prophets. And the one Holy CathoHc Church intervenes in the Creed, — as an article of faith, not (assuredly) as the bare recognition of an historical fact, — as a Divine institution, not a mere meaning-

AS A DOCTRINE 65

less assertion that Ohristians exist in the world, — between the Holy Spirit, Whose instrument it is, and the blessings of forgiveness of sin and eternal Ufe, which by it as by an instrument the Holy Spirit conveys to man.

2. Nor does the farther fact present a different character, that Apostohcal Succession requires a comphcated proof. In one sense it does so, in another it is a palpable fact ; as much a matter of moral certainty as is the actual appointment by the rightful authority, of Ministers of State, or of Judges, or of Magistrates. And not only in this narrower point, but in the whole field of religious knowledge, the case is the same. Theology, as it is the most subtle of sciences in its subject- matter, so is the widest in the range of informa- tion requisite in order to study it aright. And a sound and deep theology is the necessary aliment of a sound religious belief. Yet a morally suffi- cient religious behef is within reach of every one, where such a theology exists, without study of that theology save in proportion to the education of each. There are short roads and practical methods to render knowledge of all sorts practi- cally available to the mass of men, provided only that the sohd and thorough science in each case underhe the process and guide it aright.

Nor is the case different if we pass from the question of compHcation to that of certainty ^ No

^ Two objections have been advanced against the certainty

P

66 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

human being doubts the fact of the actual ordina- tion of any clc "jyman officiating in our Church, and much less of any Bishop, although there has now and then occurred the case, among some myriads of presbyters, of an impostor ; and that impostor, let it be added, has been commonly detected. Yet this belief is not founded upon actual inspection of

of the succession, which claim notice only because some one has actually advanced them. One, that " probably some chore- piscopi were not Bishops." Every scholar knows that according to the evidence as it is now held to stand, " probably" they were all Bishops ; but whether so or not, they did not usually join in ordaining any but the minor orders, not even presbyters or deacons, much less Bishops ; and even if they did ever join in consecrating a Bishop, and supposing for argument's sake they were not always Bishops themselves, it is ludicrous to suppose that they either lasted as an order long enough, or were sufficiently numerous, or so exclusively arrogated consecration of Bishops to themselves, as that the fact should throw even a shadow of suspicion over consecrations generally. The second objection is even more ludicrous ; viz. the possible "want of inten- tion " in some pre-Reformation Bishops : i. e. that without any outward sign of his or their real purpose, and in the midst of an outwardly formal and complete performance of the rite of conseci'ation, the officiating Bishops (for it must be all of them to make the argument hold at all) inwardly and surreptitiously lofrained from intending to minister that rite. The objector himself docs not, of course, believe that such a defect could invalidate the orders conferred. It would be hard to interpret even the Council of Trent as insisting upon intention in this sense ; although some extreme schoolmen certainly have refined themselves into subtleties which imply it. And it hardly needs saying, that no one in the Church of England holds any such belief. Assuredly there is no need of argument to show the futility of the position in itself. "Intention," in the only sense of the word worthy of serious discussic:!, will recur iu a. later chapter.

AS A DOCTRINE 67

tlie record of ordination in eacli several case. It rests upon the overwlielming presumption arising from tlie undoubted doctrine of the Churcli, from her known practice, from the fixed behef of all her members in the necessity of such ordination, from the fact that Bishops are expressly appointed in order to ordain, and do habitually and notoriously both ordain, and on proper occasions ascertain the fact of previous ordination ; not to add, in our own case, from the law of the land, which is imperative upon the subject. It would be as much an act of insanity if serious, or of impertinence if not, to demand an actual inspection of the Queen's commission to a particular magistrate, habitually acting as such, before admitting his jurisdiction, — supposing there were no extraordi- nary or personal ground for the demand in the special case, — as to hesitate to accept the fact of the ordination of any particular clergyman, under the like circumstances, without actual investigation and direct proof. . d this presumption extends back to the beginning as regards the Church. From the beginning there has been within the Church the hke invariable practice, with the like stress and sense of obhgation enforcing it as a simple matter of course. The care, e. g. of Eusebius, to mark the actual succession in each of the chief sees, is but a specimen of the nature of the evidence of Church history on the subject. The unhesitating assumption of the succession,

F 2

68 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

without even the semblance of a suspicion that any one did or could doubt it, by such writers as Ireneeus and Tertulhan, may exemplify in like manner the tone of the earhest (as it is also that of all down to the latest) of Church theologians. And ^\^hen we take into account, in addition to this presumption, the multiplication of the Hnks of ordination, increasing in geometrical ratio as one traces them back, which arises from the practice (broken only in certain countries and at certain times, and marked as all but universal by the very speciahty wherewith the exceptions are noticed) of requiring at least three ^ Bishops to every conse- cration; and when to this we add the constant inter- communion of the whole Church down to the great schism of East andWest, so that any possible failure in one part of the Church was sure to be com- pensated by the unbroken succession of another ; the only reasonable inference is, that (apart from particular cases, if special cause for doubt or in- quiry is any where alleged) a man might as fairly doubt of the regular transmission of orders in the Church, even if names and details and written documents could not be produced, as he could doubt, with a like absence of a similar kind of evidence, of the natural succession of his own parents and grandparents and so on, from the

* The Apostolic both Canons and Constitutions, require " three, or at least two." And this, too, was only in lieu of all the Bishops of the province.

AS A DOCTRINE 69

present time back to the beginning. As a matter of evidence tlie physical necessity is scarcely a stronger presumption in the one case than the moral necessity is in the other. And to this pre- sumption it remains to add, that direct evidence does exist to a very remarkable extent : inasmuch as there is actual testimony traceable, proportionate in kind to the particular time and place, to the consecration of almost all diocesan and many suffragan Bishops, with consecrators' names, and date, and place, back to the sixth, and in less detail to the fifth, or even fourth centuries, in nearly every European (and I believe also Eastern) diocese; while there are Hsts of the names of the Bishops in the chief Sees, Eastern and Western, reaching back to the Apostles themselves. Lastly, let it be fairly said, that even if in any one case accident or fraud surreptitiously imposed upon the Church a Bishop or a priest not really ordained, it is but material- izing what is really moral, to doubt that God would supply to the innocent what they rightly sought and reasonably thought that they had.

VI. For if, further, there are any who so distort the doctrine of succession as to hold it to make the grace of orders to be the subject of a sort of mechanical transmission, with all the consequences that would flow from such a view ; surely it need hardly be said that the law of the spiritual gifts of God is in all cases moral and not physical, while those gifts are not for that the less but the more

70 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

real. An unintentional defect cannot defeat God's grace for those wlio perhaps do not even know the existence of that defect, and certainly have had no share in causing it. And the general intention of the Church, in the judgment of even common sense, covers mechanical, or technical, or unconscious de- fault. Even if an impostor continued for a while undetected, it may be necessary for human law to solder the rent by a subsequent enactment as re- spects merely legal consequences ; but does any one even dream of supposing, that they who sin- cerely believed themselves to be partaking of valid sacraments, did not really all the while receive the grace which they for their part duly sought ? To say nothing, also, here of what constitutes a real necessity, but assuming that, by such a necessity, there were no rightful ministry (or it may be none at all) within reach ; no one certainly can reasonably argue, that Christian laity do for that lose the pro- mised grace of God. Tertullian may have been a Montanist when he wrote the words, but they are true words nevertheless ; spoken too as they are by one, who maintains the grace and obligation of a due ordination as emphatically as any one ; nay, by one who could hardly have written those very words themselves, had not that grace and obligation been acknowledged and valued (even almost over- valued) principles throughout the Church of his time : — 'Where clergy cannot be had, there is still a Church there' to the effect of the salvation of souls,

AS A DOCTRINE 71

' albeit only three exist to form it, and they laymen.' Wliere the authorized ordinance is out of reach, there God's grace goes with the inward spirit alone; and whether in act or no, at least in effect, the layman is " his owtq priest " — " ipse tinguis, ipse offers, ipse tibi sacerdos es solus." And this upon the broad principle, that ultimately, as the one absolutely and finally necessary thing, and as that which sacraments are given in order to produce, the faith of the individual soul itself is the condi- tion of its salvation; and though the means are necessary when they may be had, yet, if they can- not be had, God can, and from His mercy and good- ness we may be sure that He will, work the end without the means ; so that they, whose fault it is not, may not, through unavoidable circumstances, lose His gifts. Yet it remains no less certain, that appointed outward means are necessary where they may be had, however the want of them may be condoned where they cannot; no less certain, that it is a sin to shght them wilfully, and a grievous loss to the soul to neglect or reject them, and a comfortable ground of assurance to enjoy them, and a plain duty to cling to them ; no less certain than it is (e.g.) that moral laws, too, are generally binding upon men, although individual and really unavoidable incapacity of keeping them may excuse particular cases of even their violation, and yet leaves the inviolable sanctity of the law itself unimpeached and unaltered.

72 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION

VII. There remains, lastly, tlie invidious, and, at bottom, sceptical argument from consequences : the argument parallel to that, which denies bap- tismal grace on the ground of the goodness of those who are heathens or unbaptized, and of the wickedness of many baptized Christians, and which assumes that the maintainers of Apostolical Suc- cession must in consistency deny the existence of the grace of God at all outside the limits of the duly organized Church. The reasoning is that of men who regard God's spiritual gifts as if they were purely mechanical forces, and God's laws for dis- pensing those gifts as if they were exactly analogous to His physical laws. Many a man defeats God's grace, but his doing so is no proof that he never had it. Many a man cuts himself off from God's appointed means of grace, yet with such moral excuse as that the mercy of God still extends to him that grace itself. A broad view indeed upon a large scale may discern the larger coincidence of the fruits of the Spirit with the fuller possession of spiritual privilege. And it must be said, not censoriously or boastingly but with a humble re- cognition of God's goodness, that the broad history of each community of Christians is actually marked by a degree and purity of belief, and by a tone and depth of spirituality, proportioned to its nearness to, or distance from, the full possession of God's truth and order, and characterized by speciahties arising from its own special position. But a behef

AS A DOCTRINE. 73

in this involves no nnchristian condemnation of individual Christian men in opposition to plain facts. There are good men upon all sides. There are earnest Christian men in every sect that cling to the broad foundations of Gospel truth. And the Churchman often may well feel, that he himself must watch and labour and pray if he would rival many a dissenter in spirituality or in holiness. But the truth is unaltered none the less ; nor is the vantage ground both of faith and of grace diminished, upon which the Churchman stands and by which he will be judged.

CHAPTER IV

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL,

IT is no part of the intention of this paper to attempt to do once more what has been often and thoroughly done already over and over again. But when scholars and divines can be found who at this time of day can think Apostolic Succession to depend upon strained arguments respecting the Scriptural usage of the words Bishop and Pres- byter, it is desirable at least to point out that the very opposite is really the case. So far is such an assertion from holding good, that if ever there was an instance of a plain cause needlessly mysti- fied, it would seem to be that of the Scriptural evidence to the true doctrine of the ministry, to its proper powers and to its several orders, through the very attempt which is now alleged by some to be its main support. The one thing chiefly needful to make the truth clear, is simply the straightforward acceptance of what is manifestly the plain usage of the New Testament, viz. the employment of eVtor/coTros and TrpearfivTepo<; as equi- valent terms, one of office and the other of age,

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 75

as the Fathers repeatedly tell us ; or it may be (as has been conjectured), the former the Gentile, the latter the Jewish name. And the chief cause of apparent difficulty appears to arise from the forced glosses, that have been needlessly and mis- chievously devised in old times in order to escape admitting their equivalence. A cause that should really require us, for instance, to imagine Stct/covos to mean priest in the New Testament, would be as hopeless as that which has led a modern clergyman to try to persuade us of a like confusion of mean- ing in the Prayer Book. And to assert that, in the times of Timothy and of Titus, there were in the Churches of Ephesus and of Crete Bishops, in the modern sense, and deacons, but no priests, seems to be as suicidal as the counter-assertion that there were priests and deacons, but no Bishopr. While certainly the case must be desperate, not- withstanding high authority for either device, that should really drive any man to affirm, either that the presbytery of 1 Tim. iv. 14 means the College of the Apostles, or an assembly of diocesan Bishops ; or that St. Paul made those Ephesians, who were only priests when he summoned them, actually to become (in the special sense) Bishops, by the act of reminding them that the Holy Ghost had made them so. But once take the clear usage of Scripture for granted, and rise of course also above the childishness that cannot distinguish words from things ; and then, it must needs be

76 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

humbly said, Scripture teaching becomes plain and certain upon the subject. There is no Church there mentioned that has not an order of Clergy as a matter of course, and one also appointed by the Apostles, so soon as that Church is fairly planted and settled. And of that order of Clergy no one can doubt, that as a rule it in due time included deacons, and that these and all others its members were subordinate to presbyters (called also, as we have said, at that time Bishops). And no one, reading the New Testament fairly, can doubt further, that both those deacons and those presbyters were subject to a higher and an individual ruler, viz. to an Apostle, who him- self acted in concert with the College of Apostles ; and farther still, as the Church became settled, and apportioned into several charges, to one Apostle in each several charge ; and as the charge of that Apostle became enlarged, and it became also necessary to provide against the death of Apos- tles, to one special deputy of that Apostle in a district assigned to him, who was therein em- powered to do what no mere presbyter ever is empowered to do, viz. to rule the whole Church in that district, presbyters inclusive, and to or- dain. In a word, no man, it seems, could doubt, that, in the modern sense of the terms, "from the Apostles' time there have been three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and that " no man might presume

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 77

to execute any of them," except (besides other qualifications) "by public prayer with imposition of hands he was approved and admitted thereunto by lawful" (i.e. "Episcopal") "authority."

The first remark to make, in proceeding to summarize, and to ofier a few comments upon, this evidence, is an obvious one, and one also not likely at the present time to call forth objection. No reasonable man, it is plain, will expect to find in the New Testament a formal and technical statement, complete and precise, and expressed in the language which later needs generated, respecting discipline and government, any more than respecting doctrine. They who deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, because (1) the word itself, and (2) a technically complete theological account of the truths it signifies, are not in the New Testament, may also con- sistently deny the Apostolic origin of Episcopacy, and the ministry as an institution Divinely ap- pointed and endowed with special gifts of grace ; on the grounds that, (1) the word Bishop does not mean in the Bible what we now mean by a Bishop, and (2) that the teaching of Scripture respecting the powers of the ministry is left to be gathered from allusions and inferences, or from the unexpressed ground of (so to say) casual exhortations or directions, or occurs only in a fragmentary and (humanly speaking) accidental way. And, conversely, they who deny Apostolic

78 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

Succession and Episcopacy upon sucli grounds, cannot logically refuse to deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity also. Both the one and the other class of reasoners overlook the plain, yet to modern readers (until recently) far from pal- pable fact, that the New Testament is a collec- tion of what with reverence must be described as occasional tracts or biographies, written by men who believed the Gospel and lived as mem- bers of the Church of Christ already, and to others who hkewise so beheved and Hved; and which is therefore framed, not for the purpose of teaching doctrine or discipline ah initio^ but either of putting upon record words and acts of our Saviour already currently known, or of cor- recting particular errors and enforcing particular truths. And they overlook also the fact, that a precise technical language, and the elaborate con- struction of complete dogmatic statements, do not belong to the commencement of a belief, but to those subsequent stages in its history when it begins to systematize from within, and is assailed by error from without. A sermon and a theological treatise do not teach the same doctrine in the same way. And a prayer or a religious biography may be essen- tially based upon, and imply, the Creed, without containing one technical term of theology. And, similarly. Church government in the time of (e. g.) St. Cyprian, and Church government as initiated by the Apostles, stand at the most in the same

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 79

kind of relation to one another as tliat in which the Creed of (say) Nice and Constantinople stands to that of Apostohc times. Certainly the Ne\T Testament consists, none the less, two-thirds of it, of to all intents and purposes Episcopal Charges, neither more nor less, viz. the Apostohc Epistles — guiding, as they do, current doctrinal controver- sies, or interfering authoritatively in matters of discipline ; — although the words Bishop or Bishop- ric occur throughout (save where applied to our Lord Himself) in relation to presbyters, with the one exception of the Apostolate or iTrto-Koinj of Judas. Neither does it diminish the weight of Scripture evidence to the proper hmitation of the ministering of the Word and Sacraments to their proper ministers, that it is gathered from allusions such as that to their stewardship of God's myste- ries, or from inferences such as those inevitably drawn from their Divinely given office of tending the flock of Christ, and of tending it as under-shep- herds to Christ Who is the Chief Shepherd, and as therefore holding an office analogous to His.

And this matter of Church government, more- over, must in the nature of the case have been a thing on the whole of gradual development, although we seem to find it nevertheless in all its essential parts almost immediately, and under the very shadow of the yet standing Temple. Still, independently of the difficulties arising from the relations of the Church to the at first co-existing

80 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

Jewish polity, and from the mixture in the Church itself of Jews and Gentiles, and as in itself a matter of necessarily gradual application to circumstances as they arose, and to Churches as they grew, and as they practically learned their own wants ; not only the narrative of the fact, but the fact itself must have been one gradually developed. And it is one therefore to be gathered from the entire tenor of the New Testament, and from many different parts of it, rather than expressed at once, in any one place, in its full form. It is possible, then, that (as DolHnger thinks) the Diaconate may wear the appearance of an afterthought, be- longing not to the appointment of the Seven, but to a far later date ; although the real probabihty seems to be, on the contrary, that (as Mosheim believes) it belonged to the very beginning of the Church, and that the period to which it is ordina- rily assigned was in truth the appointment for the first time, not of deacons, but of Hellenistic deacons. It is possible even, that with St. Jerome we may hold the Apostles to have been led, in the order of facts, by experience of actual schism, as at Corinth, to appoint diocesan Bishops ; although the statement is evidently a mere inference of his own, and the Scriptural facts are far more accurately re- presented by Dollinger's expression, that the Epis- copate was from the first latent in the Apostolate. But in either case we have simply the gradual development in fact of that which could only

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 81

in fact be gradually developed. And Apostolic authority gives its sanction to all alike, as the normal form of the Church, according to that which their inspired wisdom determined to be right and permanent. In truth indeed all three orders seem to have really and in effect existed from the beginning.

Gathered, then, from the Scripture, in no other way than that in which the customs and laws of classical nations are commonly and safely gathered from the allusions of classical writers — save that in the case of the Church the nature of the seal itself (so to say) may be confirmed by examining its impression, and the constructive Church platform of the Apostles verified by the actual Church plat- form of those whom the Apostles taught — ^Apos- tolical Succession, and all that it imphes, are simply the plain rendering into ecclesiastical system and ecclesiastical language of that which Scripture exhibits in fact. For how stands the case ? If we take for granted — as surely here we may — the visible and corporate nature of the Church of Christ upon earth, the one body of which all are to be members, and the fact of its possessing an appointed order of rulers^, the ques-

* That the Church at first and for some considerable period was so instinct with miraculous gifts as to dispense with ordinary rulers, seems inconsistent with the immediate mention of such rulers from the beginning in Jerusalem and in PamphyUa and Pisidia. It is quite true that some little time often elapsed between the preaching of the Gospel in

a

82 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

tions whicti remain are, (1) the source whence the appointment and powers of those rulers are de- rived ; (2) the number and several functions of the orders into which they are arranged ; and these will bring us to the provision made for their continuance ; and (3) the nature of those functions as bearing upon the essential necessity of a valid ministry to a properly constituted Church.

Now (1) it is undeniable that there is no one in- stance in the New Testament of the formal appoint- ment of any one member of any order of the ministry save by the Apostles, or by Apostolic delegation to a single person ; and no mention even, as it hap- pens, of the nomination of any person to receive such appointment save by Apostles, or by the Church through concession of the Apostles ; although such nomination is commonly left un- specified to any particular source. The grace of the ministry lound its proper human channel,

a place and its being known to have presbyters, and be- tween tbe fii'st making of converts and the actual settle- ment of a Church in point of fact under regular ministers. Nothing could be more natural, or indeed more unavoidable. And the first Corinthian Church may, it is just possible, have had no presbyters at the first for a like reason, when St. Paul addressed that first Epistle to them which dwells so fully upon gifts, and makes no mention of governors. But there is surely no authority in Scripture for any longer duration of a condition of things in any Church wherein each man did what was right in his own eyes, than simply this necessary unsettlement at its beginning. Of course, too, if we are to be ruled by those who are miraculously gifted, we must first bring back the miraculous gifts.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 83

not, assuredly, among those without the Church — the notion of a naturally inherent right of appointment residing in the Neros and the Domitians, and only suspended in their particu- lar case by the accident of their heathenism, is too preposterous to claim serious notice, — ^nor yet in the community of the Church at large, nor (still less) in any self-certified inward sense of fitness whereby an individual Christian, as it were, or- dained himself. It flowed through the Apostles ; and, in due time, through those also and those alone to whom the Apostles committed the office in their own stead ; and this, by formal laying on of hands. Surely it is too plain to an unbiassed reader to need proof, that the source of Church government cen- tred first of all in the Twelve, to whom our Lord Himself, in words plainly conveying a Divine grace, had committed it ; and that it was by them gradually divided, first, and from the very beginning of the actual Church, to presbyters — whose existence is taken for granted, with no mention of their first appointment — and then to deacons. The latter indeed, and the latter only, wear some slight appearance of being, so to say, an afterthought, superadded through circumstances — whether in the case of the seven, or possibly later still, but most probably earher — to the essential and original orders (or, if you please, two de- grees in one order) of Apostles (i. e. in our sense, Bishops) and presbyters. And it is no less plain,

G 2

84 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

that neither presbyters nor deacons could of themselves continue their own order by their own authority or power, and that when Apos- tles could not themselves undertake any longer the office of ordination in any particular district, they sent a special officer with special power to do that which the presbyters, who were there already, obviously could not do. It is " by means of" the laying on of St. Paul's hands, but only " with " that of the presbytery, that the grace of orders (doubtless of priestly orders) was com- mitted first of all to Timothy ^ And if the word X'^i'poToveo) does not signify laying on of hands by the necessary force of the word, it signifies by the necessary force of the context an act of St. Paul and Barnabas ^, where it is used of the appoint-

* St. Chrysostom simply argues, that the " presbytery " must have consisted of Bishops, because presbyters could not have joined in consecrating a Bishop. Take St. Paul to refer to Timothy's original ordination, probably at Lystra, and the difficulty vanishes : while it is equally Hkely that the ordination in 2 Tim. was to the Episcopate, and was by St. Paul himself and alone. That this is a natural sense for both passages, is undeniable, although no doubt it is not their necessary sense. 1 Tim. i. 18 ; iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6. Ac- cording to Bengel, the presbytery only " prophesied," and did not " lay on hands" at all. But the Greek barely admits this.

' The sending of Paul and Barnabas, in Acts xiii. 1, 2, by the prophets and teachers of Antioch, upon their mission to the Gentiles, was not, it need hardly be said, an ordaining of either Apostle : it was an extraordinary solemnity upon an extra- ordinary occasion. And that those who partook in it were already presbyters at the least is plain by the word Xccrovp- ■yovvTijiv in verse 2. Moreover, the text itself substitutes for the

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 85

ment of presbyters to the Asiatic Churclies. In a word, the appointment by the people of ministers for themselves, or the assumption of the ministry by a minister on his own authority, are things unknown to Scripture. The ministry we find there, is an independent gift, conferred by its own proper mode of transmission, which the Church receives, but does not make for herself.

But (2) what are the orders thus recognized? The usage of the word eVtWoTrot, as already said, undoubtedly identifies those so called — ^it would be to the injury, though not to the de- struction, of the Church case to deny it — with the irpecr^vTepoL or Trpo'CcrToifjievoL, or 'irpoeo-Tcore's or -qyovixevot, who are found as a matter of course in every Church, Jewish or Gentile, — of Jerusa- lem, of Pisidia and Pamphyha, of Thessalonica, of Ephesus, of Phihppi, of Crete, of the Hebrew Jews, of the Jews of the Dispersion, — ^under one name or the other ; and who seem to be only not named in the salutation of the Epistle to the Colossians, because Epaphras, who was to them SiaKovos tov XpiaTov, happened to be at the time with St. Paul himself. For although

precise word "ordain " the informal term " separate " (d^opto-aTc), i. 6. set apart to a particular mission persons ordained akeady. It may stand, therefore, for a piece of facetiousness, but it is no argument, to talk of a medley of presbyters or dissenting minis- ters or laymen (we will not repeat the names) assembling to- gether to a prayer-meeting in London, in order to ordain a Bishop, say for India, and to allege that this would be a fol- lowing of Scriptural precedent in the matter of ordination.

86 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

it were allowed to be possible, however utterly improbable, tliat the iniaKOTTOL of the Philippian Church, or again of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, might have been Bishops in the modern sense, each with his attendant deacon ; while it would still, upon that view, be in- explicable, upon what possible ground St. Paul should have so unaccountably omitted to provide for the order of presbyters in his pastoral charges, it would remain utterly out of the question to ima- gine a like meaning for, e. g. the presbyters who are also eVtcr/coTrot of Ephesus in the twentieth chapter of the Acts. But then what results from this ? Simply that the Church view of the ministry is unanswerably estabhshed. The natural and straightforward sense of the New Testament, upon this assumption, affirms the triple order of the ministry and none other ; with this sole difference of mere name, that Apostles are the Bishops, while presbyters, then as afterwards inferior in func- tions and office, still claimed as their own a share in the name that was in later times limited to the higher order. For, so taking the words, we have the presbyters and deacons of the Church of Jerusalem subject to the single Episcopate of St. James, so soon as the body of the Apostles became dispersed. We have the Churches of the circumcision elsewhere, with their presbyters, and doubtless deacons too, subject likewise to St. Peter, their " fellow-presbyter," but surely their Apostle

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 87

also : and those of the Gentiles similarly to St. Paul, here also the Apostle being their Bishop. And we may naturally go on to infer, that we should find the Churches of their own planting elsewhere to have been subject severally to each of the other Apostles as to their Bishop, had we any Acts of these Apostles to give us the information. So, too, it is at the least the interpretation that gives the fullest meaning to the words, which finds in Epaphroditus the "Apostle" of the Philippians, singled out apparently for a special message as St. Paul's "true yokefellow," the Bishop of that Church with its priests and deacons; and in Archippus, preferred to a special salutation in the Epistle to Philemon, and to a special in- junction to take heed to his ministry in the Epistle to the Colossians, both otherwise inexplicable, the Bishop of that Colossian Church also. While all objection to the proper Episcopate of Timothy or of Titus seems really to turn upon the assumption, that a Bishop once assigned to a special see could never afterwards leave either the country or the particular office; and, there- fore, that to find Timothy subsequently else- where than at Ephesus, conclusively negatives his Episcopate in that city : an objection indeed which recognizes his proper Episcopate, in that it seeks to evade the argument by only ques- tioning its permanence. And thus we are led further to perceive, that as the triple order was

88 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

the original, so it was to be the lasting, form of Church ministry; and that, as the Apostolic College had apportioned several charges to several Apostles, so each Apostle in his own charge went on to provide, in due time, and under like cii'cum- stances, for his own enlarged portion of the Church, by delegating his own special offices (so far as they belonged to the Church of all times) to other Apos- tles ; actually so called indeed at first (as it should seem), but in substance holding Apostolic powers (as above limited) throughout, although in time dropping the name. Here, then, is the provision, and the one provision, for (among other things) the continuance of the ministry. The differences of special function and power which mark out Timothy and Titus from all other presbyters as " Bishops" — and which indeed other presbyters could not have possessed ; for if they had, then to appoint Timothy and Titus as to a special charge, would have been superfluous — were plainly two at the least; the power in their own single persons of administering discipHne — and this over presbyters and deacons as well as others — and the power of replenishing the ranks of presbyters and deacons by new ordi- nations. And if the laying on of hands in 1 Tim. V. 22 means or includes (as it almost certainly does) confirmation, then we must add a third also, viz. the Apostolic power of confirming. In other words, as the Churches grew too large for the supervision in each charge of one Apostle, and

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 89

as the Apostles themselves felt the time of their own departure to draw near — and it may well be too, as they perceived by actual experience the certain result of schism and division where pres- byters were for a while without Apostolic super- intendence ; — each Apostle appointed others within portions of his own especial charge — as notably St. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus — not to be presbyters only, but above presbyters, and, in brief, to take the Apostle's place in all his per- manent offices in a portion of that overgrown charge; and empowered them, further, to hand over their commission in due time to other " faith- ful men," who should be in order their successors. And so we are brought to the date of the Book of the Revelation, when at least in that which had become the charge of one and the longest sur- viving Apostle, an dyyeXos*, or, as we term

* If one of these ayycXot had a wife, albeit a very evil one, as the most probable reading of Rev. ii. 20 affirms that he had, the question of their being individual human rulers is summarily- settled. And the reading at the very least shows what the cur- rent interpretation was on this point. But apart from this, all other interpretations are so forced, as to leave the Episcopate of these ayyeXot an established fact, even in the judgment of a Gibbon. A celestial angel would be an odd recipient of St. John's rebukes. And who can possibly imagine that any one would idealize the community of a Church into an angel, human or heavenly? To whom or from whom could it be a messenger? Whereas the Bishop is naturally (especially in the language of one thoroughly imbued with prophetic phraseology) described both as " messenger " and as " guardian " under the name of angel. Patristic interpretation also so interprets it in the Book of Reve- lation, and Hilary the Deacon even in 1 Cor. xi. 10.

90 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

him, Bishop, regularly governed and represented each diocesan Church. It may be added, by way of illustration, that with the office the name also of Apostle (as indeed Theodoret expressly affirms) appears to have become ex- tended at first beyond the Twelve, to those also who then shared and inherited their office, until the humbler title of Bishop in the hmited sense superseded it. That higher name is plainly ap- plied to St. Barnabas in the like official sense in which it is applied to St. Paul. Probably, as above said, it is applied in a like sense to Epaphroditus ; although no doubt in his case, as possibly also in 2 Cor. viii. 23, it may mean only "messenger." And in Rom. xvi. 7 it seems to mean a recognized order of the Christian ministry, who apparently were not the Twelve, yet were distinct from presbyters. It may be the case, also, that Apostles in the proper sense adopted the humbler title of presbyter, as e. g. St. Peter, and probably St. John, when speaking of themselves. But whatever is to be said of the name, the only reaUy important point is the fact, and of that there is in truth no fair question to be made.

3. But, then, what is the importance and the nature of the office so created, so ordered, and so transmitted ? And in what relation does it stand to the existence or functions of the Church herself? The answer is not far to seek. First, Apostohcal Succession through the Episcopate is

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 91

binding upon us as a positive institution of the Apostles. Next, it is in itself essential to the continuance of the ministry, and therefore in its proper sense of the Church. Lastly, it is of most deep concern to our souls, as preserving to us the rightful instrumentality whereby God is pleased to deal with us super- naturally through His Church. First and ob- viously, the ministerial ofl&ce is no question of accidentals or of temporary arrangements. It is not a matter, e. g., like love-feasts, or even like that more similar kind of office necessitated by Eastern habits, yet which we are just finding out to be expedient for ourselves, the order of deaconesses. It is one that deals with men on the part of God in things supernatural, although it does so in the way of outward minis- tration. And in such a case, upon what principle of reverence or obedience, or of concern for the safety of our own souls and those of our brethren, are we entitled either to disintegrate the Church of that which Apostles regarded as essential to it, or to reject one part of the precedent they have set us and accept another ? To tamper with the appointed order of the outward means of grace, is surely too dangerous to be indifierent. And to ac- cept the principle of a ministry, and then to alter it in substance in order to accommodate supposed modern exigencies, is as well an inconsistency that cannot last, as an irreverence towards Scripture

92 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

and the writers of Scripture tliat cannot be de- fensible. If we admit orders at all, then we must admit Episcopal orders. There are Churches mentioned in the New Testament where no express mention is made, at any rate in the first instance, of presbyters or deacons ; although the matter-of- course way in which the existence of these orders of the ministry is taken for granted wherever cir- cumstances lead to the mention of them, sufficiently shows their universality. But there is no one Church in the whole New Testament which is not plainly described as under Apostolic, i.e. Episcopal authority. There is no one Church where the point is at all referred to, which is not placed under sin- gle government, distinct from and above that of its presbyters, as the course of events required that Apostles themselves should pass on its super- vision to others, and as time enabled them to do so. And not only have we no right arbitrarily in such subject-matter to select one portion of Apostolic institutions for acceptance, and to pass by others at least equally certain and equally important — to accept presbyters and reject Bishops — but thewhole tenor of the Pastoral Epistles and of the New Testament throughout shows, that the part which men so reject is essential to that which they so accept; essential first to its good order and to the discipline of the Church, and next to its very existence. There is no provision what- ever in the New Testament either for the proper

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 93

and adequate administration of discipline, or for any continuance at all of the ministry, save as by the hands of Apostles, or of Bishops as successors of the Apostles. And if the well-being of the Church is concerned in the former of these things, assuredly its very being is nearly concerned in the latter. For, further still, the ministry is essential to the Church, not simply for order's sake, or as a positive institution of God, but as a part of the outward means by which God deals supernaturally with the souls of men through His Church. Minis- ters are ministers of Christ. They are not persons deputed by the congregation to perform certain acts as mere delegates of the congregation itself, chosen and authorized by the congregation which they represent. They are messengers — ayyekoi — sent and commissioned by Christ Himself through one whom He has empowered to send them ; and sent to bear Christ's message of pardoning and healing grace to the Church of which they themselves are a part, and in the name of that Church to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God Himself. They are stewards of God's mysteries ; — how can men ordi- narily expect to participate in those mysteries save through, or at least in connexion with, those whom God has made stewards of them ? They are am- bassadors of Christ, to pray men in Christ's stead to be reconciled to God; — of what practical value is a message conveying a promise, unless it be conveyed by one who has authority to be a

94 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

messenger ? They are overseers of the flock, whom the Holy Ghost has made so, in order that they may as shepherds feed that flock ; — can any one safely dispense with an appointment of the Holy Spirit ? They are labourers together with God in building up the hving stones of God's spiritual temple upon earth ; and to be judged by the Lord, not by man ; rulers who have authority to admo- nish, and the oversight each of his own " lot " among the Churches of Christ, with a power such as to tempt them to "lord it" over God's heritage ; under-shepherds of Him Who is the Chief Shepherd, and to Whose office, therefore, theirs is analogous, differing only as the deri- vative and instrumental differs from that which is its original and overruling source; shepherds bound to watch for souls, as having to give an account to God Who entrusted them to them ; stewards who have to dispense to each of the household within their charge the portion of the Master's goods which comes to each. Can a Church, indeed, without destroying itself, afford to put aside the appointed channels of ministries like these ? Lastly, they have a special gift (xa/Dto-jLta) for the discharge of their office, given them through laying on of hands, a gift which God alone can give, and which therefore they only can be confident of receiving who seek it where God has deposited the authority to convey it. And all these Scriptural descriptions do no more than

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 95

prove — what surely no sensible man could have doubted save under the cruel and unreasoning exigencies of polemical necessity — that the solemn commission given to the Apostles by the solemn act and word of the Saviour Him- self,— whereby to them was committed, with the direct gift of the Holy Spirit to enable them to discharge the trust, a delegated power of remit- ting or retaining sin, a power (let it be remem- bered) including the power of ministering the sacraments, which are among the means of re- mitting sin, — was no temporary gift, such as to confer an exceptional blessing upon one genera- tion of Christians and then to be withdrawn from all in time to come, but is continued until the end of the world in the rightly au- thorized ministers of Christ's Church, to whom Apostles handed it on, and in the rightful minis- try by their hands of the Word and Sacraments. And if all this be so, then we may indeed do well to remember that the means are subordmate to the end, and that as on the one hand the Almighty is not bound within His own ap- pointments, so on the other a delegated and a human ministry has no power beyond the over- ruhng and effective will and operation of Him Who delegates it. We may admit even, further, that a rightful power, including of course the asser- tion of its own validity, condemns, but does not of necessity exclude, and absolutely under all

96 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

circumstances nullify, all unlawful assumption of such power outside itself. But, as we reverence God's Word, and humbly desire to follow the path that He has marked out for us, we must remember also, that in His Church, as organized under a rightful ministry, and that ministry handed down from His Apostles, and so only, if we respect the testimony of Scripture, can we expect, with the confidence that God's promise gives, to find the ordinary channels of His saving grace. If that which the Apostles invariably in- stituted as an integral part of every settled Church, is needful by necessary inference to ourselves, — if that which they so instituted is, by their insti- tution and in accordance with our Saviour's own charge, the appointed outward instrument of con- veying the supernatural gifts of God to the mem- bers of His Church, — if the ministry, thus instrumental to so indispensable a purpose, receives its commission not from men, although through men, but from the Holy Ghost, — and if, lastly. Episcopal ordination is the one Apostolic way of perpetuating that ministry, — and if all this is the plain result of Scripture evidence, — then is the ApostoHcal Succession both an obligation and a necessity (ordinarily speaking, and after the manner and hmits of outward means) to all who would humbly seek to be Christians after the ApostoHc pattern. And even if we were to put the matter on the lowest ground, and to admit

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL 97

St. Jerome's theory, how can it be otherwise than most rash and most irreverent, to reject that which the Apostles (at the very lowest) appointed as the one safeguard against schism ? And do not flagrant and patent facts stare us in the face at this day, to prove that the Apostles were in the right ?

The evidence, then, and the importance of that ministry seem alike clear in Holy Scripture. On the one hand, the compromises which it has sometimes been the fashion to make — such as that the Apostles preached a Creed but did not institute a form of Church government; so that, in contrast with the Jewish Church polity, the Christian Church was left to choose its own form or forms of government, or to drift by force of circumstances into that which chanced; — or again, that Episcopacy at any rate is not so contained in Scripture as to be imperative, but is to be defended only on grounds of expediency, or of early but not ApostoHc precedent ; — must be set aside. As they are really not supported by the exaggerated contrast drawn between Judaism and the Gospel, so are they plainly contradictory to the New Testament, interpreted as sound rea- son would interpret it. It does seem as plain by Scripture, that the Church to which Christians are " to be added " was a visible organized body upon earth, as it is plain that there were Christians at all ; as plain, that the Apostles appointed a minis- try to rule that body, and gave to that ministry

H

98 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL

special supernatural gifts, and further ordained successors to themselves with a commission to transmit that ministry, as it is that they did any other act recorded of them ; as plain, that those successors were Bishops in the modern sense of the term, as it is that they had any successors at all; as plain, that the Bishops and presbyters (in the modern sense of the words), so ordained, were stewards of God's mysteries, and rulers under Christ of His Church, as it is that there are mysteries to be dispensed and a Church to be ruled. Gather the facts to- gether on the principles upon which classical laws and customs are inferred from classical writers, with the additional certainty conferred in our case by the actual results as embodied in the sub- Apostolic Church; and not only the denial out- right of a real and proper ministry by Episcopal Succession, but the milder compromise of represent- ing such a ministry as uncertain and therefore not essential, stands condemned. If Apostohcal Suc- cession is not an integral constituent of the Church of Christ upon earth, it must be shown to be so upon other grounds than the inconclusiveness or unauthoritative character of its Scripture evi- dence. And for the importance of the doc- trine, let us resort to the words of St. Chry- sostom in preference to our own, — remembering indeed that St. Chrysostom is apt to speak with a rhetorical elevation that neglects quahfications, —

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION SCRIPTURAL. 99

"If no one can enter the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerate by water and the Sphit, and if he who does not eat the Flesh of the Lord and drink His Blood, is excluded from eternal life ; and if all these things are accomplished only by those holy hands, I mean the priest's ; how will any one be able without them to escape the fire of Gehenna, or to obtain the crowns that are in store ?" Or, in the language of our own Hooker, " The power of the ministry of God translateth out of darkness into glory; it raiseth men from the earth, and bringeth God Himself down from heaven; by blessing visible elements it maketh them invisible grace; it giveth daily the Holy Ghost; it hath to dispose of that Flesh which was given for the hfe of the world, and of that Blood which was poured out to redeem souls; when it poureth malediction upon the heads of the wicked, they perish ; when it re- voketh the same, they revive. 0 wretched blind- ness, if we admire not so great powers ! more wretched, if we consider it aright, and yet imagine that any but God can bestow it 1"

n 2

CHAPTER V

HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION.

IF tlie Scriptural evidence to the doctrine of Apostolical Succession is well worn, cer- tainly tlie Patristic evidence to it is still more so. There can be no need to enumerate the almost countless treatises, and those of our own divines not the least able or learned in the hst, which from almost every side of the subject have ex- hausted the case over and over again. Substan- tially, there is nothing new to be said upon the subject. Yet modern views of historical develop- ment, and modern historical canons respecting the discrimination of witnesses according to their real evidential value, may perhaps make it worth while briefly to review the evidence usually adduced, with a special regard to the points which con- stitute its strength. The purpose, then, of the present paper is limited, first, to an attempt to exhibit the unique and pecuhar nature of the Patristic testimony to this doctrine as distin- guished from others, — followed up as this is.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 101

down to the latest times, by the noteworthy fact, that no Church ever yet rejected either Episcopacy or the Succession upon principle in the first instance; and then to a few words respecting the serious inferences which these characters of the argument involve.

I. To find a theory that shall resolve the historical fact of actual behef into a subjective result of current opinions and circumstances, and so shall rob it both of the character of truth in itself, and of all evidential force as proof of a pre- ceding revelation — such is the tendency of modern sceptical theology; a tendency explained in part, no doubt, by the reaction from the opposite extreme of indiscriminate accumulations of unsifted assertions on the part of almost anybody, which used to be taken all ahke as good evidence. And room is afforded for plausible theorizing of this subjective sort in Church history, by the necessary character of Patristic, as of all literary testimony, to the course of religious behef and practice. That testi- mony must of necessity be of a character, only gradually changing from allusion to formal state- ment : — in the first instance, hke that of Scripture itself, incidental; implying doctrine through senti- ment, asserting it in parts, and explaining it, neither in sequence with its own internal struc- ture, nor to an extent proportionate to its own inherent importance, but in submission to external exigencies; but then, in time, as reflection or

102 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

attack suggested or required, formalized into theo- logical system. And the right discrimination between changes in the merely external mode of handhng truth and changes in that truth itself, guided of course by the great and formal deter- minations of the Church herself from time to time in this very kind, is the one key-note of a sound investigation of the history of doctrine. There would have been no Unitarians, if men had remembered, on the one hand, that theological language and system are not either useless or un- true, merely because they are not, nor could be, in the Bible ; and on the other, that the Bible affirms doctrine none the less dogmatically, because it is ignorant of theological system or language. And in a parallel way, there would have been less plausible glossing of facts in the matter of Church govern- ment, by such vague words as "hierarchical ambi- tion," or " Judaizing corruption," if men had not started on the one hand, — in utter forgetfulness of the structure of the New Testament, — with assum- ing all views of the ministry to be groundless which were not in the Bible in formal detail, and on the other, taking principles of Church government to be new because the working them out into systematic practice was necessarily so. It does, however, so happen, that the interval of time requisite for any of these subjective hypotheses, is in the case of Episcopal Church government reduced to a hmit so narrow as to cut short the need of theorizing upon

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 103

any particular presumptions, and to exclude such hypotheses ah initio. On the other hand, the de- velopment of a Papacy out of Episcopacy is so thoroughly modern by comparison, and so plainly traceable to human arrangements, that the very contrast, as it disproves the one, so brings into sharper relief the proof of the other.

What, then, is here insisted upon, is, that there is literally no room left for the very possibility of any subjective or human origin for the doctrine of Apostohcal Succession with all that it imphes. The need for that particular doctrine must per- force have been felt at once, the moment that the withdrawal or death of Apostles left the Church to merely human guidance. And accordingly it is in fact enunciated at the very earhest moment, before all the Apostles had been removed from this world and before the canon of the New Testament itself was completed. The statement is so timed as to be contemporary, and so to leave literally no room for the growth of error, or the formation of myth, or the corruption of tradition. For how stands the case ? The appropriation of the ministrations of Divine Service, as a matter of principle, not of mere convenience, to a rightly ordained clergy, — the derivation of the commission of such clergy, not from the com- munity of the Church, or from any external or purely human source, but from Christ through His Apostles, — and the limitation of the power of

104 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

transmitting the orders so derived, to an order of men distinct from the presbyters and deacons who formed the ordinary ministry of each par- ticular Church, — such points of doctrine and prac- tice would naturally become prominent the instant the stress was thrown upon the Church of govern- ing herself, and such make up the substance of the doctrine of Apostolical Succession. Now the first two of these positions in express terms, and the third in words only a shade less exphcit, are found, formally and emphatically, in the very earliest non- Apostohc writing, in an Epistle once in some places received and read as Scripture, and written before some eight books (probably) of the New Testament itself; and which as evidence occupies a position only differing from that of Scripture, in that the Church had no ground for thinking its writer to be inspired. They are so found in that precious Epistle of St. Clement of Rome, which discloses to us at once the existence of a Church during actually Apostolic times, with Bible and government in hke order to our own ; and also, as on the one hand the living Christianity of its writer, so on the other the speedy upgrowth, even at that early date, of contentions and schisms. Writing at a time when the name of Bishops was still common to presbyters, and according to one supposition within a year or two, upon any hypothesis within a very few years, after St. Paul's martyrdom, St. Clement naturally has no

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 105

technical term at hand whereby to express the specially Episcopal office. Equally naturally, the Church which he addresses, seems to have been left (as St. Paul's violent death must needs have left many Churches for a while) unprovided with a Bishop in that special sense ; and it was (no doubt in consequence) rent with schisms. Under these circumstances St. Clement writes to entreat and persuade the Corinthians to obey their pres- byters, whom he also calls Bishops. And how does he urge his case ? He affirms first in direct terms the existence among Christians of Divinely appointed distinctions, analogous to those among the Jews; and he reckons, on the Jewish side of the analogy, High Priest, Priests, Levites, and Laity (6 Xal'/cog ojvdpfnTtoi). It is hard to escape the inference that analogous distinctions to each and all of these existed among Christians also. And if they then existed, it follows unanswerably that Apostles ordained them. He next presses home as a Divine ordinance, that offerings and Divine offices (Trpoa(f)opa<; kol \eLTovpyLa<;) must be ministered at right times and places, and not by any one but by the appointed persons by whom God wills them to be ministered (Sia tlvcov iiTLTeXeLaOaL dekei) ; and this with the express parallel of the Divine guarantee of Aaron's priesthood, as signified by the budding of the rod. Lastly, he proceeds to urge orderly obedience and brotherly love towards and among the Corin-

106 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

thian presbyters, on the express ground of their legitimate ordination, which they had done nothing to forfeit. And this legitimate ordination was, that the Apostles, — not (as has been truly said) St. Peter or any one of them but the Apostles gene- rally,— foreseeing disputes about the dignity of the presbyterate (eVtcr/coTrrJ, i. e. probably the ruler- ship, generally, of the Church), had appointed an order or method of succession (for the hard word iTTLvoixij must necessarily have some meaning equivalent to this), such that themselves first, and certain eXXdytjutot dvdpe<g in succession to them- selves, should appoint {KaOia-rdvaC), while the Chm'ch at large was simply to consent to the ap- pointment (cryi'evSo/o^o'acrrys). And these eXXdyt/u,ot dvSpe^, who were thus to keep up the succession of presbyters and deacons {iTrta-Konoi /cat hiaKovoi) when those who had been first appointed should have "fallen asleep," — who were, in a word, to succeed the Apostles in their special function of ordination, — were themselves an order appointed subsequently to the first appointed presbyters and deacons, who were long before estabUshed by the Apostles at each several time, as they planted a Church in each place (/caret x^pas koX rrokeii) ; so that these last named were by themselves plainly incompetent to perpetuate their own succession, but needed this further special organization in order to render such perpetuation possible; in other words, needed, and had, the addition of the

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 107

furtlier order of (as we now call them) Bishops. And this is the testimony of one who writes in the name of his own Church, as by himself represent- ing it, i. e. as its Bishop ; a position which it need hardly be said that all antiquity also with one voice assigns to him. Is it possible, with this testimony before our eyes, either to imagine that the Church, upon the removal of the Apostles, was left to nothing more than the sporadic and irregular ministrations of those who at this time or that happened to have spiritual gifts (and it is the Corinthian Church, let it be remembered, to which St. Clement writes), — or to suppose a leavening of the Pauline Churches with an undue Judaism, accepted without remark, still less remonstrance, within a few, possibly within one year of St. Paul's death, — or to adopt the chimera of a non- Apo- stolic form of government, elaborated within the same space of time out of the casual and succes- sive expedients of human passions, necessities, or ingenuity, a growth in truth of hierarchical and sacerdotal corruption, which was yet believed in most prosaic matter of fact to be Apostolic, — or to take the whole edifice of Apostolic Church govern- ment to be a myth, projected thus all of a sudden into actual and accepted fact by the strong faith of behevers, and all in a moment received as a real history in the actual world, while in truth it had been a merely subjective fancy ? If any one, duly weighing St. Clement's words, is capable of

108 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

accepting any one of these hypotheses, or indeed any other than the plain inference of the Apostolic appointment of a special ministry with exclusive powers and Episcopal ordination, really there is nothing more to be said but that such a man assuredly does not possess the historical faculty, and is indeed past argument.

The language of the next and most important sub-Apostolic witness, St. Ignatius, writing some thirty or thirty-five years later than the conjectural date of St. Clement, and certainly after the period of the Book of Revelation, when diocesan Episcopacy had undoubtedly spread over the Church, — probably about A.D. 112, — is also, it need hardly be said, plain enough. It is so plain, that nothing short of the assumption of far more than interpolations, or of the spuriousness of some of the Epistles, nothing indeed short of condemning the entire Epistles as throughout spurious, will serve the turn of objec- tors ; so plain, that the difficulty, if any, raised by it is, that it is too plain ; — too plain, if we beg the question, and assume that there really was no such mode of Church government until far later times. Bishop, presbytery, and deacons, under these names, settled in each Church, — union with them as the condition of union with Christ, — every thing, even baptizing, to be done under and with the Bishop, and no Eucharist apart from him, — such is the repeated, unmistakeable, and well-known teaching, of one standing so close to

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 109

Apostles, as to make it an hypotliesis too absurd to be thouglit of, that a revolution so enormous as the anti-Church view would require, — one of which the extent may in some degree be measured by con- trasting Church and Nonconformist now, — could possibly have crept in at all, much less unawares, and that within a dozen years at the outside of St. John's death. And this argument then admits of no answer but that stale one of forgery. To make it complete, it is only needful to point out, first, that St. Ignatius' language agrees in spirit, while it differs only in terminology, from that of Scripture preceding him ; and next, that it agrees in both with that of the times immediately following him. But if St. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as making the clergy overseers over the Church of God, to be its shepherds, — if he describes the clerical office as that of stewards of God's mysteries, — if he regards them as ruling, and having a right to submission, and watching for the souls of their flock, — if he too speaks of a Christian altar ; — if the Saviour Himself gave the Holy Ghost to His Apostles, that whose soever sins they remitted should be remitted, and whose soever sins they retained should be retained ; and if (as was urged in the last paper) all this was, by common consent of antiquity, by the natural meaning of the words, and by the plain nature of the case, the foundation of a continuous organiza- tion of the Church of Christ, — then the language of

no HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

St. Ignatius is simply the systematized rendermg of Scripture principles into the working form of actual application to facts. And the lu-gency of the martyr in impressing such principles, finds its explanation, if it needs one, in the novelty not of the doctrine but of the circumstances. The machinery had been instituted by inspired Apos- tles. It had now to be worked, under the pres- sure of vehement persecution, by the uninspired Church. And the technical use of the words Bishop and presbyter, — to look forwards as well as backwards, — loses aU force as against the genuineness of the letters, if it be once shown (and Pearson certainly has shown it) to be not an exceptional case occurring unaccountably a long while before such usage is found elsewhere, but simply the first of an unbroken series of such usage continuing thenceforth; an usage found in the Acts of St. Ignatius, close upon the very death of St. Ignatius himself, in a heathen Emperor's letter, that of Hadrian in a.d. 132, who could of necessity have done nothing but foUow well-known Christian usage in the matter, in the words of Pope Pius about a.d. 150, in those of Dionysius of Corinth some ten years later, and so onwards unbrokenly. In a word, then, St. Ignatius is no " hierarchist " of some later century, foisted upon us as of the first and second. His testimony is the genuine testimony of one whom Apostles taught, and at whose feet, therefore, we may well learn.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION HI

It is the testimony of an unimpeachable witness, conveying to us (by the mere force of date) the first echoes of Apostohc teaching while yet undistorted from its first and genuine utterance.

Upon these two witnesses the case might rest ; speaking as they do for West and East, and at a date absolutely inconsistent with any wide depar- ture, if with any departure at all, from Apostolic institution. Other doctrines grew into form after a while, this one at once. But there is yet an- other difference to note in the case. Other doctrines, as it were, come forth for the most part into light at the end of the second century, with scanty glimpses meanwhile whereby to trace them during the interval. Enough that the Bible (with the immediate sub-Apostohc Fathers, per- haps, added in this or that case) shows them to have preceded that interval as well as followed it. But in the case of Apostolic Succession, these ghmpses too are less scanty than usual. The Ada of St. Ignatius, and the other references just now given, — the incidental allusion of Her- mas, who reckons up Apostles, Bishops, Doctors, and Ministers, and as by the last term he of course means deacons, so by the third almost certainly (as in TertuUian, Be Prcescr. Heret. 3) means presbyters, — the description in St. Justin Martyr, as plain as it then could be in a tract addressed to heathens, of the administration of the Lord's Supper by the irpoeaTcos (clergyman, of course, and

112 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

probably either Bishop or mere presbyter, as the case might be), and of the grace of that Sacrament, and of its distribution to the absent by the dea- cons,— the express testimony of Hegesippus to the Corinthian Episcopate, and to that of Jerusalem ; and of Serapion, himself Bishop of Antioch, to the Episcopate in Asia Minor and Thrace, and else- where ; and of Polycrates, writing to Victor, Bishop of Rome, to that of Smyrna ; and of the Martyrs of Lyons to those both of Rome and of Lyons itself, — all recorded in Eusebius ; — the cases again of Papias, Quadratus, and Melito, all Bishops ; — the express testimony of all an- tiquity, beginning with Eusebius, to the proper Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus respectively at Ephesus and in Crete ; — the copious hst of ApostoHcally ordained Bishops, first in the Apos- toHc Constitutions (vii. 46), or as gathered by modern authors (Bingham being, I suppose, the one of easiest access) from the scattered allusions of Patristic writers; — the plain enumeration of the three orders, and as Scripturally so constituted, by St. Clement of Alexandria and by Origen; — the successions of Bishops in the chief sees, so carefully specified, as though of special impor- tance, by Eusebius : — all these incidental and natural references, as to well known and un- disputed facts, link on our historical knowledge of the existence of Church government, and that Episcopal, from the end of the second century

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 113

back unbrokenly to Clement and Ignatius. If we turn indeed from the difference between Bishops and presbyters, as a fact, to the nature of that difference, and to the special powers assigned to the order of clergy, it could scarcely be ex- pected that we should find much in materials so scanty. Yet even here the latter point finds express recognition in Justin Martyr. And if we are to use for the same period the "brilliant disclosures " respecting " the first stage of Chris- tianity," which modern Germans find in the Cle- mentine Recognitions (much more if we add the Apostohc Canons, of which at least the ground- work is primitive) ; there also we find (III. 46, 47), not only Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, but the Bishop also as the proper and primary ad- ministrator of Sacraments. And we are led with- out break or abruptness, in this point also, to the plain language in a like sense of Irenseus and Ter- tuUian; and of those later writers also who are sometimes cited as evidence for laxer views, St. Jerome and the Pseudo-Ambrose. AH speak, in terms precisely similar to those of St. Ignatius, of the " right " of administering the Sacraments as residing primarily in the Bishop, and from him in presbyter and deacon ; and if at all (as in the one case of Baptism) in the layman likewise, then only as deriving authorization from the Bishop ; and all speak also, generally, of the necessity of doing nothing avev yt'co/xT^? (in St. Jerome's phrase, " sine

I

114 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

jussione ") tov iincrKOTrov. If lastly we turn to the precise doctrine of Succession in itself, here also the careful preservation, and as careful record, of a due succession throughout the interval, naturally and conclusively bridge over the space, from the language of Clement and Ignatius to the express and triumphant demand and challenge of Irenaeus and Tertulhan, urging that succession in terms upon the heretics of their day, as not only in itself indis- putable and undisputed, but as by its own strength forming the one unanswerable safeguard for the succession also of faith. " Edant origines Eccle- siarum suarum " (to sum up the statement of the case in the words of the briefer and more terse of the two), "evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis viris qui tamen cum Apostolis perse- veraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem." For so, he tells us, it is at Smyrna, so at Eome (both of them Bishoprics ahke), so in the other Churches. In all, names and lists are producible of those, " quos ab Apostohs in Episcopatum con- stitutes Apostolici seminis traduces habent'."

* The two or three briefest and most precise statements of the doctrine from TertuUian immediately onwards, may be added here for reference' sake.

Tertull. (in addition to the passage quoted in the text) De Bapt. xvii. : " Dandi (baptismum) jus quidem habet summus fiacerdos, qui est Episcopus : dchinc presbyteri et diaconi : non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesia; honorem, quo salvo salva pax est."

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 115

It would be needless, and here out of place, to go on to enumerate the endless testimonies of later date. But the purpose of the present paper

Canon. Apost. C. 1 : 'ETriorKOTros vtto lirKTKOTrwv ^eiporoveicrOoi Bvo -q Tpiwv ■7rpe(r/3vTepos vtto evos cTricTKOTrou, koL SictKovos, Koi ol Xonrol KXripiKOu

Canon. Apost. 39 : al. 40 al. 38 (and in Cotel. 32) : Ot irpea- pvT€poi Kai Ol StaKOvoL avev ■yvw/Aiys tov iTTKTKOTTOv fxrj^kv cttitc- XecTwa-av' airbs yap ecrnv o 7re7ricrTevju,£i/os tov \(wv tov Kvpcov Koi TOV VTrep twv ij/vxujv \oyor dTraLT7]6r](70ix€vo<;.

Cone. Carthag. III. c. 79, a.d. 25Q (under St. Cyprian) : " Manifesta est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Apostolos suos mittentis et ipsis solis potestatem a Patre Sibi datam permittentis ; quibus nos successimus, eadem potestate Eccle- siam Dei gubernantes et credentium fidem baptizantes."

S. Cypr., ad Florent. Epist. Ixviii. al. Ixvi. : " Qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt." And again : " Episcopum in Ecclesia esse et Ecclesiam in Episcopo ; et si qui cum Episcopo non sint, in Ecclesia non esse." Id. ad Cornel. Epist. xli. al. xlv. : *' Laborare debemus, ut unitatem a Domino et per Apos- tolos nobis successoribus traditam obtinere curemus."

Cone. Laodic, (c. a.d. 367) c. 57 : 'fio-avrcos 8e koX tov^s Trpea- /SvTepovs yHTjSev TrpdrTeLV avev Tiys yvwp.r]<; tov eTna-KOTrov.

Hieron., Cont. Lueif. : " Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet. . . . Inde venit ut sine cbrismate et Episcopi jussione neque presbyter neque diaconus jus habeat baptizandi."

S. Amhros., De Sacram., HE. 1 : " Licet presbyteri fecerint, tamen exordium ministerii a summo est sacerdote."

Cone. Bom. ad Gallos (uncertain date, but before a.d. 400), c. 7 (ap. Cotel. in Const. Apost. III. 9) : (Presbyters and deacons) " illi " (viz. to the Bishop in the ofl&ce of baptizing) " in officio sunt ; . . . . illius nomini facti summa conceditur."

This language is not stronger than that of St. Ignatius. And between St. Ignatius and those who use it, the evidence is necessarily scanty, but, so far as it goes, agrees with it. Upon what conceivable ground, beyond a foregone determination to ignore inconvenient facts, can any one rationally invent a " hierarchical " development in the end of the second and be- Erinning of the third centuries, with the evidence standing thus ?

116 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

would not be complete, unless, after thus pointing out tlie special force of tlie afl&rmative evidence, it went on next to notice the singular scantiness and weakness of that which is alleged on the negative side. First, then, before a.d. 300, there is really and literally nothing, except (1) the well- known words of Tertullian referred to above on pp. 70, 71, speaking of a case of absolute necessity, and implying, therefore, the very thing they are quoted to condemn; and (2) a perfectly ground- less inference from the employment of the word "presbyter" by St. Iren^eus, who speaks not only of the succession of "presbyters" (as, obviously, the strongest EpiscopaHan might do), but also (as quoted by Eusebius) of the "presbyters," who preceded Pope Soter in the see of Eome. Next, after that date, and in the midst of evidence to the contrary, unquestionable and overwhelming, and culminating in the almost contemptuous condemna- tion of Aerius, there is a misinterpreted provincial canon, and some indefensible and faulty reasoning of (principally) one writer, and of one not given to weigh his words. There is, on the one hand, a more than questionable reading of a not quite in- telligible and very much disputed canon of the Council of Ancyra in 314 ; and, on the other, there are the speculations of St. Jerome (speculations which rest solely upon inferences of his own, from evidence of which we are in as good a position to judge for ourselves as he was) respecting the ori-

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 117

gination of Episcopacy and of the special power of Orders in Apostolic times. A statement or two ^ of like nature to St. Jerome's, but of later date, and obviously copied from him, and a blunder- ing and incoherent passage in so late and so ignorant a writer as Eutychius, are only (so to say) galvan- ized into any importance at all by their relation to St. Jerome's words, and need no notice. Now of these alleged testimonies, the only two that, by their date and nature, would be evidentially of any weight at all, really prove nothing in the case. TertuUian's own words involve the ordinary necessity of holy orders ; and it is TertuUian him- self elsewhere, who is severe upon the heretics, just because, among them, "hodie presbyter qui eras laicus, nam et laicis sacerdotalia munera in- jungunt" {DePrcBScr. Hcer. 41). And for Irenasus, — a Bishop is a presbyter, although a presbyter is not a Bishop. And the same writer, speaking of the succession of presbyters, speaks also elsewhere of the succession of Bishops, and in a way that shows him to have meant single rulers. Certainly he held that Soter's predecessors in particular were so(hkeSoter himself), and that they ruled the presbyters among others in the Church of Rome ; for he names the names in order of all of them. And his usage there-

* The writers intended, who are quoted at length by Morinus, belong to the West, where St. Jerome enjoyed a singularly high reputation (see e. g. Columbanus' Letters), and they merely repeat his statements.

118 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

fore of tlie term presbyter in this one passage, only shows that the names had not then become abso- lutely and exclusively appropriated. He could still call a Bishop a presbyter (as indeed a Bishop is, and long after Irenseus is called, the " primus presby- ter ") ; although at the same time he never calls a presbyter by the title of Bishop. The canon of the Council of Ancyra is really a proof, not a disproof, of Episcopacy. It used to be explained (as by Beveridge), from ancient translations, and from paraphrases and copies of it (which e. g. Thorndike has put together), as really prohibiting the " town presbyters," not from ordaining without the Bishop's written licence (which would imply that with that licence they could ordain), but from doing any thing at all avev yva)ixy)<s tov eVtcrKOTrou ; for which last provision there was, it seems, so much reason in the pretensions of such presbyters, that it was actually passed into a canon at Laodicea in 367. A Hke canon respecting town deacons pay- ing due honour to their presbyters is in the Council of Aries in the very year 314 itself. But there is another, which is obviously the true, reading ^ And the canon, so read, equally proves Episcopal

' If the reading be Trpea-jSvTepovi TrdAeco?, then, reading also ;^a)p€7rtcrK07rots, it is certain — and reading ^wpeTricrKOTrovs, it is equally possible — that the canon (even as it stood in older read- ings of it) prohibits chorepiscopi from ordaining the town as well as the country presbyters, and nothing more. But it is manifest, that the canon has been both misi'ead and miscon- strued. See liouth, Reliq. Sacr. III. 430 — 439 ; and Lambert Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. p. 90.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 119

government and right of ordination. For it simply prohibits chorepiscopi, who were themselves proper Bishops, from ordaining country, and (much more) town, presbyters or deacons, without a written per- mission from the diocesan Bishop. It is certain, also, that the Church Universal at the identical period unceremoniously and absolutely quashed presbyterian ordinations as void in themselves. Witness the well-known cases of Ischyras and the others, ordained by the presbyter Colluthus (who pretended to be a Bishop — (fiavTaaOevTos iTna-Koirrjv — and so did not even claim to ordain as a presby- ter), who were all declared to be mere laymen; and of the clergy ordained by Maximus, who was de- clared to be no Bishop, and the orders given by him pronounced null, by the (general) Council of Con- stantinople (can. 4), A.D. 381. The speculations of St. Jerome are not any more to the purpose of modern negative theories. The functions of the clergy, and the exclusive right of the Bishop to or- dain, and the Bishop's authority, even to the extent of referring the right of baptizing to him primarily, are asserted by that writer as plainly as words can assert them ^. But in order to put down the pre-

* It is needless to dwell upon St. Jerome's assertion (by implication) — repeated by the Pseudo-Ambrose, and by the Auctor QucBst. Vet. et Nov. Test. — that presbyters could con- fii-m. It appears that they did so in Egypt, h at only by the Bishop's express delegation. And Popes have laid down a like rule, as Gregory the Great, and in far later times Eugenius IV. ; tampering, it must be said, with Episcopal power, as mediaeval and later Popes have more largely done, in order to exalt the

120 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

tensions of deacons by exalting those of presbyters, he takes upon him to theorize upon the origin of Episcopal superiority. He infers from the un- doubted fact of the identity of the words Bishop and ! presbyter in the New Testament an identity also in the oflBce — as undoubtedly there was such an iden- I tity at the time of the New Testament, only it was I under the Apostles themselves, — and then he afl&rms, that " ecclesiastical order rather than Divine appointment" had constituted the offices different offices. There is, however, something more than this in St. Jerome, fortunately for his own historical credit, although even so this is not quite saved. The " ecclesiastical order" in question turns out to mean an appointment by the Apostles, in distinction from, but not to the exclusion of, express words of Christ Himself; for the ground alleged for that order is, after all, the schism in the Church of Corinth about Paul and Apollos. And, further, the extreme importance of the Epis- copal institution, thus Apostohcally appointed, is emphatically affirmed by St. Jerome's own expe- rience ; in that, without a diocesan Bishop, " there would be as many divisions as there were priests." Unfortunately too for St. Jerome's facts % there ac-

Papacy. The sweeping implication of St. Jerome, in the teeth of the practice of the Universal Church, only throws discredit upon himself as dealing in over-wide statements. And he him- self, elsewhere, strongly asserts the special office of Bishops as distinct from priests.

* See e. g. Euseb. H, E. iii. 4. 14, and elsewhere.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 121

tually were diocesan Bishops before that Corinthian schism, as, e. g. St. James at Jerusalem, and pro- bably his successor Simeon, St. Mark at Alexan- dria (succeeded by Anianus in a.d. 62), Euodius at Antioch, and almost certainly others. However, the fear of schism is no doubt alleged by others than St. Jerome, e. g. by St. Clement of Rome himself, writing to these very Corinthians, to have been among the motives for the appointment of Bishops. Upon the whole — not to dwell upon the pre- sumptuousness of modern Christians, in throwing aside what Apostles regarded as the one remedy against schism — St. Jerome's statement comes to nothing more than a speculation, and this only partly correct, as to the way in which a particular institu- tion occurred (at a late date but not therefore as an after-thought) in the history of Apostolic acts. And it leaves that institution Apostolic, and therefore for practical purposes Divine, none the less. Epipha- nius's principle is indeed much more in accordance with common sense — that " in the matter of Church government, much of what Christ commanded could only be actually done by the Apostles as time went on." And although the prevention of schism was probably enough one reason for the institution of Bishops, yet the New Testament itself supplies us with another, viz. the inability of Apostles to keep pace in their supervision with the growing Church (so 1 Tim. i. 3, Titus i. 5). In any case, when duly considered and sifted, St. Jerome's specu-

122 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

lation accounts, in reality, not for the institution of Bishops (for that institution, viz. of a single ruler over presbyters, was in the Apostles all along — " Apud nos," in St. Jerome's own words, " Apos- tolorum locum Episcopi tenent"), but for the division of dioceses, and for the appointment of non-inspired and, so to say, merely human Bishops, to succeed the Apostles in various portions of their dioceses during the lifetime of Apostles themselves. We need scarcely dwell upon other writers, who have been drawn into the controversy, although irrelevantly. The mere statement, which occurs in many, that the Bishop is "primus presbyter," comes obviously to nothing at all in the present question. Nor yet the speculation, found in the Pseudo- Am- brose, and (far more than even St. Jerome's) desti- tute of historical confirmation; — that a "Council," unnamed, unknown, and undated, had changed, not the nature or source of the office, but the mode of naming to it ; in that at first the senior presbyter had succeeded to it when vacant, but afterwards "non ordo sed meritum" — not the place on the rota, but personal fitness, determined the succession : a supposition very unlikely to have been true, but which indeed itself implies Episcopacy. Nor yet, again, St. Jerome's other often quoted statement — that the twelve Alexandrian presbyters, when the see of Alexandria was vacant, "named" one of themselves to fill it : which is simply a precedent for the election of Bishops, not exactly by Dean and

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 123

canons, but by the town clergy. Indeed tlie various legends current in later times respecting the mode of electing to that particular see, are quite suffi- ciently numerous and absurd to discredit one another ; and that of Eutychius in the tenth century (which does transform nomination into consecra- tion), is quite as absurd as any ; and in the mouth of so late, ignorant, and blundering a writer, is too worthless to deserve the crushing answers that learned men have bestowed upon it. It is quite enough for us to have it pointed out, that among other fatal absurdities, it makes Alexander, the well-known Bishop of Alexandria in the time of Arius, who also participated in a Council (in 324) which condemned non-Episcopal orders in the case of CoUuthus, yet all the while to have had all his own predecessors, nay, apparently even him- self, actually and notoriously consecrated by only presbyterian consecration. There still remains, however, an assertion of the Pseudo-Ambrose, on which some stress has been laid ; yet which, grant- ing it weU founded, only declares after all, with respect to the exclusive functions of clergy, what has been commonly admitted on all hands, yet without thereby infringing upon the proper clerical office, or upon the authority of the Episcopate. In the beginning, he tells us, in order to bring men into the Church, every one was permitted, not to administer the Holy Communion, not to discharge the pastoral office, not to ordain, not to rule the

?

124 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

Church, but " evangelizare, et baptizare, et Scrip- turas in ecclesia explanare ;" but when the Church extended every where, and the original need of such hcence was past, then " conventicula consti- tuta sunt, et rectores et caetera officia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata, ut nullus de clero {cd. clericis) aude- ret, qui ordinatus non esset, prsesumere ojQ&cium, quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum :" and " hinc ergo est unde nunc neque diaconi in populo prsedicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant :" — a licence, of which the words "de clero" almost seem to limit the intended original extent to " all " (not laity but merely) " clerici," yet upon the extent of which, even in its widest reach, no remark need be made, save that the strongest maintainers of the clerical order might safely admit it (as in actual fact they do) ; only with the comment of Tertullian's words on the same point — that, " dandi quidem (baptisma) jus habet summus sacer- dos, qui est Episcopus ; dehinc presbyteri et dia- coni, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesise honorem, quo salvo salva pax est." Cer- tainly lay baptism in case of necessity is allowed on all hands still. And laymen may read the lessons even in church. And not the highest of Church- men but bids God speed to every one, lay or not, who, in due unity and subordination, strives to spread the Gospel of his Saviour to all souls with whom he has to do.

If, then, the case be as it has been thus stated.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 125

one cannot but ask the earnest attention of all who shght the doctrine of orders and of an Apostolical ministry, to the inevitable result of their denial of it. Men cannot safely, not to say honestly, accept a principle, and choose at their own will to take some of its logical consequences and reject others. And how, then, if the evidence for an ApostoHcal ministry is to be set aside, is it possible to maintain with consistency either the doctrines of the Creed or the Canon of the New Testament ? If all three rest upon evidence of the same kind, and that evidence even more precise in the one case than in the others, then certainly to reject that which is proved the most distinctly, must carry on the reasoner inevitably and a fortiori to reject the others too. Yet how stands the case ? Take the last named first. And here our earhest de- tailed evidence for the text of even the Gospels consists in second century translations, and se- cond century fathers, and a second century Hst of the books of the Canon, viz. the celebrated Muratorian fragment; fathers indeed, except St. Justin Martyr, of the latter part of the second century, Irenseus and TertuUian. Besides and before these, fragmentary allusions reach back to St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Clement. If, then, these are sufficient to compel the faith of any reasonable man in the matter of Scripture, as they assuredly are ; — if from the fuller details of the later period we are entitled to reason back,

126 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

lighted by the glimpse of like details from time to time, to the very period of the Apostles them- selves;— if it be convincingly proved, that the Gospels from which (say) St. Irenseus freely quotes, and which he takes unhesitatingly to be the work of those whose names they bear, must needs be in their fall detail what he takes them to be, (1) because in so short a time fictitious writings could not have been unwittingly palmed upon the Church, and least of all upon one who had seen and been intimate with men who were disciples of Apostles, and (2) because the same Gospels are discerned, when we can discern them at all, wherever allusions are made to them all along the intervening period from Apostolic times down to Irenseus himself; — and if, lastly, upon the same evidence, we are entitled to include also and upon the same level, not only the passages which Irenseus and the like, or those before him, happen to quote, but the whole book likewise in each case, of which, upon the testimony of subsequent MSS. and trans- lations, these quotations form part; — if all this be good to prove the Canon of the New Testa- ment, i. e. to prove that the books as we have them came from those whose names they bear ; — then parallel evidence, and that in all points stronger, must be good also to prove the Apos- tolical succession and ministry. The drawing up, as it were, of a veil at the end of the second cen- tury, discloses to us in the one case the Gospels,

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 127

with at least the Pauline Epistles, as we now have them, in undisputed possession of inspired authority, as having been really written by Apostles or ApostoHc men. The same period discloses to us also, in full detail and work, the complete Church system, claiming (and without one word of any consequence raised in any quarter to doubt the claim) to derive a direct Divine commission from the Apostles. Look backwards ; and the evidence of allusions, plain enough in themselves perhaps, but unmistakable when read by the hght of the later period, is strewn in both cases along the years back to Apostolic times ; while in the case of Apostolic government those allusions begin as well as end with distinct and formal evidence. Look forward, and time brings its changes, — in the completion of the New Testament canon by the Church gathering together all her trea- sures— in the working out of the details of Church government, as occasion required them to be applied rather than supplemented by human wisdom and experience. And in both cases again, false counterfeits present themselves, apo- cryphal Gospels, or Aerian denial of Episcopacy, both alike rejected as novelties and perversions. Substantially, the grounds of evidence, so far, run parallel. But here the parallel ends. There is express and detailed proof of an ApostoHc ministry by due succession, at the close of the first century as well as at the close of the second. And when

128 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

the New Testament itself is accepted, the key-stone is added to that proof in clear Scriptural testimony, as it naturally emerges from the words and acts of the Apostles. But the text of the New Testament, externally, rests for us upon the evidence of the second century at best. We argue back to the words of the inspired writers, from (at the highest) fourth-century MSS., through (at the earhest) par- tial quotations of Irenaeus or Justin Martyr. In the case indeed of the New Testament, the short inter- vening space of time — perhaps half a century — within which the matter is narrowed, absolutely excludes the hypothesis of the unwitting conver- sion of subjective imaginations into objective and accepted narratives as of fact. But if so, it still more excludes the possibility of a recognized and complete order of Church ministry having grown, without one hint of hitch or opposition, out of chaos into a settled institution, of which no one doubted but that it had ever been the same. For in the latter case the time is narrowed to a dozen years. In the case of the New Testament, a quo- tation or an allusion at earher times carries with it a reasonable guarantee for substantially the whole document as written down in later MSS., or as reproduced in extenso in later translations. In the case of the Church ministry, the like al- lusions carry back its institution, with the whole of that which the Church ministry is found legiti- mately to contain, to Apostolic times. And tes-

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 129

timony to that Church ministry, of a formal and distinct kind, exists at the beginning as well as the end of this intervening period. In a word, out of a comparative obscurity the Church emerges at the end of the second century in possession of a Book and a ministry as well as a Creed. And the evidence which connects all three with the beginning is not less continuous and complete, and becomes distinct and express at an earher date, in the case of the second than in those of the other two. Accept the Book, and then the Creed and the ministry alike find their own one ultimate seal and sanction in that Book itself, and in the fact that they alone exhaust its mean- ing, and account for its language. But the ex- ternal evidence for the acceptance of any one of the three as handed down substantially unchanged from Apostolic times is the same in kind. And they who believe, and rightly, in the history of the Book as an objective history of actual fact, and in the Creeds as a true and genuine develop- ment of doctrine, must believe much more in a like history, and a like genuineness, for the minis- try as well. For turn to the Creeds; and here also, the JSTew Testament Canon being assumed, the case for doctrine and the case for orders are in kind identical, yet in the latter of the two, by the nature of the case itself, more distinct. In both cases we have, on the one side, the words and acts of Christ and of the Apostles, and set over against

K

ISO HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

tliese, on the other, the actual and historical result of those words and acts ; the cause, and the con- sequence ; the seal, and the impression ; or, more exactly, the example or precedent, and its repro- duction by those who copied it as their law. And our sure ground of belief in both cases is found in the correspondent harmony of the two. The former dominates over the latter, the latter interprets the former. Just as the lock determines the form of the key, yet in the exact fitness of the key lies the conclusive proof that we have rightly understood the lock. But in the matter of Church govern- ment and of outward institutions, besides that an organization is in itself more visible than a doc- trine, we have also this further fact, that the interval which separates the New Testament from the practice which interprets it is almost none at all. The statement of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity systematically and as a whole, certainly occurs very far later than the statement of that of Apostolical Succession. The former required the successive and slow-moving attacks of each op- posed heresy to lead the Church to build up step by step its formal and theological enunciation ; the latter found a Bishop in the immediate disciple of Apostles to proclaim it in terms. In both, the New Testament takes the truth for a granted and known truth, alludes to it, argues upon it, uses it for instruction and warning, — in a word, reveals it without professing to reveal it; just in the same

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 131

way as a living soul reveals its own structure by its life. In both, the inevitable action of human reason and passions, in such way as they applied to each, wrought out the original truth into detail and form, reflected upon it, made it objective and systematic, reasoned from it ; clung to substantial principle, although drifting at times into this or that aspect or extreme, and yet was kept back from essentially quitting the truth for a period long after that which the present controversy needs, as is in both cases effectually provable by actual comparison of the beginning with the end. And schisms, on the one hand, and the ancient principles applied to heal or condemn them, — heresies, on the other, and the ancient truths alleged to confute them, — run in an argumenta- tive parallel one with the other, and leave it alike clear in both, although certainly not least clear in the latter of the two, that the Church started with a deposit of doctrinal truth identical with the Creeds, and with an Apostohc order of ministry and government, such as St. Clement and St. Ignatius declare to us, and the second and third centuries disclose.

II. There is yet another historical presumption, exceedingly strong, against those who now slight the Apostolic ministry and orders. The unbroken and unquestioning usage of 1500 years is in itself much. For how could it possibly happen, as Hooker well asks, that all that time, if the ex-

K 2

132 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

isting Episcopacy were wrong, no one Cliurcli ever discovered the right order, or doubted the rightness of the Episcopacy which did exist ? But the presumption is strengthened still further when it is added, that those who now deny an Apostolical ministry did not begin by doing so, but were led by circumstances into the want of it, and then gradually, and by a manifest after- thought, came to make a merit of their own defect, and to defend as right what at first they only endured as unavoidable". No doubt the Refor- mation, as a reaction on behalf of subjective and inward religion against an exaggerated and crushing weight of what had become merely out- ward and mechanical, contained within itself the unavoidable ultimate result of a very extensive revolution in the relations between clergy and laity, and of one also, to a great extent, right and neces- sary. Nay, more still; besides weakening what was right in the process of rejecting what was wrong, it contained also the germs of a very dangerous and untrue denial of principles in the matter, provoked by the extreme abuse of those principles. And there are words of Luther, and more explicitly

• Mr. T. W. Marshall, in some " Notes on the Episcopal Polity of the Holy Catholic Church," c. iv., has put together a mass of quotations on this point carefully arranged. I cite him solely for these. But the statement is one often made, and by older writers, e. g. by Bramhall in his " Replication," and in his "Serpent- Salve;" by Bancroft, by Hall, by Durell, &c., &c. See also Palmer, " On the Church."

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 133

of Knox and the Scottish. Reformers, which cover, if pressed to their full meaning, the whole extent of an utter denial of any Apostolicallj-appointed Church organization, and this from almost the beginning of the strife. But it is the fact, never- theless, that these views were neither the leading cause of the Reformation any where, nor came forward prominently and generally in the con- troversy for some considerable period; but were thrust upon the Reforming party by the pressure of circumstances, and only gradually became pronounced as events developed themselves. The long-continued plea of the Lutherans, that they appealed to a General Council ; — the express declaration of the Confession of Augsburg, that " facile possent Episcopi legitimam obedientiam retinere, si non urgerent servare traditiones quae bona conscientia servari non possunt ;" and again, that " nunc non id agitur ut dominatio eripiatur Episcopis, sed hoc unum petitur ut patiantur Evangehum pure doceri et relaxent paucas quas- dam observationes quae sine peccato servari non possunt;" nay, that " nos summa voluntate cupere conservare politiam ecclesiasticam et gradus in Ecclesia facto s etiam humana auctoritate," an assertion repeated some four times over; — the admission even of Calvin, who, moreover, himself signed the Augsburg Confession, that " hie fateor optandum esset ut valeret continua suc- cessio, ut fimctio ipsa quasi per manus trade-

134 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

retur;" — his declaration, that "if the hierarchy" were one, wherein " the Bishops were so above others as not to refuse to be under Christ," then ** there is no anathema which they are not worthy of (if there be any such), who observe it not with the greatest obedience;" — his overture, in con- junction with Bulhnger and others, to Edward YI. for a union, " offering to have Bishops in their Churches for better unity and concord," an over- ture testified by Archbishop Parker, but which had been quashed by means of Gardiner and Bonner : — all this, and much more of the kind, agrees with such statements as those of even Beza and Claude, justifying their position on the ground, that any one would be right in running unsent, or in doing any thing, to extinguish a fire in their father's house; or, again, in the latter's words, that the practice of the French Reformed, " n'est ni ne doit estre la pratique commune, et que cela n'a lieu que dans des cas d'absoliie necessite;" and with the description of that position by P. Du Moulin as an " interregnum," or by the defenders of the Synod of Dort as a method "extraordinary," and that what is " extraordinary cannot in any degree prejudice that which is ordinary," or by the French Confession of Faith, Art. 31, that " the state of the Church was interrupted, and so God raised up men in an extraordinary manner;" or, again, with the express assertion of Le Clerc, that " they who read with attention the histories of

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 135

tlie (16tli) century, are fully satisfied that the latter (the Presbyterian) form of government was introduced for this reason only, because the Bishops would not allow to them, who contended that the doctrines and manners of Christians stood in need of necessary amendment, that those things should be reformed which they complained were cor- rupted ;" or, again, of Peter Du Bosc, that " our Churches did not embrace the Presbyterian disci- pKne fromdishke of Episcopacy or because it seemed to us opposed to the Gospel . . . but because they were compelled by necessity." Or yet again, with the notable words, which ' the Scots persuaded Blondel to leave out' when publishing his "Apo- logia pro Sententia Hieronymi," — words certainly which knocked down the very edifice he had just so elaborately built up, — " By all that we have said to assert the right of the Presbytery, we do not intend to invahdate the ancient and ApostoHcal constitution of Episcopal pre-eminence ; but we beheve, that wheresoever it is estabhshed con- formably to the ancient canons, it must be care- fully preserved; and wheresoever, by some heat of contention or otherwise, it hath been put down or violated, it ought to be reverently restored." And even when strife and the hardening effect of controversy had led on such as Beza to maintain his position to be not merely permissible but right, yet distinctions de tripUci Episcopatu, and the hke, softened off" the sharp edge of absurdity involved

136 HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE

in an outriglit denial of the Episcopate altogether. The Scotch themselves, who, so far as I know, were the only community of Christians who ever went to the preposterous extent of denouncing Prelacy in itself as anti- Christian, came but gradually to that position ^ They threw off Bishops, indeed, from the days of Knox, and even the imposition of hands (in their First Book of Discipline) ; yet they established in their place a mock system of super- intendents. And Knox himself proffered an appeal to a General Council, and was wilhng enough to preach in English churches, and to communicate with English Bishops. In a word, even there, and far more decidedly every where else, the contro- versy about Episcopacy or about orders was not that which either originated the Reformation, or even occasioned it, or by which men's minds were stirred to urge that Reformation forwards. It was a controversy which grew out of circum- stances, and was taken up after a time in order to

^ Bishop Maxwell, of Ross, wrote a book about 1640 ex- pressly to prove this, under the title of " Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland." And Bishop Sage, in his " Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined," &c., in 1695, has certainly shown at length that the spirit of the Solemn League and Covenant was an aftergrowth upon the position of Knox and his fellows, in so far as it made Church order and government the head and front of the controversy. That Scotch Presby- terians continued to maintain long afterwards the j«s Divinuvi of a succession, only a Presbyterial one, may be seen amply proved by Chancellor Ilarington in his controversy with Dean Goode. And some Presbyterians even now, we believe, have a hankering in the same direction.

DOCTRINE OF APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION 137

maintain a position which no reformed communitj' had sought upon its own merits.

To sum up all, the doctrine of Apostolical Succession is indeed established by the plain sense of Holy Scripture, but the presumption also in its favour derived from its history — as the doctrine drawn from Scripture by the verdict of all times, and rejected by no one purely upon its merits at any time, — is singular and over- whelming. Other doctrines develope slowly, this starts forth at once. Other doctrines find their first formal statement in Fathers removed by a century or even more from Apostolic times ; this is enunciated and enforced in the most emphatic words by those who had been taught by Apostles themselves, and while Apostles were either still alive or scarcely in their graves. Other doctrines have been disputed from time to time, and have worked their way to acceptance by the gradually elaborated balance and combination of opposite truths; this one met with no other opposition than the petty efforts of Aerius, literally ridiculed out of sight as insane and absurd; and held undisputed and absolute possession of men's belief throughout the whole Church for 1500 years. Even when men did come to deny it, their denial was no result of deeply-felt objection to the doc- trine itself, but was necessitated, or seemed to be so, by their position ; and so gi^adually they came to believe that to be right in itself, which had at

138 HISTORICAL POSITION, ^c.

first been tlirust upon them. And then, from denying Episcopacy, men have been led to deny orders altogether. The power of the Keys, and the real office of the presbyter, have followed the first false step and vanished too from men's belief. And the general tendency at least of men's thoughts, in those bodies which reject the Succession, has been towards blotting out altogether the essential func- tions and office of the Christian ministry itself. Who does not see, that, with the ministry, unhap- pily, all real meaning and life gradually fade also from the yet more fundamental doctrines of the Sacraments and of the Church ?

CHAPTER VI

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

TRANSMISSION of orders by Episcopal laying on of hands, and transmission, by sucli laying on of hands, not of a purely outward appointment to an office of mere order and expediency, but of a gift of the Holy Spirit, are notoriously the clearly expressed practice and doctrine of the English Church. Palpable fact establishes the one, and the claim to the other is written on the face of the solemn words of ordination in the Or- dinal. The one point demanding notice relates to the grounds of that doctrine and practice, and to the consequent nature of the obligation held to bind them upon us ; and to the estimate, consequent upon that, of their necessity, and of the effect of the want of them upon those who have them not. Are Episcopacy, and an Apostolical ministry with its proper powers, in the judgment of the English Church, only human or ecclesiastical arrangements; or again, the mere following of a rule which we think Apostohc in date, but not in

140 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

itself obligatory or essential, but simply expedient, or as good as any otlier, or good for ourselves, or to be kept because it exists ; or are tliey of Divine institution ? Even in the latter case, a diflPerence in tlie nature of the thing that is obligatory, may well involve a difference in the consequences flow- ing from the lack of it ; just as much as does a difference in the authority that creates the obHga- tion. An external ordinance of God is essential ; yet he who is without it by no fault of his own, is not in the like kind or degree of defect with the man who lacks any inward grace or faith. For the very necessity may perhaps warrant the belief, that, lacking the outward ordinance involuntarily, he may of mercy obtain its grace nevertheless.

I. Are, then, the points referred to, in the judg- ment of the English Church, of Divine institution, so as to be, speaking in the abstract, essential ? That is the first question.

It has been said — and considering the historical origin of the wording of the Article, said very probably, — that in the 23rd Article it is only laid down to be " not lawful " (but certainly by God's law, not by man's) to minister without being called or sent by those that have public authority to call and send ministers ; and that in the 36th Article Episcopal ordination, including mission, accord- ing to the English Ordinal, is declared to be an act of those that have such authority, insomuch that those so ordained are, accordingly, "rightly, or-

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 141

derly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered;" but not of necessity that no one else is so ; still less, that an unlawful ordination is invalid. No doubt the latter Article was directed against the Eoman Cathohcs, who denied that our Bishops and priests were " rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated or ordered." But it is certainly so worded as to pass no direct opinion respecting either the right- ness or the validity of any other orders or pro- fessing orders differing from our own, as in relation to other Churches or communities of Christians. Still, if it does not in terms condemn, it is very far from even allowing and much less approving them. The Enghsh Church simply does not take upon her to pronounce an uncalled-for and general judgment either way upon others. She has not done more in this kind than lay down a law for herself as an essential law, and so by implication condemn the breaking of it. But then this is in reality to condemn, though it be not formal condem- nation. For the English Church declares, by inference if you please, but by inevitable inference, that. Episcopal orders alone being (by God's law) in this Church lawful, non-Episcopal orders must needs be in the abstract, by God's law, and there- fore every where, unlawful, whether or no absolutely invalid also ; and she acts upon that judgment by admitting none but Episcopal orders within her own communion. This certainly she has done. Put aside the prayer for the Bishops and Pastors

142 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

(one class of persons, not two ; just as the Sheplierd and Bishop of 1 Peter ii. 25 is one) as sole ordainers. Put aside the statement, that " divers orders" in the Church were appointed, not by man, but by God, namely, " by His Divine providence ;" although certainly these words mean, not only more than that Episcopacy was a providential fact like the mediaeval Papacy, but more too than that it was an ecclesiastical arrangement, — mean, in short, that God caused the Apostles to appoint those orders as by Divine appointment. Put aside the direct comparison in another collect between the clergy of the present Church and the Apostle St. Peter, and in yet another between Bishops and all the Apostles, to whom God first " gave many excellent gifts," and then " charged them to feed His flock." These allusions intimate both Epis- copacy, and the Divine institution of Episcopacy, and the gifts of the Spirit attaching to orders. But besides such allusions, there stands also the plain and categorical statement in the Preface to the Ordinal, that " from the Apostles' time there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" and this not as a bare fact, but as a fact implying a law, so that none " shall be accounted a lawful Bishop, priest, or deacon, in the Church of England," that hath not had " Episcopal consecration or ordination." And the sermon at the ordination, both of deacons and of priests, is to declare among other things,

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 143

*' liow necessary " botli " orders are in the Cliurcli of Christ." And we have, further, in the Ordinal itself, the change of the words, " by His Divine pro- vidence " (in the Ember Day prayer) into " by His Holy Spirit;" — the ascription of the sending of ministers to our Lord Himself after His ascen- sion ; — the description of their office, in the same place, as " appointed for the salvation of man- kind;"— and, above all, the solemn words of the ordination itself. And if we turn from the Ordinal to the comment upon it derivable from the other services, besides the entire framework of these services, and the rubrics respecting the ministers of them, the plain words of the well- known form of Absolution in the Visitation Office show unmistakably, what indeed ample evidence demonstrates to have been not only the allowed, but the pronounced and decided meaning of those, who remoulded our Service books at the Reforma- tion. Orders, then, in the view of the Church of England, are (historically) an Apostolical or- dinance, but one both in itself necessary to the Church, and in its origin a direct appointment of Christ Himself by His Holy Spirit, with no less an end than the salvation of men's souls, and with no less a power than that of administering sacraments and conveying instrumentally God's gift of the forgiveness of sins. And those orders, of course, are asserted to be so, and none other, that are set forth in the Ordinal itself, viz. Bishops, priests, and

144 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

deacons, with their several powers as there distin- guished and declared, — powers certainly in their own nature such as none but Almighty God can give, and which, therefore, only the authority of Almighty God can ever excuse, much less sanction, men in claiming to bestow. Beyond all power of gloss, our services are either rank and fearful blasphemy, or they rest upon the doctrine here laid down.

It is singular, if we pass on to the comment derivable from Reformation documents, how con- tinuously the Di\ine appointment and gifts of Holy Orders in this their full sense are repeated, and with special emphasis, in almost every document of the kind in England. Those documents are no longer of legal authority; but they prove un- mistakably both the dehberate sentiments of the Reformers, and the doctrine of this Church through that crisis of change and unsettlement. Remem- bering that the current school doctrine at that time preferred to make one order distinguished into Bishops and priests, rather than two orders, — a distinction of little more than words, in that the special functions of a Bishop were still restricted to him, and to him alone; — remem- bering also, that the tendency of Roman teaching even then was to depreciate Bishops in order to exalt the Pope ; — remembering also, that some of the earlier of these documents are intended to defend the abolition of the minor orders, and so

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 145

are intent upon assailing seven — not upon main- taining three as against two — classes of the minis- try; and that, in point of fact, the Presbyterian controversy had not then emerged into importance, and scarcely could be said to exist at all; — we shall, I think, be rather struck, as by their special characteristic, with the persistent assertion in them of the supernatural doctrine of Holy Orders.

Take, first, the " Declaration" formally "made of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests ^" in a.d. 1537 ; embodied in the " In- stitution of a Christian Man," and sanctioned by both Church and Stated

Christ and His Apostles, it tells us, did institute and ordain in the New Testament, that there should be also (i. e. beside lay magistrates) "continually in the Church militant certain other ministers or offi- cers, which should have special power, authority, and commission, under Christ, to preach and teach the Word of God unto His people; to dispense and administer the Sacraments of G-od unto them, and by the same to confer and give the grace of the Holy Ghost ; to consecrate the Blessed Body

1 WUk. ii. 832.

' The King's Articles of 1535, approved by Convocation, may perhaps be thought too far back, and too much mixed up with other doctrines now repudiated, to be quoted in this connexion. Whether they contain or not " the ore of the Reformation." appears to be matter of dispute and obscurity. Suffice it there- fore to say of them, that they assert the ministerial power of absolution in terms most unqualified.

L

146 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar ; to loose and absoyle from sin all persons which be duly penitent and sorry for the same ; to bind and to excommunicate such as be guilty in manifest crimes and sins, and will not amend their defaults; to order and consecrate others to the same room, order, and office, whereunto they be called and admitted themselves ; and, finally, to feed Christ's people, like good pastors and rectors (as the Apostle calleth them) with their wholesome doc- trine; and by their continual exhortations and monitions to reduce them from sin and iniquity." Further, " It appeareth, evidently, that St. Paul accounted and numbered this said power and office of the pastors and doctors among the proper and special gifts of the Holy Ghost ; but also . . . that the same was a limited power and office, ordained for certain special purposes." Further, " This power, office, and administration is necessary to be pre- served here in earth : . . . first, for that it is the commandment of God ; second, for that God hath instituted and ordained none other ordinary mean or instrument whereby He will make us partakers of the reconciliation which is by Christ, and confer and give the graces of His Holy Spirit unto us, and make us the right inheritors of everlasting life, . . . but only His Word and Sacraments; and, therefore, the office and power to minister the said Word and Sacraments may in no wise be suffered to perish or to be abolished ; . . . thirdly,

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 147

because the said power and office or function liath annexeduntoit assured promises of excellent and in- estimable things; for thereby is conferred and given the Holy Ghost with all His graces, especially our justification and everlasting hfe." And again, "This office, this power and authority, were committed and given by Christ and His Apostles unto certain persons only, that is to say, unto priests or Bishops, whom they did elect, call, and admit thereunto, by their prayers and imposition of their hands. . . . And to the intent the Church of Christ should never be destituted of such ministers as should have and execute the said power of the Keys, it was also ordained and commanded by the Apostles that the same Sacrament (of orders) should be applied and ministered by the Bishops from time to time unto such other persons as had the quahties . . . which the Apostles also did very diligently de- scribe." Further still it is added, that " the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders " (the minor orders are those in question), "but only of deacons or ministers and of priests or Bishops ; nor is there any word spoken of any other cere- mony used in the conferring of this Sacrament, but only of prayer and of the imposition of the Bishop's hands."

Again, in 1538, we have the document, " De Ordine et Ministerio Sacerdotum etEpiscoporum

" Cranmer's Works, iv. 300. Jenkyns. L 2

3 "

^

148 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

which begins thus : " Sacerdotum et Episcoporuiu ordinem ac ministeriuin, non humana auctoritate sed Divinitus institutum, Scriptura aperte docet. Quippe quae tradit, Dominum ac Servatorem nos- trum Jesum Christum in Ecclesia instituisse certos quosdam verbi Sui ministros tamquam legates Suos,et dispensatores mysteriorumDei(sic enim eos Paulus vocat), qui non modo," &c. ; proceeding to describe their powers in words equivalent to, indeed almost translated from, those in the " Institution of a Christian Man," and to add also, with equally unqualified decision, the three reasons above given for the necessity of holy orders. And then further : " Proinde potestatem seu functionem hanc Dei verbum et sacramenta ministrandi ceeterasque res agendi quas ante recensuimus, Christus Ipse Apostolis Suis dedit, et in illis ac per illos eandem tradidit, hand promiscue quidem omnibus, sed quibusdam duntaxat hominibus, nempe Episcopis et presbyteris, qui ad istud muneris initiantur et admittuntur." The remainder of the paper is employed in an elaborate disproof of Papal Supre- macy, metropolitans and the like being alleged to be of human institution, but Bishops and pres- byters of Divine ; while the civil power is asserted to be supreme over all (not things, but) persons, and to be bound to see externally that the Church does her duty, but no more.

In the year 1540 a Commission was appointed, which, in 1543, published an enlarged book to the

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 149

same purpose with tlie " Institution of a Christian Man," entitled, " A Necessary Doctrine and Eru- dition for a Christian Man." And here, too, we find hke doctrine. And this is of the more importance, because, in 1540, preparatory to this book, certain questions being put to the Arch- bishop, Bishops, and others, touching among other things holy orders, Cranmer is reported to have thereupon given utterance to those well-known answers which deny holy orders altogether, except as emanating from the King; answers, be it re- membered, in the shape of crude suggestions in a private document, which contains also doctrines of the very opposite character, and in its very form bound no one. It is well to see that even these his temporary opinions, for which, had he continued to hold them, or had he deliberately held them at all, the Church would in no way have been responsible, were given up by him almost im- mediately ^, and that the formal Church documents in which he actually took part, almost at the same moment, are framed in very difierent language. " Order," says the " Necessary Doctrine," " is a gift or grace of ministration in Christ's Church, given of God to Christian men, by the consecration and imposition of the Bishop's hands upon them : and this sacrament was conferred and given by the Apostles, as it appeareth in the Epistle of

* See the facts stated by Harington, on Apostolical Suc- cession, pp. 140 — 143, 2nd edit.

150 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

St. Paul to Timotliy, wliom he had ordered and consecrated priest : . . . whereby it appeareth that St. Paul did consecrate and order priests and Bishops by the imposition of his hands. And as the Apostles themselves in the beginning of the Church did order priests and Bishops, so they appointed and willed the other Bishops after them to do the hke." And then further, after describing the offices of the priesthood in the same words as the preceding book had used, and adding (it must be honestly said) a declaration that such offices " may " only be executed by them " with such sort and such limitation as the ordinances and laws of every Christian realm do permit and suffer," the document proceeds to refer the minor orders to the institution of "the primitive Church," and to assert by contrast, that of these two orders only — that is to say, priests and deacons (Bishops being obviously held to be of one order with priests, •y: yet the power of ordination restricted to the former only)," Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were conferred by the Apostles by prayer and imposition of their hands ; . . . and thus by succession from the Apostles hath order continued in the Church."

And if this be said to be a pubUc document, to which Cranmer might have yielded in spite of differing private sentiments, we have but to go on a few years to 1548 to Cranmer's Catechism. For although this was a public document also, yet it

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 151

cannot but represent the sentiments, not only of the individual compiler, viz. Justus Jonas, but also of Cranmer himself, who, as Archbishop, deliberately adopted and translated it, and re- peatedly refers to it as his own. And here we read ^ that "it is necessary to our salvation to have preachers and ministers of God's most holy Word," and " preachers must not run to this high honour before they are called thereto, but they must be ordained and appointed to this office and sent to us by God. For it is not possible to be saved or to please God without faith, and no man can truly believe in God by his own wit (for of oui'selves we know not what we should believe), but we must needs hear God's "Word taught us by others." Again : " Teachers, except they be called and sent, cannot fruitfully teach : for the seed of God's Word doth never bring forth fruit, unless the Lord of the harvest do give the in- crease, and by His Holy Spirit do work with the sower : but God doth not work with the preacher whom He hath not sent." Again : " Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath both ordained and appointed ministers and preachers to teach us His holy Word and to minister His sacraments ; and also hath appointed them what they shall teach in His name and what they shall do unto us : . . . He called and chose His twelve Apostles; ....

' Sermon on the Keys, in Cranmer'' s Catechism, pp. 193 sq. Oxf. 1829.

152 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

and upon Christ's Ascension the Apostles gave authority to other godly and holy men to minister God's Word, and chiefly in those places where there were Christian men already which lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could

not longer abide with them Wherefore,

when they found godly men and meet to preach God's Word, they laid their hands upon them, and gave them the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of Christ the same Holy Ghost to execute this office. And they that were so ordained, were indeed, and also were called, the ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves were; as St. Paul saith to Timothy. And so the ministration of God's Word, which our Lord Jesus Christ did first institute, was derived from the Apostles unto others after them by imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from the Apostles' time to our days. And this was the consecration, orders, and unction of the Apostles, whereby they at the beginning made Bishops and priests, and this shall continue in the Church even to the world's

end Wherefore, good children, you shall

give due reverence and honour to the ministers of

the Chiu*ch You shall take them for God's

ministers and the messengers of our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ Himself saith in the Gospel, He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that de- spiseth you despiseth Me. Wherefore, good chil- dren, you shall stedfastly believe all those things

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 153

wliicli such ministers shall speak unto you from the mouth and by the commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ. And whatsoever they do to you, as when they baptize you, when they give you abso- lution, and distribute to you the Body and BlOod of our Lord Jesus Christ, these you shall so esteem, as if Christ Himself in His own Person did speak and minister unto you. For Christ hath commanded His ministers to do this unto you, and He Himself (although you see Him not with your bodily eyes) is present with His minis- ters, and worketh by the Holy Ghost in the admi- nistration of His sacraments. And, on the other side, you shall take good heed and beware of false and privy preachers, which privily creep into cities and preach in corners, having none autho- rity, nor being called to this office. For Christ is not present with such preachers, and therefore doth not the Holy Ghost work by their preaching, but their word is without fruit or profit, and they do great hurt in commonwealths. For such as be not called of God, they no doubt of it do err, and sow abroad heresy and naughty doctrine. And yet you shall not think, good children, that preachers which be lawfully called have authority to do or teach whatsoever shall please them :" for they must follow Christ's plain instructions, they cannot absolve the impenitent, or debar for- giveness from those who truly repent. Yet never- theless, when "ministers do truly execute theii^

154 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

office, you ought, good children, to take great comfort .... and to answer the Devil after this manner : — God hath sent to me one of His minis- ters ; he in the name of God hath declared to me the forgiveness of my sins, and hath baptized me in the assurance of the same ; wherefore I doubt not but that my sins be forgiven, and that I am made the son and heir of God." And further, when a " man after baptism hath grievously sinned," let him " go to one of the ministers of the Church, let him acknowledge and confess his sin, and pray him that, according to God's com- mandment, he will give him absolution and comfort him with the word of grace and forgiveness of his sins. And when the minister doth so, then I ought stedfastly to beheve that my sins are truly

forgiven me in heaven Wherefore despise

not absolution, for it is the commandment and ordinance of God, and the Holy Spirit of God is present and causeth them thus to take effect in us and to work our salvation. And this is the meaning and plain understanding of those words of Christ which you heard before rehearsed " (what- soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, &c., &c.), " which are written to the intent that we should beheve, that whatsoever God's ministers do to us by God's commandment, is as much available as if God Himself should do the same " — or, as it stands just afterwards, " as if Christ should speak the words out of Heaven."

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 155

Certainly, after reading these passages, no question can be made, either of the fulness or of the prominence of the belief, both in Apostolical Succession and in the transmission thereby of a Divine gift and office, held by Cranmer and by the divines of the reigns of Henry and Edward. It is the doctrine in this kind upon which they insist with all the emphasis wherewith words can supply them. Here is the comment upon the Ordination Service, which those who put that Service into its present form have left us. There can be no shadow of doubt what they at least meant by it.

Pass on to the next reign, and the question which then emerges comes from another side. Episcopal as against Presbyterian ordination then becomes, more and more, the point disputed. And here, too, the Church of this land, changing as times varied in the tone of feeling with which she regarded the persons and the cause of foreign Reformers, never wavered as a Church in the matter of formally refusing their orders and of maintaining Episcopal ordination only.

To the Ordinals of 1549 — 1552 reference has been made already : nor was there any substantial difference made in the Preface to the Ordinal in 1661. In 1552 the Beformatio Legum asserts the orders and powers of the ministry in like express terms (§ De Ecclesiaj &c., cc. 3, 4, 10, 11, 12). And in 1559, in the Disputation managed on the Church of England side by Bishop Scory, besides Grindal,

156 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

Jewel, and others, it is asserted, incidentally no doubt, and as against tlie Papal claims, but as an undoubted trutli, that " the Apostles' authority is derived upon after ages, and conveyed to the Bishops their successors." In the next few years follow, it need hardly be said, the Articles ; not to add the confirmation of the Ordinal, in order to avoid legal objections, by State law in the 5th of Elizabeth. And these documents are noticeable as bridging over the time, when (if ever) the pressure of external circumstances, weighing heavily upon the English Church in this the very crisis of her present settlement, tempted her most strongly to gravitate towards foreign Reformed bodies. Yet plainly no orders were legally and formally allowed save the Episcopal orders of the Church herself; although there is some evidence that a few not so ordained crept in unawares. Yet, " I know none such," is Whitgiffc's own testimony. And very shortly not the law, but the position of those who administered it, was changed. And that became rigorously enforced once more, which the Church had held as a law all through. The case of "VVliittingham, and that of Travers, with the seemingly opposite case of Morrison, will be noticed hereafter. Let it suffice to say here, that in Travers's case, the last in date, the Church principle was affirmed and acted upon " ; and that in the Archiepiscopal articles of 1585, we find that • See Strype's Whitgift; Pt. III. p. 182.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Vol

principle made the foundation of a systematic discipline. The question is ordered to be asked, at the visitation of a diocese, whether the minister, " or any other, take upon them to read lectures, or preach, being mere lay persons, or not ordered according to the lawes of this realme, or not lawfully Hcensed ^" And thenceforth, although cases may be found of some notable foreigners who held preferment at various times in England (seemingly) without re-ordination, yet their doing so was plainly contrary, not only, as always, to the formal principles, but now also to the actual dis- cipline intended to be in force, and, as a rule, actually enforced, of the Enghsh Church. Lastly, upon occasion of the Hampton Court Conference, we find Archbishop Whitgift asking for, and, it must be presumed, approving, the judgment of his brother Archbishop, Matthew Hutton, of York, about "the government of the Church in this Kingdom," among other matters ; Hutton being unable to be present at the Conference in person. And we find Dr. Hutton quoting, as the case alleged by " the Presbyteries," the well-known words of S. Jerome, in order emphatically to deny their truth : " Whereas," he says, " indeed, Bishops have their authority, not by any custom or decree of man, but from the Apostles them- selves, as Epiphanius proveth plainly against Arrius the heretic;" and further, "Epiphanius » Wilk. iv. 318 : Cardwell, Doc. Annals, II. 4, 5.

158 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

dotli show the difference to be, not only because the Bishop hath authority over the priests, but because the presbyter begetteth children to the Church by preaching and baptizing; the Bishop begetteth fathers to the Church by giving of orders." It is needless to refer to other con- temporary writers, such as Bancroft in his cele- brated Sermon, or to the Canon of 1604, or to documents later than these. If Apostolical Suc- cession as a Divine institution, and with all that the doctrine implies, was the undoubted formal doc- trine of the English Church, without break or hesi- tation, throughout the Reformation period down to the end of the reign of Elizabeth, every one, it is to be supposed, will admit that it has been so ever since, and is so still.

II. Against this evidence there is nothing to be set of the same kind ; viz. of formal Church acts, and the language of formularies and rubrics, and of authorized expositions of the sentiments of the Church herself during the transition period. There is to be found in the opposite direction nothing more, — and under the circumstances, the wonder rather is that of this there should be found so little, — than the natural oscitation on the part of individuals in the matter of rigorous ad- herence to admitted principle, and the natural struggle to find ground on which to combine with, and a theory that if possible should include, all those who were opposed to the Papacy ; such as

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 159

would arise of necessity under the hard pressure of the actual facts. That the inclination of English Churchmen down to the latter part of the sixteenth century should have been to make common cause with all foreign bodies that could help them in the contest with the Papacy — a political contest at that time for freedom, almost for life, as much as a reHgious one, — no more proves, in the absence of all formal acts touch- ing terms of union, that the English Church held the lack of Bishops to be right and admissible; than does the absence of such inchnation when this pressure was over, prove the contrary. Were it otherwise, indeed, the result would cut both ways. If Archbishop Cranmer's private wish for a Council of the Reformed communities, or Bishop Burnet's gloss on the 23rd Article about "im- perfect Churches," commit, or could possibly commit, the Church of this land, in the one direc- tion ; of course the acts of individual Churchmen in the opposite sense, as e. g. Dr. Pusey's Eireni- con or Archbishop Wake's negotiations with M. Dupin, must commit that Church just as much in the other.

1. We have, then, first, of acts that can at all claim any character of authority, such proceedings as the allowance of Reformed Churches in England for refugees from abroad — Dutch, Walloons, Huguenots, and the hke : acts which surely prove the contrary of that for which they are alleged ;

160 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

for, if we had been in communion with those foreign bodies, what need at all of separate churches for them, with special ministers not recognized as clergy of our Church? The very patents constituting or protecting these churches actually recognize their separateness and diversity from the Church of England. And what possible inference can be drawn in any case from hospitable toleration to formal approval ? But, next, there is the alleged, and very probable, connivance, in cases which after all are either vague or inconclu- sive, exercised towards ministers without Episco- pal ordination throughout the whole of the reign of Ehzabeth : cases which are obviously worth any thing argumentatively only where attention was drawn to the fact and formal action taken upon it. And of this kind there appear to have been only two or three notable instances. That of Dean Whittingham was one, in 1576-8, to whose orders objection was formally taken, as to a " mer^ laicus." The inquiry, however, was cut short by his death. But it is only natural to suppose, in the absence of a formal verdict, that the Genevan orders, against which the objection was expressly directed, were forma! Genevan orders, and not some ceremony irregular even in Geneva itself. Another, that of Morrison, ordained by imposition of hands in 1577 in Scotland, to whom Grindal's Vicar-general, during Grindal's suspension, granted a licence to minister in England in 1582, is, at first

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 161

sight, a stronger case. Yet it is doubtful, after all, what were Morrison's orders. For the Scotch in 1577 did not use imposition of hands ^. On the other hand we have the well-known case of Travers, who had been ordained by the presbytery at Antwerp in 1576, and of whom Archbishop "Whitgifb writes in express terms in 1584, that, " unless he will testify his conformity by subscription, . . . and make proof unto me that he is a minister ordered according to the laws of this Church of England, as I verily believe he is not, .... I can by no means yield my consent to the placing him ... in any function of this Church." Surely this last case is conclusive. The answer, indeed, to that of Morrison is obvious enough. The dispensation contradicts itself. It grants the licence, " qua- tenus jura regni patiuntur;" and the law of the Church, which was also the law of the land, did not permit the thing alleged to be granted. And Dr. Aubrey is nothing to the Church herself. On the other hand, in Whittingham's case, the objection was actually taken that he had been ordained by some laymen in a house; although no decision was, or, as it happened, could be, arrived at, whether or no formal Genevan ordina- tion came under this description or no. It needs no words to prove that the most formal of Gene- van ordinations at that time would have been " unlawful " in this country, not by the law of the • See some letters by Chancellor Harington, publ. in 1851.

M

162 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

land only, but by the express law of the Church, as laid down in the Preface to the Ordinal.

The 13th Eliz. c. 12 (a.d. 1571), indeed, seems to have made a loophole, by which ministers im- perfectly ordained prior to that date might be allowed, upon subscription to the Articles. And Cosin seems to intimate, that use actually con- tinued to be made of this apparent statutable per- mission (long ago now repealed) of orders, priestly or diaconal, — "pretended" orders, as the statute itself calls them, — other than those of the then English Ordinal, so as to allow of foreign minis- ters, not reordained, if they subscribed the Articles. Yet Whitgifb's words, just quoted, seem to point to another view of that Act. For he certainly re- quires of Cartwright more than subscription, viz. a right Church of England ordination. And the Act, moreover®, was obviously intended to cover, not cases of foreign " orders " at all, but those of beneficed men ordained under Queen Mary's reign. Further, it has long since passed away, and it was an act of the Parliament, not of the Church. And further still, it apphed, even at the time, only as a temporary permission for the past, condoning irregularities in the particular circumstances, not as a general rule for future ordinations. That this was so is plain, (1) by the Articles of 1584, which require expressly in the clergy both ordina- tion, so as to be *' a priest or a deacon at the least, * See Hardwickc, Hist, of Articles, p. 227.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 163

admitted thereunto according to the laws of this realme," and also subscription to the Articles, viz. those now in the 36th Canon; (2) by the Convo- cation Articles of the same year, which rigorously lay down conditions implying like quahfications of candidates for ordination ; (3) by Cartwright's vain effort in 1584 to plead this very Act in justification of his own Presbyterian orders ; and (4) by the letter of Archbishop Whitgift in 1586 to the Bishop of Lincoln, to search out and reject " coun- terfaite ministers :" measures which culminated in Bancroft's well-known sermon. The discovery out of the Canons of 1604, which bid clergy pray for the Church of Scotland together with those of England and Ireland, about which we heard so much a few years ago, comes to nothing more than these other cases. It is indeed an act of Convocation, or, rather, an inference from general words used by a Convocation. But it amounts simply to this, — that the Enghsh Church, which would, no doubt, fain have kept on terms with foreign Reformers, and sought to shelter them under the plea of necessity so long as she possibly could, was ready much more to recognize the Scottish Church (the only religious body in Scot- land at the time at all, Roman Cathohcs apart), which at the very time was taking advantage of the cessation of such necessity to obtain a true succession of Bishops once more, — to the sees of which Bishops either had actually been named, or

M 2

164 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

were in process of being named, — and Bisliops who were to receive, and in due time did receive, a true and Episcopal consecration at the hands of the Bnghsh Bishops. If any foreign Keformed community at this moment, — if the Scottish kirk herself, — were to have organized an Episcopal ministry, and to be on the point of seeking conse- cration for them at our hands, the recognition of such a community as a Church (waiving other questions) would be so far from being an admis- sion that Episcopacy was not essential, that it would be in effect a distinct declaration (as com- pared with our previous non-recognition of them) that it was. The project, indeed, for introducing Episcopacy into Prussia, just then made into a kingdom, which was taken up by the English Con- vocation in 1706 (see Cardwell's Synodalia^ 11.722), and on the Prussian side initiated by the just made King of Prussia himself (apt as kings of Prussia seem to be to meddle with their subjects' religion) under the inspiration of Jablonski and Ursinus, but ultimately dropped or suppressed by Ai'ch- bishop Tenison, is an actual case in point ; where certainly it would be strange indeed to infer, that the English Church, in entertaining the project, ad- mitted Episcopacy to be a thing indifferent, or even to be of minor importance. And Bancroft's ohiter dictum (if it was Bancroft's, and not Abbot's) in 1610, when the Scottish consecration actually took place, — that he did not insist on first ordaining

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 165

to the priestliood tlie Scottisli candidates for the Episcopate (as was actually done in 1661 in the cases of Sharp and Leighton), because to condemn their priests' orders as invalid would be to condemn the orders of the foreign Reformers (alleging how- ever also, that Episcopal orders included presby- teral), — could not have meant more, if we recollect his celebrated sermon of 1588, than the old ground of necessity, — the view of men, who held Episco- pacy to be a Divine ordinance, but would not go on to condemn those, who only had it not because it was held that (except at the price of vital truth) they could not have it. The treatment ot Presbyterian orders by Archbishop Bramhall in Ireland upon the Eestoration has been still more violently misrepresented. It appears by Bishop Yesey's Life of him, that in treating the very delicate question of reordination (at that juncture and in that kingdom doubly deHcate), Bramhall was willing to waive the question of the validity of Presbyterian orders for the sake of peace, pro- vided the persons in question would submit to be actually reordained; and that in the letters of orders thereupon granted he inserted a clause, beginning, " Non annihilantes priores or dines {si quos habuit) nee invaliditatem eorum determinantes, multo minus omnes ordines sacros Ecclesiarum forinse- carum condemnantes (quos jprojprio Judici relinqui- mus), sed solummodo supplentes quicquid prius defuit per canones Ecclesise Anglicanse requisi-

166 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

turn." Meanwhile tlie Arclibisliop's own opinion, published in print not a dozen years before, held those who lacked " Episcopal succession," to " put it to a dangerous question whether they be within the pale of the Church." And in his Episcopal acts he assuredly did not take upon himself to contravene the express law of the Church, of which he was the Primate. A similar compromise, but one also distinctly involving a fresh and Episcopal ordination, was among the provisions of the various schemes of the reign of Charles II. for Comprehension (of Presbyterians) and Toleration (of Independents) . And the further step of the Commissioners of 1689, which certainly would have distorted Bramhall's proceeding into a precedent for a merely conditional ceremony which should not be reordination, (as every one knows) came to nought.

Only one later act, acquiesced in, at any rate, by the English Church, seems to require mention. The Jerusalem Bishopric, although half forgotten, still exists, and by Eastern Churchmen is by no means forgotten. And it may be as well for us to be reminded, that, while the English Church autho- rities took special pains, on the one side, to keep clear of undue interference with the Churches of the East ', there is, on the other, not one word in any English Church document relating to the sub-

* See the Rev. G. Williams's recent republication of th*': correspondence on the subject.

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 167

ject, expressing any judgment at all respecting tlie Prussian Churcli or foreign reformed orders ; nor does any Churcli act commit us to either. The Prussian document of Nov. 14, 1841, no doubt con- templates the whole proceeding, very naturally, from the point of view of " the Evangelical Church of Prussia." But our own Archbishop's commen- datory letter of Nov. 23, in the same year, states simply, that he " has consecrated Alexander to be a Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, according to the ordinances of our Holy and Apostohc Church," in order " to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over the clergy and congrega- tions of our Church, which are now or hereafter may be established " in Syria and the countries adjacent. And Germans who are to minister there, are to be ordained after the Enghsh manner, signing the Confession of Augsburg, but using a German Liturgy " agreeing in all points of doc- trine with the Liturgy of the English Church." While the official statement issued at London Dec. 9, 1841, goes no further than to hold out in terms, as one motive of the scheme, a desire " to lead the way to an essential unity of discipline as well as of doctrine between our own Church and the less perfectly constituted of the Protestant Churches of Europe:" a result, indeed, most devoutly to be desired, if only God's truth be not endangered in the bringing it about.

2. But besides these (to some extent) formal

168 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

acts, it has been alleged, tliat the current opinion of Encrlish divines has throuo^hout lain in the direc- tion of refusing to condemn Foreign Reformed orders. And I believe this to be true. That laymen have so held, is certain from Lord Bacon's " Adver- tisement respecting the Controversies of the Church of England," published about 1590. But it is only a part of the truth as regards English divines. Such refusal, even in the mouth of Bishop Burnet himself, one of its strongest ecclesiastical pro- pounders, was based invariably on the assumption of an absolute necessity on the part of Foreign Reformers to forego Episcopacy if they would have " reformation of doctrine " at all. And if the excuse is repudiated or ceases to hold good, then the defence founded upon it must needs fail also. And, further, a defence rested on such a principle is but temporary — during the necessity ; and it ex- tends only to the persons themselves, and to orders in relation solely to the people among whom they minister. It is a defence also which in principle condemns the thing defended, as being, of course, a thing wrong in the abstract, if nothing but necessity can excuse it. It amounts to more, no doubt, than merely to affirm that salvation may be had in such communities — which no one, it may be hoped, was ever monstrous enough to think of doubting ; but its utmost limit obviously can reach no further, than to imply the case to be one of a kind to which neces- sity might rightfully extend; and it was this, plainly,

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 169

as being one respecting external means of grace, not respecting the primary articles of tlie faitli itself. The case so put, English divines have, I believe, commonly refrained from condemning foreign orders for foreigners. But then it is remarkable also, that, setting aside spurious books, — as e. g. " The Vindi- cation of Foreign Orders," pubhshed after Mason's death and falsely attributed to him, — or mistaken quotations, — as those from Whitgift, for instance, which speak of details of Church disciphne, and not of Episcopacy, — almost every one of those writers who have urged or admitted this plea of necessity in one passage or at one time, have them- selves affirmed in other passages and times the Di- vine right of Episcopacy, in terms not perhaps logi- cally but almost morally excluding their own plea. If Hooker admits the validity of an extraordinary call, whether miraculous (but then it must be proved by signs from heaven), or under " exigence of necessity,'* when " the Church neither hath nor can have possibly a Bishop to ordain ;" the same Hooker takes care to add, that, " these cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only Bishops ;" and has told us a Httle before, " not to fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Church's government, surely the first institution of Bishops was from heaven, was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it." If Bishop Hall, in his " Peace- maker," denies the form of her government to

170 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

be essential to the being of a Oliurcli, tlie same Bishop declares in his " Episcopacy by Divine Right Asserted," that he '' would fain see where it can be showed, that any extremity of necessity was by the CathoHc Chm'ch of Christ ever yet acknow- ledged for a warrant sufficient to diffuse" the powers of confirmation and ordination " into other hands than" those of Bishops. If Cosin, under the pressure of exile abroad, in 1650, during the Rebellion, advises one correspondent (Mr. Cordell) " not absolutely to refuse " to communicate with French Protestants, yet under protest, — in that (among other things) he (Cosin) " would be loth to affirm and determine against them," that there was "a total nullity in their ordination;" the same Cosin finds it necessary in consequence, a few years afterwards (1657), to explain to another (Mr. Gunning), that he by no means intended to say that " Presbyters had any power of rightful ordination in the judgment of antiquity," but the contrary ; and that he " cannot apprehend how his letter either hurts the jus Divinum of Epis- copacy, or excuseth their voluntary and transcen- dent impiety that have endeavoured to destroy it in the Church of England, contrary to the laws of God and His universal Church, the mother of us all." If Bishop Davenant, again, a httle earher, wished for brotherly communion with foreign Pro- testants, the same Bishop acknowledges Bishops as the successors of the Apostles, and terms Pres-

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 171

byterian ordination, " actum irritum et inanem.''^ And if Stillingfleet, somewhat later, in Ms " Ireni* con," would not uncliurcli foreign Protestants for lack of Episcopacy ; lie too, in his later and more matured writings, gives up this " Irenicon " as a youthful work which his maturer views disclaimed. The minds which grasped systematic theology more powerfully enunciate much the same general posi- tion, but with more consistency. Thorndike, for in- stance, puts the case tersely enough, asking, "Who can have the conscience to think, or the face to say, that if ordinations made by presbyters against their Bishops be void, those ordinations made by presbyters where they could not be had by Bishops, are void ;" and adding, that he himself, on such grounds, " neither justifies nor condemns " foreign reformed orders ; " averring on the one side that they are not according to rule, seeing on the other side that they were owned by " his " superiors " (meaning, I presume, Cosin, or Bramhall). So again Bishop Andrewes : " Nevertheless, if our form (of Episcopacy) be of Divine right, it doth not follow from thence that there is no salvation Tsdthout it, or that a Church cannot consist with- out it; he is blind that does not see Churches consisting without it; he is hard-hearted who denieth them salvation : . . . there may be some- thing absent in the exterior regiment which is of Divine right, and yet salvation be to be had." And similarly Bramhall, after asking the very serious

172 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

question, " Where we are not sure that there is a right ordination, what assurance have we that there is a Church ?" in that " there is required to the essence of a Church — first a pastor, secondly a flock, thirdly a subordination of this flock to this pastor," proceeds to say, that he " writes not this to prejudge our neighbour Churches ;" he " dares not limit the extraordinary operation of the Spirit, where ordinary means are wanting without the default of the persons ;" and that " necessity is a strong plea ;" and " so, if any Churches, through necessity, or ignorance, or newfangledness, or covetousness, or practice of some persons, have swerved from the Apostolical rule or primitive institution, the Lord may pardon them or supply the defect of man, but we must not therefore pre- sume. It is charity to think well of our neigh- bours, and good divinity to look well to ourselves :" adding, that he does not think Episcopacy to be " simply necessary," that " there is a great differ- ence between a valid and a regular ordination," and that he is apt to believe that " a great latitude is left to particular Churches in the constitution of their ecclesiastical regiment, so as order and" (a very large qualification indeed in this matter) " God's own institution be observed." It would be easy to multiply such quotations ^. Let it suffice

• Field, for instance, in his " Book of the Church," iii. 37, and Crackanthorp in his " Defensio Eccl. Anglicanre," c. xli., and Burnet on the Ai-ticles, as before referred to (who, it need

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 173

to admit, if it be an admission, tliat Englisli divines generally, while asserting Episcopacy to be " jure Bvvino^^ have yet found throughout in the external nature of the institution a ground for not con- demning, while yet they did not justify, those who, by mere necessity, had it not. The excuse, unhappily, is not an excuse for our own Non- conformists. It was one, perhaps, for foreign Reformers at the beginning. Can it be said to be so now, when they might have Bishops if they would, and repudiate for themselves an excuse, to admit which would indeed be to condemn their

hardly be added, only escaped being censured for his book by the LoAver House of Convocation through the interference of the Upper House) ; or again, the Oxford Convocation of 1707, in their letter to the Genevese Pastors (quoted by Dean Goode), where the Foreign Protestant Churches are expressly spoken of as having given up the " prim^eva Episcopalis regiminis forma," because they were "necessitatis lege adactse, non sponte." Jeremy Taylor, in his " Episcopacy Asserted," and Hickes on the " Power of the Church," treat of the same plea of necessity, but question its real existence ; and qualify its force, if it did exist, so as to make it as nearly next to nothing as is consistent with allowing it in some sort, yet allowing it with qualifications almost (in Hickes's case, indeed, altogether) destroying it. So Bishop Sage again (" Reasonableness of Toleration," p. 219) distinguishes between " absolutely necessary to salvation," which Episcopacy is not, and " absolutely necessary for the due constitution of an organized visible Church," which Epis- copacy is ; saying also (pp. 204, 205), that he is " not persuaded that there ever was such a necessity as might justify" the " presumption" of setting up unepiscopally ordained ministers. Bishop Montague, I suppose, will be set aside as a very high Churchman. Certainly he denies that such a necessity either " ever has existed or could exist." Yet Bishop Hall saya almost the same thing.

174 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

own present position ? But be it their excuse or be it not, and whether it is sufficient if true, or no, the result to our present question is the same. That which Enghsh divines assert about the subject is, in either case, that Episcopacy and holy orders are not human but Divine, not an indifferent ex- ternal, but a thing essential ordinarily to the being of a Church at all.

Fluctuations of actual and hving belief in a doc- trine cannot affect the question of the formal teaching of the English Church. Yet I do not know that belief in this particular doctrine has fluctuated, in later times than those we have been considering, to any greater extent than has been the case with others more distinctly fandamental. There have been periods when Arianism, or when Socinianism, has prevailed widely, or at any rate obtrusively, in the Church of this land. Yet no one ever thought of doubting that the Church as a Church held the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Nor has Apostohcal Succession ever wanted defenders, raised up to revive a li\dng belief in it, when that belief seemed to falter, or was assailed. Mr. Law defended what the Church held, he did not aim at reforming her behef, at the time of the Bangorian controversy. Nor had that behef ceased to be either the ordi- nary belief of old-fashioned Churchmen, or the taunt of the Church's adversaries, when IMr. Keble shielded it under Butler's plea of being at least the safer doctrine some forty years ago. And it is

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 175

nothing but the more pronounced assertion of it that has provoked minds, trained in a school alien to the Church, to doubt or deny it now.

In sum, then, the Church of England asserts both orders and Episcopacy to be by Divine right. " God by His Holy Spirit appointed " them. How, then (if she is to speak of such communities at all), can she help condemning those who set aside — much more those who slight or deliberately reject — what God has instituted ? The Church of England regards the functions of the ministry as " appointed for men's salvation." What other view can she take of the absence or refusal of them, than that it is in itself a sinful tampering with God's own ordained means of conveying grace to the soul ? The Church of England holds no other orders lawful, and that by the law of God, than those ministered by Bishops, and she acts on that principle as her law. How can she avoid condemning as unlawful — and that not in England, but every where — all other orders non-Episcopal, even although she refrains from pronouncing them, as respects other Christian communities, either valid or invalid in regard to those communities themselves, and refrains indeed from judging their case at all ? And yet, neverthe- less, the Church of England, and her divines in accordance with her, have not overlooked the truth, that the end is above the means, and that the Church is, in its earthly work, in order to the salvation of souls ; and the unavoidable inference from this, that if God in His providence bring any man into

176 APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION THE

tlie fearful necessity of either surrendering vital truth or losing outward ordinances, the duty is a plain one of submitting to the latter. She admits a moral necessity and its consequences, as voiding, or rather (I ought to say) constituting, a moral obligation ; just as all would admit, what is in this point really a parallel case, that a physical necessity has the like force. But surely she does not thereby acknowledge the consequent loss to be a merely trifling blemish, or a condition to be quietly accepted, or a state of things only not quite so good as it might be, or as simply taking away some outward order that adds a more essential perfectness to the Church that has it, but which, if absent, leaves that Church none the less sufficient and apt for the salvation of men's souls. An institution of God for ministering grace to the soul can scarcely be so dealt with by reverent minds, if they believe it, as the English Churchcertainlybelieves it, to be suchan institution. And it must be humbly but earnestly pressed upon our own Church members, and especially on those clergy who are disposed to make light of their own office out of a desire for unity, and, with all respect, upon our Bishops themselves, that the view which our own Church has currently taken of foreign re- formed orders, so far from depreciating, actually implies, the Divine appointment of orders and of Episcopacy : for many things short of absolute ne- cessitymight excuse the dispensing with a human or a merely ecclesiastical ordinance, and yet sheer ne- ceflsity alone can excuse the lack of this. And what

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 177

Christian community abroad or at home can, or indeed will, urge the plea of necessity now ? As a Divine ordinance, as the Divinely-sanctioned instrument of God's grace, as the essential bulwark of the supernatural system of God's Church as a whole, a rightly- ordained ministry is no mere ex- ternal and nothing more, which charity might dare to compromise for the sake of peace. Christian com- munities that have it not, and unhappily now have learned to despise or even to denounce it, may indeed be well left to His judgment Who weighs the heart, and Who knows how to allow or to compen- sate the defaults of ignorance, or of long custom, or of scandal at the Church's shortcomings, or even of more personal and selfish causes. But to make Hght of God's great blessing to ourselves, because others have lost it, is indeed both sinful and foolish. And to do so would cut us off from the Cathohc Church of past times, by which alone, i. e. by union upon its terms (for it is God's own way), any can hope for real reunion. It would sever us effectually from thousands, where it brought us into doubtful relations with units, of our felloTV Christians. It would destroy, further, that special combination of Church order with purer doctrine, which is now the one great talent that God has given into our hands, and into ours almost if not quite alone. And above aU, it would be to con- temn God's ordinances, and to throw aside His truth and His grace.

CHAPTER VII

CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER AND OF BISHOP BARLOW.

THE objections raised by Roman Catliolic con- troversialists to the bare fact of tlie Apos- tolical Succession in tlie Church of England, as perpetuated by some formal ordinal at least, how- ever in their judgment (in one of these cases) uncanonical or invalid, and through Bishops at any rate, although in the same case they dispute their capacity, relate to two consecrations only — that of Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1559, and that of Barlow, Bishop of either St. Asaph's or St. David's in 1536, the latter being of conse- quence solely because it eventually turned out that Barlow was the senior Bishop of those who joined in the consecration of Parker. It must fairly be said, however, at the outset, that the grounds on which these objections of fact rest are so frivolous and unworthy, that an apology is needed for condescending to notice them at all. They are, indeed, a " dreary " subject, although modern Romanists who still cling to them are responsible

CONSECRA TIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER, &-c. \ 79

for their dreariness. Any one with the sHghtest power of weighing historical evidence would be ashamed, if he had examined the case, of committing himself to their acceptance, unless under that bias of party polemics which has rendered theological history a by-word. Surely it is time that the froth and scum thrown to the surface in the troubled and passionate period of the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries, when controversial morals on all sides were at their lowest, should be allowed at length to evaporate, and to leave clearer waters for what are indeed subjects too serious for mere calumny and abuse. It is, then, only because so much has been, and unhappily still is, said of them, that the irksome and degrading task becomes yet again necessary of noticing stories to which too much weight is given by the mere act of noticing them. And this is here said as the deliberate result of an inquiry to which circumstances led many years ago, and of which it is no more than the character needful to assign to it, to say that it was more thorough than any since the days of Oourayer ; but of which the main issue was, so to impress upon the inquirer the thoroughly con- temptible nature of the fictions alleged (and to their disgrace now revived) by Roman Catholic contro- versialists, as to make his uppermost feehng in the matter to be regret at the time wasted in their exposure.

I. Archbishop Parker, and from time to time N 2

180 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

eighteen other (Enghsh and Welsh) Bishops, were consecrated, and two translated, fifteen of the number to sees vacant by death, from December 17th, 1559, to May 4th, 1561, upon these or inter- vening days, by the revived second English Ordinal of Edward VI. And of all these consecrations there exists in due form (with the shghtest possible exception from loss of records) the entire body of ordinary legal evidence usual or possible in such cases. In 1604, i. e. forty-five years after Parker's consecration, an exiled Anglo -Romanist priest of the name of Holy wood (or a Sacro Bosco), in a controversial book printed at Antwerp, alleged that Parker and some of the other Bishops were conse- crated (so to call it) by a mock ceremony, all together at one time on a day unspecified, at the Nag's Head tavern, by Dr. Scory (who had been really consecrated Bishop in 1551), who was him- self in turn consecrated in the like mock way by them. To this story other subsequent wi'iters of the same stamp and class added a specification of three or four names of the other Bishops, and finally of fifteen in all ; and in one instance ventured upon so much of a date as to place the alleged mock consecration before September 9th, 1559. During the twenty years following 1604, every Anglo- Romanist writer, with scarcely a single exception, and with suicidal eagerness, repeats the story exultingly, although in varying and contradictoi-y forms. Prior to 1604, Anglo-Romanists of far

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 181

higher stamp as divines and scholars, e. g. Sanders, Harding, Stapleton, had assailed English orders as invahd, with an extravagance of assertion quite un- restrained, upon every ground their imaginations could devise, from canon law, from Roman doctrine on the subject, even from the statute law of the English realm ; but throughout, not only do they (who were, moreover, contemporary with the facts) know simply nothing of Holywood's story, but their very objections commonly turn on the assumption of the actual ordination of our Bishops by Edward's Ordinal. The one testimony, so to call it, cited by Holywood, is derived from hearsay words said to have been uttered in conversation by a Mr. Neale, who had been for a short time Hebrew Lecturer at Oxford until he was displaced for his rehgion in 1569, and who died in 1590, fourteen years before Holywood's book was published. Now any one that has ever looked into the Anglo- Romanist polemic literature of the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth centuries, and which emanated chiefly from Rheims and Douay, must be aware, that, for ribaldry and unblushing impudence of assertion, it has no rival, except, perhaps, in the Foxes, Fulkes, and Bales of the opposite party. It is the production of men whose tempers were bitterly exasperated, whose controversial morality was hterally none at all (although many of them, e. g. Parsons, were really religiously-minded men, controversy apart), and

182 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

whose sources of information respecting facts in England were necessarily limited to second-liand gossip filtered to tliem through equally exasperated and chiefly (like most of themselves) exiled par- tisans. It would be just as reasonable, on almost, although not quite, identical grounds, to accept as evidence to the nature and circumstances of an act of the English Church of the present day, and as evi- dence that should supersede recognized English re- cords of that act, the eccentric perversion of it which might happen to be behoved in an Italian country village, say in the Abruzzi ; as it is to take the viru- lent gossip of aHheims orDouay priest of that earlier period respecting the English Church then, as wor- thy of the shghtest attention, even if it stood by itself without any contradiction, or held together coherently as narrating a credible or a possible tale.

But this story, which thus rests upon less than nothing, is both in itself absurdly improbable — to the degree, indeed, of seriously compromising the common sense of the man that can beheve it — and is contradicted by the strongest of evidence to the real facts ; evidence, indeed, of almost every kind possible in the case, unless that a story which nobody heard of until 1G04 is certainly not contra- dicted in terms until after that date.

The particulars alleged vary indeed with every reporter of the tale, — Holywood, Fitzsimon, Fitz- herbert, Champney, &c., each differing from the others, — and in themselves also bear upon their

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 183

face the stamp of uncertified hearsay, vague and incoherent ; but the gist of each version represents Parker, and his brother Bishops or some of them, as havinof had no other ordination than a mock one in a tavern. In other words, we are required to beheve, that with every cathedral and church in the land at their disposal, — with a solemn and formal Ordinal, and one suited to their own views, ready for their use, and one also supposed at least and intended to be comprised within the terms of an Act of Parhament passed specially that very year in order to legahze and enforce (among other portions of the Prayer Book) this very Ordinal also, — and further, with four Bishops at the least, whom they themselves assuredly regarded as rightful Bishops, ready at hand to act upon that Ordinal, — ecclesias- tics of ability and position, who as Bishops showed themselves thereafter quite prepared to enforce Church order and discipline, and one of whom indeed, viz. Parker himself, was singularly precise in all matters of form and order, — who also, not three years afterwards, in the Thirty-nine Articles, both authoritatively pronounced the absolute ne- cessity of a solemn and formal ordination, and ex- pressly declared the sufficiency and rightness of the Ordinal itself of Edward VI., evidently assum- ing their own ordination by that Ordinal, — and one of whom (viz. Dr. Sandys in the case of Dean Whittingham in 1578) is specially known to have rejected, while none of them recognized, although

184 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

some may have connived at, Presbyterian orders, — deliberately chose, with literally no imaginable motive whatever to induce them to such a childish piece of insanity, and at a time when they had watchful enemies on all sides eager to find a flaw in their proceedings, and when party feeling was both unscrupulous and violent, to be guilty of a profane farce ; which would have given them no legal title either to their Bishoprics, or to their temporahties, or to their seats in the House of Lords or of Convocation; which would have left every act they did as Bishops, not only spiritually but legally void ; and which, lastly, a Queen like Elizabeth, especially at that critical moment, would not for one moment have tolerated. We may add to Fuller's conclusive remark on this part of the subject, that " rich men do not steal," the still more conclusive qualification, " unless they are mad," which Parker and his brother Bishops assuredly were not. And we are required to believe this absurd imputation, as it cannot be too often repeated, upon the sole evidence of the self- contradictory railing of a few heated controver- sialists, whose position rendered them unable, and their temper unwilling, to sift the truth, and who fell like a pack of hounds upon the choice bit of calumny, contradicting also and enlarging upon one another in every possible way, close upon half a century after the fact.

But, further, the evidence on the other side, to

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 185

the real account of the matter, happens to be un- usually conclusive and abundant. Apart from the Records themselves, of which mention shall be made presently, and to select only the sahent and striking points in the case, we have (1) the Zurich Letters, disinterred singularly enough as a whole from their long oblivion just at the right moment, but under circumstances utterly excluding all pos- sibility of unfairness, — viz. letters from English Reformers of (besides other periods) the early part of EHzabeth's reign, giving to their friends abroad an account of the progress of the religious settle- ment that was at that time being made in the English Church : which were not known at all in England until Bishop Burnet found them at Zurich, and printed extracts from them (with no view at all to our present question) in 1685, and were not printed in extenso until the Parker Society pub- lished them about a quarter of a century ago. And these letters prove in detail, with the con- clusiveness of undesigned, private, and casual allusions, the several consecrations of the several Bishops, including Parker, together with changes in the persons originally intended for particular sees, but through circumstances actually consecrated to others, in precise accordance, both with the eccle- siastical Registers and with the Conges d'Eslire and other State documents, as well with those that in the result were not, as with those that were, acted upon. Parker, for instance, was, according

186 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

to these letters, consecrated, not before September 9, 1559, but between November 16 and December 20 of that year, the exact day from the Register being December 17. And upon January 6, 1559- 60, the same letters tell us, that Parker, Grindal, Cox, Sandys, and a " Welsh " Bishop, were all that had up to that date been consecrated ; the Registers informing us, in exact accordance, that the three last named, together with Rowland Meyrick, Bishop of Bangor, but no one else, had been con- secrated by Parker four days after his own con- secration, viz. upon December 21, the next conse- cration occurring upon January 21. They tell us, yet again, on the same January 6, that Pilkington of Winchester, Bentham of Coventry, and Jewel of Salisbury, were then shortly to be consecrated. And, accordingly, we find by the Registers, that Jewel was so consecrated upon January 21 ; that Bentham, elected to Coventry January 15, was consecrated a httle later, viz. upon March 24 ; while Pilkington, who at the very time of the letter had his Conge d'EsUre for Winchester (dated December 18, 1559), and who was elected to that see January 31, 1559-60, was after all transferred in the ensuing November to Durham ; and accord- ingly another letter in the Zurich collection, dated November 6, 1560, mentions that now " Horn " is to go to Winchester, as he actually did. These may serve as specimens. Any one who will examine the letters may trace also the course of

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 187

other appointments besides these, and with a like exact coincidence with the documentary evidence of the records.

But (2) next we have the (in this case) unexcep- tionable testimony of no less a witness than Bishop Bonner, whose evidence is equally convincing, be- cause equally direct and equally unconscious. In 1563, acting in pursuance of the law and by direct command, it should seem, of the Archbishop and of the government. Bishop Home tendered the oath of supremacy to Bonner, then confined in the Mar- shalsea, and so in Home's diocese of Winchester ; and upon his refusal to take it, certified him, in due course of law, into the Queen's Bench. The cause did not come to an issue, but Bonner's intended pleadings are extant, and one of his answers was, that Home was not Bishop of Winchester. And the grounds of this assertion were, (i) that King Edward's Ordinal, having been abrogated by 1 Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2, had not been expressly re- stored in point of law by the general terms oi Ehzabeth's repealing statute ^, — an objection re- garded by the lawyers as so strong, legally, that

' Elizabeth's second Commission to the Bishops (of Dec. 6, 1559) to consecrate Parker contains, as is well known, an unusual clause, " supplying," by the Queen's authority, whatever might be lacking in the execution, or in the executors, of it. That clause, it seems hardly necessary to say, referred, by the nature of the case, to possible legal defects, and to those only, and among others to the very cavils advanced just afterwards by Bonner, The first Commission (of Sept. 9, 1559) obviously fell through, owing to the refusal of the Bishops named therein to act.

188 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

on the one hand Bonner's case was not allowed to come to an issue, and on the other the 8 Eliz. 0. 1 was ultimately passed in order to put an end to it, while the Thirty-nine Articles of 1561 take special care formally to pronounce that Ordinal legal as well as valid; but an objection also, proving conclusively that Home at any rate (and if Home, of course the others) had to Bonner's knowledge been ordained by that Ordi- nal : and (ii) that, whereas the 25 Hen. YIII. c. 20 requires to an Episcopal consecration, either an Archbishop and two Bishops, or four Bishops, Home, who was consecrated by Parker and two Bishops, was legally and by statute of the realm no Bishop, because Parker was no Archbishop; and Parker was no Archbishop, because, of his four consecrators, three had been deprived of their sees, and the fourth (Hodgkin) deposed from his suffragan Episcopate : in other words, because Parker had been actually consecrated as a matter of fact by precisely the four Bishops specified in the Register, and in such other- wise correct form according to Edward's Ordinal, that Bonner's lynx-eyed scrutiny for legal flaws could discover no other plausible defect than that his consecrators were not at the time in actual possession of special Bishoprics. Could any testi- mony be more direct, or (considering who gives it) more conclusive? And to this must be added the parallel but less definite evidence of

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 189

Roman Catholic controversialists on the subject prior to 1604, as of Sanders in his History, of Harding in his controversy with Jewel, of Staple- ton, Bristow, and like writers ; who all show by the reckless violence of their assertions how eagerly they would have snatched at a story so congenial to their tastes and to their views, while the entire absence of any allusion to that story conclusively establishes their ignorance of it, and therefore under the circumstances its necessary falsity. The point is curiously strengthened still further in the case of Bristow by the fact, that after his death, and after 1604, his book was freely rendered into Latin and republished ; and that into this later Latin version an apparent allu- sion to the Nag's Head story is interpolated ^

But (3) the legal cavils of the Romanist party led to yet another class of very conclusive testimony. For those cavils possessed, at any rate, sufficient plausibihty in a legal point of view to lead Elizabeth and her Parhament in 1568 to pass a special decla- ratory Act of Parhament, 8 Eliz. c. 1., in order to supersede them; and that Act of Parhament recites, that all these consecrations had been " duly and or-

' For the detailed evidence of these and like assertions, here made, the writer refers to the notes upon Bramhall's tract in vol. 3 of his Works (Anglo-Cath. edit.), where names, refer- ences, and passages will be found at length. The records also will be found there, with every requisite explanation and com- ment. The most important of them are reprinted in the Appendix to the present volume.

190 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

derly done, and according to the laws of this realm." The same reasons induced the Archbishops and Bishops themselves, in 1561, with a view to hke cavils, solemnly to declare King Edward's Ordinal to be a sufficient ordinal, and ordinations performed according to it, to be right, orderly, and lawful : a proceeding, on the part of both Church and State, too ludicrously absurd to be conceivable, unless these Archbishops and Bishops had actually and notoriously been ordained by the thus formally exculpated Ordinal,

(4) There is yet another witness, of a kind so plainly unconscious of the value of his testimony and so utterly apart from the faintest possibiHty of collusion, as to render that testimony by itself conclusive : viz. the testimony of Machyn, a con- temporary, but one entirely remote from political or ecclesiastical embroilments, who enters Parker's consecration in his diary on the correct day (December 17) as a notable fact, but without the faintest dream of any controversial or ulterior purpose in making the entry. A sober citizen, in the habit of keeping a private diary, enters the fact there, no doubt at the very time. And the MS. is printed in extenso a few years ago, just in time to stop the mouths of unscrupulous contro- versiahsts ^

' One would have hoped so. Yet even here a Romanist writer in Notes and Queries (Nov. 1868) alleges circumstantially that the entry is a forgery — in order, possibly, that others may

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 191

(5) Archbishop Parker, as it happens, is also a witness, and a " locuples testis " too, even in his own favour. For an entry in his own private diary, published by Strype, expressed in words most natural, but certainly intended for no eye but his own, records his own consecration on December 17 ; as does also a MS. memorandum in the writing of Parker's son. It would be easy to add to these the allusions actually made to the actual facts by Anghcan writers from 1559 to 1604, as in Hol- linshead's Chronicle, in Jewel's writings, in Fulke, Sutcliflfe, and others ; which may be seen at length in Bramhall's or Browne's tracts on the subject. But it must suffice here to state, as the result of an examination of every writer that alludes to the subject, and whom a careful inquiry could drag to light, that, throughout the whole of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, every mention of the matter at all assumes the fact of the regular and orderly consecrations of the several Bishops by Edward's Ordinal. Neither can it be worth while again, here, to waste time in enumerating and explaining yet once more, small errors of names and dates, arising from carelessness or want of inquiry, as e. g. in Godwin's " Lives," or elsewhere. Mis- say tliat somebody disputes the entry. The Editor of Notes and Queries, however, quietly demolishes, in a note appended to the letter, every statement that letter contains. In truth, the letter is a very painful one : for it reveals the fact that, unhappily, there are people on that side of the controversy capable of any asser- tion that seems to suit their case, however utterly groundless.

192 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

prints, mistakes, even errors, of an obviously un- intentional kind, — especially in a book like God- win's " De Praesulibus," wbicli from its very nature must in any case have contained errors (con- sisting, as it does, of a mass of facts, names, and dates, tlien for the first time got together), and which, from the surreptitiousness of its first pub- lication, actually abounded in them, — are beneath notice if made to bear the stress of serious argu- ment. It may serve to convey a fair idea of the pettiness, and of the absurdity, of the cavils of this kind which have been alleged in the matter, if we here make a present to any opponent, still stooping to adopt them, of a new and recently coined instance, exactly of a character with those of older date. For amusingly enough it happens, that, in one of the passages above referred to in the Zurich letters, their unfortunate translator of a few years since, not having sufficient ingenuity to discover that " "Wallus " meant a " Welshman " (viz. Rowland Meyrick, Bishop of Bangor), was nevertheless ingenious enough to render the word into "Barlow;" and thus represented that ill- starred Bishop (who would indeed have been amazed, could he have foreseen the posthumous fame, or infamy, that unscrupulous controversial- ists, or as here, blundering friends, would thrust upon his memory) to have been, not confirmed, but actually consecrated, just four days after he had himself joined in consecrating Parker. The

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 193

instance is a fair parallel to most of tlie older arguments of the kind.

But to pass on to that wMcli is the ordinary and direct evidence in the case, viz. to the Records. And here it is necessary, in order to form a fair idea of their nature and of the strength of the evidence de- rivable from them, to explain to those who are not familiar with such records, (1) that, in the appoint- ment of an Enghsh Bishop, a series of State docu- ments is interwoven with the ecclesiastical acts relating to it, the Conge d'EsUre preceding the elec- tion, the Royal assent following upon this, with a commission to confirm and consecrate, and the Restitution of Temporahties with the Homage or- dinarily closing the whole business ; and that each of these State documents is duly copied, not only into the ecclesiastical Register, but properly and previously into the State Rolls also. Consequently there are here two totally independent records of documents, the keepers of which have no con- nexion whatever with one another, yet which so interlace that nothing but genuineness could make them tally. But (2) the ecclesiastical records them- selves are both complicated and of more than one kind. First, they are drawn from many indepen- dent quarters. The Archiepiscopal Registers are chiefly at Lambeth, but partly at Canterbury. The Episcopal Registers are at the several cathedral towns. The Registers of the Deans and Chapters are in the several custody of each Chapter. And

0

194 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

those of tlie Dean and Chapter of Canterbury con- tain entries relating to all sees vacant during a vacancy of the see of Canterbury itself. And the Register of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury is in London. And all are under different custo- dians. And all these Registers, thus independent, and the parts of each Register also in relation to its other parts, are complicated together. Conse- crations of Bishops, for instance, which are pro- perly and at length entered in the Archiepiscopal Register, are naturally mentioned, and sometimes repeated in detail, in the Bishop's own Register. And that of the Dean and Chapter must neces- sarily record the Gonge d'EsUre and the Election, which are part of the entire and final record in that of the Archbishop. Again, presentations and like acts during the vacancy of a particular see are entered in the Archiepiscopal Register, being the Archbishop's acts ; and the dates of such vacancy must tally as between this Register and that of the see. And yet again, each particular Archiepiscopal Register, arranged, as it sometimes is, according to subjects, but containing always several classes of entries, — consecrations, induc- tions, commissions, ordinations, visitations, &c., — in their several places in the successive parts of the book, must needs harmonize, each part with the others ; insomuch that one false entry in one part would necessitate a good many more elsewhere. Lastly, it may be noticed that, if (as usually was

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 195

the case) the whole transaction from Conge d'EsUre to Restitution took place consecutively and without intervals, then the record in the Archbishop's Register was a very long document indeed, enter- ing into a mass of minute particulars of dates, and names, and facts, and therefore proportionably in- capable of being manipulated without detection. In the particular case of Archbishop Parker, it happens to be also the fact, that the Archbishop, being a man devoted to MSS. of all kinds, eccle- siastical or antiquarian, gave to his former College of Corpus Christi at Cambridge a collection em- bracing MSS. of exceeding and well-known anti- quarian and historical value, and containing also a mass of transcripts and letters (copies of the Register of his consecration, letters of Lord Bur- leigh connected with it, and the like), relating to ecclesiastical transactions of his time, and among the rest to the consecrations of himself and the other Bishops : which collection is still there.

The case, then, standing thus, it has to be stated (1), that the whole of these documentary sources of evidence are, in the present instance, prima facie rigorously en regie. Parker was a man of a most precise and business-like temper, and his Register is a model of exactitude. The documents also of the other classes above mentioned are likewise in due order ; and, with the exception here and there of a lost Episcopal or Chapter Register, fairly com- plete. But (2) upon examining these documents,

0 2

196 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

it turns out that they bear all the ordinary internal proofs of genuineness. The dates given in them are coherent with each other, and tally with other evidence. And the persons mentioned in them are correctly named and described according to e. g. their proper official designation at the par- ticular time ^ In a word, the nicest scrutiny has failed to detect any flaw in them ; or any other in- exactitude, than the inevitable slips, self-evident when noticed, that creep into all MSS. And then (3) it results, upon inquiry, that the series of State documents above mentioned talhes in both copies, both that in the Rolls and that in the Register ; and that the alternate series of acts, civil and

^ The writer must refer for particulars to the notes upon these records in the edition of Bramhall's tract before referred to. The only new cavil that has fallen under his notice since that publication, is an assertion that Nicolas Bullingham ought to have been styled Bishop elect of Lincoln upon December 17, 1559. The Chapter record of Bullingham's election to Lincoln hap- pens to be one of those that are lost, but Bullingham's own proxy for that election is dated January 12, 1559-60. The Commission in Rymer, of October 20, 1559, which omits the term "elect," in describing Archbishop Parker, is a merely civil document. There is another of the same kind in the Heralds' Office, dated Nov. 28, 1559. It happens, however, that there are letters in the State Paper Office, and a writ, the foiiner dated down to Nov. 9, the latter Oct. 26, emanating from the very same persons that issued the Commission, which style Parker "Archbishop elect." The recent anonymous writer on the Roman side, who seems to think the cavil a new discovery of a Mr. Williams (the author of a feeble and violent tract on the subject), and to bo worth repeating, has sadly for- gotten his old Oxford logic.

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 197

ecclesiastical respectively, to wliicli these docu- ments belong, fit into each other in due succes- sion : Conge d^Eslire and Election, Royal assent and Confirmation, and then lastly Consecration and Restitution of Temporalities, duly following one upon the other. The last-named act, indeed, has a special variation in these cases of Parker and his brethren. For in most of them it in- cludes, as historically it ought to include, accord- ing to a special Act of Parliament at the time, a reservation of certain Church lands for the Crown ; the Queen taking that opportunity (an act for which she, and not the Church, is responsible) of following her father's example and plundering the Church. So too in earlier periods, as e. g. when Henry the Eighth paid or rewarded his statesmen- ecclesiastics with Bishoprics, temporalties were frequently restored before consecration, as e. g. in the case of Bonner, and the form of the documents varies accordingly. But in all cases the facts and the documents tally, according to their respective times. And then (4) Archbishop Parker's Register corresponds in its respective parts, both with its own entries and with Episcopal and other Regis- ters. And (5) and lastly, the documents in Corpus Library correspond also with the Registers. If, then, these several independent sets of records, alternating and intricately interlaced with each other, all thus minutely correspond, as they do, the inference is inevitable. And any one who dis-

198 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

believes tlie acts recorded in tliose Registers, ought, if he is consistent, to disbelieve also Queen Elizabeth's coronation, or any other like public, official, notorious, and duly recorded act, because, forsooth, Puritans and Romanists loudly denied her to be a lawful Queen. Indeed, the inference is still more overwhelming, if we consider what is involved in the opposite hypothesis of forgery. Upon that hypothesis the fraud must necessarily have followed the occasion alleged to have prompted it; and the registers and other documents must therefore have been forged shortly after 1604 and before 1613, when Dr. Mason quoted them in his book. In other words, Dr. Mason, or whomsoever else controversialists light upon as the possible forger, must have been so marvellous a conjuror ; that, in that space of time, he first of all invented half a dozen complicated series of documents, all minutely tallying, both with each other and with all known history on the subject; and then in- serted all of them, utterly unsuspected by any body, into every one of their several repositories, over no one of which had he the slightest control, and of one or two of which he literally did not know the existence, — at Canterbury, Lambeth, London, Cambridge, Zurich, and the great Episcopal and Capitular archives all over the kingdom; — and that he did this with such exquisite jugglery, as e. g. to insert large portions into Parker's Register at diflferent places (for the several Epis-

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW ]99

copal Consecrations happened at different dates), and yet to have made them exactly fit in with all the rest, as if they had been there from the begin- ning, and (more marvellous still) fit in exactly also with every one of the numerous other documents elsewhere, many of which he could not possibly have ever seen. It is fiirther to be added, that, besides other allusions, and over and above the already cited evidence, two printed books at least, Parker's or Jocelyn's " Antiq. Brit. Ecclesias," which con- tains Lives of the Archbishops, and was printed and distributed in 1572, and a violent Puritan Life of Parker, of which copies are in Corpus Library and elsewhere, and which belongs to much the like date, contain distinct references to the Register. The former, indeed, contains in some of its copies a table of consecrations professedly drawn up from that Register. It is hardly worth while to say, in con- cluding this part of the subject, that Dr. Kenrick's ignorant guess, which is nevertheless the only thing in the shape of an argument at all on that side, — viz. that the addition or omission of the words "^er ipsam Beginam " to the end of a document is a sign of their genuineness or the contrary, — as it would not answer his purpose even if it were correct, so is, in truth, a pure fiction. It is one too, which so respectable a writer ought not to have put forward as he has done, when he must have known it to be a purely unauthorized crotchet of his own. Any one who knows any thing about the

200 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

matter would have told him, had he inquired, that the assertion was one which could simply render the asserter of it ridiculous, as professing to make a marvellous discovery in what was, in truth, non- sense. It really seems as if Dr. Kenrick must have imagined, that it was the actual and original document which was in the Rolls, instead of a copy of it. And legal scribes never copy the formal matter-of-course portions of a document in Gxtenso, but with now more and now less of abbre- viation, as it may happen. "In cujus Sfc. teste Sfc. dat. ut sujpra" is the ending of scores of enrolled documents of all dates and upon all subjects. Dr. Kenrick, it is to be supposed, would reject as forged all that did not specify, without omitting one tittle, the appending of the seal, and the name of the " teste," and the particulars of the date. However, had Dr. Kenrick been honest enough to inquire from a competent authority whether his own desperate guess had any foundation, he would have found, — as the writer of this paper found upon mentioning it to Sir F. Palgrave, — that it had simply no foundation at all. And yet further, even when submitted to this absurd principle of classification, the remaining documents, which he admits, disprove his case. And his not over- honest crotchet fails of the very end for which he iQvented it.

To sum up the question. We have on the one side the natural, legal, and presumably a priori

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 201

certain, series of facts, respecting these consecra- tions, testified legitimately and regularly by the proper Registers and other records, with no inter- nal grounds for suspecting unfair dealing with those records, and with perfect agreement between the various and independent classes into which they are divided. We have, further, independent testi- mony from many distinct sources, some of them out of the reach of the possibility of being tam- pered with, and one of them buried at Zurich out of sight and out of knowledge until a quarter of a century since. And, besides this mass of docu- ments, we find that every allusion, whether of friend or foe, for half a century after the facts, takes those facts for granted, whether in history, or in controversy, or in courts of law, or in solemn Synods and Parliaments. And against all this conclusive weight of evidence, attached, as it is, to a reasonable, natural, and coherent statement, there stands literally nothing except a hearsay story, repeated when once uttered in a variety of shapes, but bearing gossip and libel written on the face of all of them ; in itself impossible to the degree of being absurd, and published for the first time forty- five years after date, in a foreign country, and by a writer whose position precluded him from sifting, almost from knowing, the truth, had he wished to do so, and whose book and cha- racter stamp him as a virulent and reckless con- troversialist, who had no wish of the kind. And

202 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

tliat story was indignantly contradicted, the instant it became really public. There is nothing to be said, upon such a statement, except that, if a con- troversial writer wishes to stamp the character of his work as worthless, and his own controversial morals as discreditable, he has the means ready at hand by adopting and maintaining the Nag's Head fable. Let it be added, that Parker was (not con- secrated, but) confirmed at Bow Church, upon (not September, but) December 9, 1559, not in person, but by his proxy, Nicolas BuUingham: and that it may have very possibly happened, after the fashion of Englishmen, as Bramhall suggests, that (not the Bishops, for Parker's was the only confirmation then in hand, and he was not there at all, but) the officials dined together afterwards at the great tavern close by, viz. the Nag's Head in Cheapside ; and that this was the real piece of hearsay which poor Mr. Neale innocently heard and repeated, the one Httle spark out of which polemical virulence and unscrupulousness has since conjured so huge a cloud-edifice of foul smoke.

II. The consecration of Bishop Barlow becomes of importance solely in connexion with that of Parker, of whom Barlow was one of the conse- crators : only one, however, out of four, so as to leave it after all not vitally important, whether he were himself really consecrated, or only supposed to be so. As a question of fact, it is so far paral- lel to that just discussed, that in both cases no

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 203

one doubted their consecration during the lifetime of either Bishop, or for many years afterwards ; in the case of Barlow, not until 1616, eighty years after its date. It differs from it, in that the doubt in Barlow's case rests undeniably upon a fact, and not a fiction ; and arose from the discovery, made at the time named, that the Registrar, during the Archiepiscopate of Cranmer, had omitted to register the consecration of Barlow, unless, indeed, the entry had been lost : a discovery which would have been effectually neutralized, had the discoverer gone on to notice — what is equally the case, — that the same Registrar has also omitted eight other consecrations, out of a total during the entire Archiepiscopate of forty-five, besides omissions of translations from see to see ; and in one case has estabhshed his own carelessness and neglect even more conclusively, by breaking off an entry in the middle with an unfinished sentence ; and farther, that records of consecrations have been omitted or lost in other Archiepiscopates also, and in par- ticular in Warham's just before, and in Pole's just after, Cranmer's. The missing record, it is to be remembered, is in this case solely a record of con- secration. For Barlow was confirmed to both the sees, to which he was in rapid succession pro- moted in 1536, without being also consecrated at the actual time of either confirmation, as is plain by the terms of the duly entered records of both. And the entry, therefore, that is lacking, would have

204 CONSECRA TIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

occurred by itself, as in the parallel case of Bon- ner, as a sliort entry of a separate act performed by itself at a different time. It is not a case, therefore, where the registrar has stopped short when actually entering the long record of the earlier act of confirmation, as would have been the case had both acts occurred together, but one where he had no other entry to make, and (unless it has been lost) made none at all. And let it be observed by the way, for the benefit of any one who is still haunted by the suspicion that Parker's or his successors' registrars and officials either forged or connived at forgery; that, had there been any disposition to tamper with records, what would have been impossible in Parker's case would have been at least comparatively easy in Barlow's ; viz. to fill up the one lacuna in the entries relating to him by inserting the brief entry of his consecra- tion ; since every thing else, whether of civil or ecclesiastical record, was (and is) already and duly enrolled in its own proper place.

The case, then, as regards the fact of Barlow's consecration in 1536, — saying nothing at present of its importance, — ^resolves itself into the question, if indeed it can be a question with a reasonable man, — whether the presumptive evidence to an act, arising from notoriety, from law, from uniform custom, from religious belief, from tacit and un- doubting admission of every body, adversaries and friends alike, from overwhelming motives leading

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 205

to its performance and absence of all motive to the contrary, — from, in a word, every possible source whence presumptive evidence can be drawn, — can be set aside by inability long after to find a record of it, which a particular ofl&cial ought to have made, but his omission of which no one at the time would have discovered, because no one would have thought of looking for it ; and an official, moreover, who is known to have omitted, out of sheer carelessness, one out of five of all entries of the kind. No one asks for the register of a Bishop of our own Church at the present moment. By all, except the handful who may chance to have witnessed it, his consecration is believed, — and it would be simple folly not to beheve it, — upon presumptive evidence precisely similar to that which estabhshes Barlow's conse- cration. And if the Archbishop's Registrar had omitted to register it, or if Archbishop Tait's Register were mislaid, no one probably would be the wiser, while the really consecrated Bishop would unconsciously go down to posterity with no regular record, capable of being produced, of his neverthe- less real consecration \ And so plainly it was

* Like the German Senate of which he has just (Dec. 1868) been made a member, every sensible person would take for granted that Dr. Dollinger has been duly baptized ; assuming, what I suppose is undoubtedly the case, that that eminent Roman Catholic scholar is the child of Christian parents, and was brought up in a Christian land. Yet it is alleged, amusingly enough, by the newspapers, that he has been unable, when

20C CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

witli Barlow. The burden of proof assuredly lies on tlie denier. Barlow was certainly consecrated, unless reason can be given for thinking lie was not. The law of the Church at that, as at all times, imperatively enjoined consecration. The law of the land required it, under penalties if it was not performed. The even more strongly constrain- ing force of the strong opinion and belief of both the clergy and the laity of the land, with the most limited exceptions, still more imperatively enforced such requirement. The House of Lords would have refused admission into their House to an unconsecrated prelate. The Upper House of Con- vocation would have raised a like fatal objection. Other Bishops, whom he joined in consecrating, would have demurred to a consecrator, himself unconsecrated. Some at least among the *'pre- tenced " Bishop's clergy would in such troublous times have at least demurred to a jurisdiction, which would rightfully have been none at all. And further, what is in itself of minor importance, but evidentially perhaps is of more weight than all, his Episcopal acts respecting the property or rights of his sees would have been legally invalid ; and yet, although it did so happen that leases of Barlow's were actually impeached at law upon other grounds, and that he also got into legal

called upon, to produce his Baptismal Certificate, or even to tell where to look for it. Can there be a better parallel case to that of Barlow's consecration ?

A ND OF BISHOP BARLOW 207

difficulties and stirred up bitter strife by depriv- ing the Dean of Wells in 1550, not one suspicion seems to have occurred to his foes or to their law- yers that there was any flaw in his consecration. No one whatever, in fact, during the troublous lifetime of a Bishop, who was a strong party man and on more sides than one, and that lifetime the period from Henry YIII. to Elizabeth, — no Puritan and no Romanist in the midst of all the invectives hurled at the Bishops, Barlow pre-eminently, who were found willing to snatch away the hopes of the Romanist party in 1559, and to carry on the line of Bishops by consecrating Parker, — no one at all, in fact, until 48 years after the death, and 80 after the consecration, of a Bishop, whose five Episcopally married daughters, let us add, made him a standing gibe to the Romanists, — ever so much as dreamed that Barlow had not been duly consecrated. Add to this, that no imaginable motive existed to induce him to refuse to be consecrated ; and that they who conspired to aid such a refusal by declining their own part in it or by helping towards its evasion, would have them- selves incurred heavy penalties for such gratuitous conniving at another's delinquency. And it is surely only common sense to accept the over- whelming presumption arising from all this, that Barlow was not a single and unaccountable excep- tion to a rule, so invariable as to be a matter of course; — that he did not gratuitously and with-

208 CONSECRA TIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

out the slightest assignable motive imperil his whole worldly position, or persuade others to imperil theirs, for nothing; — and lastly, that he really did not, in order to avoid going through the ceremony of consecration, accomplish the marvel- lous feat, first of persuading all the world to beheve him consecrated when he was really not so, and next of making others, who must perforce have been parties to the conspiracy, absolutely and through- out hold their tongues on the subject ; — but that he really was in due order consecrated according to the then still unchanged Ordinal.

It is urged, however, that the ordinary record of his consecration, half a century after his death, as has been above said, was found to be missing; and that he himself held consecration cheap. Neither argument comes to any thing, when it is examined and reduced to its exact measure. (1) The missing record is, as has been said, a short one, simply of consecration. Barlow, who was one of Henry VIII.'s ambassador-Bishops, was appointed to the sees of St. Asaph and St. David's respectively in the February and the April of 1536, at a time when he was himself perpetually journeying to and from Scotland upon the Bang's business. He was confirmed to both sees, by proxy to the former, in person to the latter, but not consecrated consecu- tively with either confirmation : for the Archbishop in both cases certifies the confirmation only. Consequently he was consecrated at a distinct

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 209

time, so that the record would be merely of this one act. And this short record has either been lost from, or not entered in, a Register the very opposite in character to Parker's ; in that it con- sists of a bundle of parchments of various sizes, almost certainly bound together after date (the second confirmation of Barlow e. g. is entirely mis- placed, as are also other documents) ; and, as it now stands, omits, in the matter of consecrations and translations, one-fourth of those which really occurred, including Barlow's. Five out of eleven translations, and nine out of forty-five consecra- tions, are missing. And of these nine, three are absolutely ignored, five (of which Barlow's is one) are entered as far as the confirmation, but omit the consecration, and the entry of the ninth is broken off in the middle of a page and of a sen- tence, after entering the smaller portion of the proper entry, and is followed by 1\ blank pages. And further, while there is no conceivable reason (waiving Barlow's case) for doubting the actual consecration of any one of the other eight, that of two of the four whose cases are parallel with Barlow's is actually recorded in their own dio- cesan Registers, which in Barlow's case have been lost, the remaining two standing in like condition with Barlow himself. Let it be added, that six out of twenty-six consecrations are omitted also in Warham's Register, and two certainly in Pole's — lest any one should think that carelessness or

p

210 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

some other motive applied to Cranmer's time only. And the one reasonable question \rliicli remams, lies merely between the guilt of Eegistrar or binder — whether the former forgot to enter, or the latter omitted to bind into the volume, the missing records^. The half-finished entry, it must be allowed, is heavy evidence towards inculpating the Reoristrar. If we turn from the Reo^ster to the private opinions of Barlow, any presumption that might be supposed to lie from these against Bar- low's consecration in particular, equally breaks down when examined. For the question at the worst is not, whether a strictly conscientious per- son, who abhorred consecration as wicked, stoutly refused to be consecrated ; but whether a worldly and time-serving man, who appears to have sought shortly afterwards to please the King by privately aUeofing: consecration to be needless, but who cer- tainly never acted openly or officially upon such views at any time of his life, can be supposed to

• AMS. volnme of documents (with a transcript), apparently drawn up by Thomas Argall, a notary of the diocese of Win- chester, who seems to have preserved a copy of the documents which he had oflScially to attest, still exists in Lord Calthorpe's library. It contains several documents which should appear in the Registers of "Warham and Cranmer, and were no doubt drawn up to be inserted in them. This is sufficient proof of the irregular way in which these particular Registers came into existence ; and utterly destroys all negative inferences from the absence of documents in the volume which was ultimately bound together, and which now stands as the Register in each case. See Mr.Pocock's Preface to his edition of Bishop Burnet. It is simply ludicrous to rest any argument at all upon the omiasions of such a Register.

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW

211

have risked the whole of his earthly fortunes by evadinjr that for which he had no conscientious objection, but merely no high reverence; and to have persuaded others to do the same by conniving at the illegality. And Oranmer, whose connivance, beyond that of all others, was indispensably neces- sary to such an aimless conspiracy, is still less plausibly drawn into the question. For what are the real facts ? In a private paper of Answers to Ques- tions drawn up in 1540, opinions are attributed to Cranmer and to Barlow, denying the necessity of ordination; and like speeches are brought as an accusation against Barlow in 1538. But in 1539, botb Cranmer and Barlow were members of the Committee that drew up the Institution of a Chris- tian Man; and Cranmer certainly had a large share in the Necessary Erudition of 1543, and signed the Declaration of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests in 1536 or 1537. And in all three of these solemnly authorized formularies. Apostolical Succession, and the absolute need of ordination by Episcopal laying on of hands, and the grace of orders, are absolutely and unhesi- tatingly asserted ^ And the King's Articles of

^ In some of these documents, after the doctrine then current, Bishops and priests are spoken of as if they were one order. But /^ (1) ordination is throughout restrained to Bishops ; and (2) the object generally is to justify two things, the abolition of the minor orders and the laying aside of the ceremonies in ordination other than laying on of hands with prayer ; the question of Bishops as distinct from priests having then no prominence at all, nor, in fact, having arisen in any way. The tendency of doctrine

p 2

210 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

some other motive applied to Cranmer's time only. And the one reasonable question which remams, lies merely between the guilt of Registrar or binder — whether the former forgot to enter, or the latter omitted to bind into the volume, the missing records^. The half-finished entry, it must be allowed, is heavy evidence towards inculpating the Registrar. If we turn from the Register to the private opinions of Barlow, any presumption that might be supposed to lie from these against Bar- low's consecration in particular, equally breaks down when examined. For the question at the worst is not, whether a strictly conscientious per- son, who abhorred consecration as wicked, stoutly refused to be consecrated ; but whether a worldly and time-serving man, who appears to have sought shortly afterwards to please the King by privately alleging consecration to be needless, but who cer- tainly never acted openly or oflScially upon such views at any time of his life, can be supposed to

• A MS. volume of documents (with a transcript), apparently drawn up by Thomas Argall, a notary of the diocese of Win- chester, Avho seems to have preserved a copy of the documents which he had officially to attest, still exists in Lord Calthorpe's library. It contains several documents which should appear in the Registers of Warham and Cranmer, and were no doubt drawn up to be inserted in them. This is sufficient proof of the irregular way in which these particular Registers came into existence ; and utterly destroys all negative inferences from the absence of documents in the volume which was ultimately bound together, and which now stands as the Register in each case. See Mr.Pocock's Preface to his edition of Bishop Burnet. It is simply ludicrous to rest any argument at all upon tho omissions of such a Register.

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 211

have risked the whole of his earthly fortunes by- evading that for which he had no conscientious objection, but merely no high reverence; and to have persuaded others to do the same by conniving at the illegality. And Cranmer, whose connivance, beyond that of all others, was indispensably neces- sary to such an aimless conspiracy, is still less plausibly drawn into the question. For what are the real facts ? In a private paper of Answers to Ques- tions drawn up in 1540, opinions are attributed to Cranmer and to Barlow, denying the necessity of ordination; and like speeches are brought as an accusation against Barlow in 1638. But in 1539, both Cranmer and Barlow were members of the Committee that drew up the Institution of a Chris- tian Man; and Cranmer certainly had a large share in the Necessary Erudition of 1543, and signed the Declaration of the Functions and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests in 1536 or 1537. And in all three of these solemnly authorized formularies, Apostolical Succession, and the absolute need of ordination by Episcopal laying on of hands, and the grace of orders, are absolutely and unhesi- tatingly asserted ^ And the King's Articles of

^ In some of these documents, after the doctrine then current, Bishops and priests are spoken of as if they were one order. But X' (1) ordination is throughout restrained to Bishops ; and (2) the object generally is to justify two things, the abolition of the minor orders and the laying aside of the ceremonies in ordination other than laying on of hands with prayer ; the question of Bishops as distinct from priests having then no prominence at all, nor, in fact, having arisen in any way. The tendency of doctrine

p 2

212 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

the very year 1536, when Barlow was conse- crated, and which emanated from the first Synod in which he sat as Bishop, assert emphatically such doctrine as the priestly power of absolution. Cranmer also is both known at a later time to have enforced consecration upon Hooper, — who objected, not to consecration, but to the oath and to the vestments only, but was forced to be conse- crated, with the oath indeed altered, but the vest- ments notwithstanding, — and is mainly responsible at the hke period for that Preface to Edward's Ordinal which enforces Apostolical Succession doc- trinally and practically too. So far, then, as con- cerns any opinions which either of them formally uttered or acted upon, both Cranmer and Barlow decidedly, as well at other times, as certainly in 1536, would have demanded and compelled conse- cration in any case of appointment to the Episco- pate, instead of conspiring like two madmen to evade it. Nay, further. Barlow's own erroneous views, singular to say, actually prove that he him- self was in fact consecrated. His own irreverent speeches estabhsh the very fact of which they slight the importance. For no unconsecrated and mere layman could have uttered such an un-

under tlie Papacy, it must be remembered, had been to dwarf the distinction between Bisliops and priests by the enormous exaggeration of the Papal office. And, moreover, the current doctrine of schoolmen made the two to be one order, while dis- tinguishing their functions all the same, and as by Divine appoint- ment, with an emphasis and a precision quite as marked as though they had made them two orders instead of one.

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 213

meaning and contradictory absurdity, as that tTie King's nomination would make any other layman " as good a Bishop " as the speaker himself " or the best Bishop in the land." The very point of the words, indefensible and monstrous as they are in meaning, turns, simply but necessarily, upon the implied assumption that the speaker himself had been actually consecrated. And here, therefore, is a certainly competent witness asserting the very fact itself ^ Upon the whole case, then, the evi- dence is such, that any Enghsh court of law would at once accept and act upon it. The like question respecting a marriage, where English law requires the actual and formal ceremony, would unhesita- tingly be determined in the affirmative by such a court. If the invariable rule and the stern man- date of social morality implied and insisted upon marriage, — if the tenure of a man's estate de- pended upon his being duly married, — if every motive of interest, of sentiment, of morality, of religion, combined to urge him to be duly mar- ried,— if the incumbent was actually liable to penalties should he even delay to marry him, — if friends and foes alike beheved him without doubt

* One of these alleged irreverent speeches was, that " a lay- man should be as good a Bishop as himself, or the best in England, if the King chose him to be a Bishop :" which is simply asserting that he himself was not 2. layman, but duly consecrated; as much so, indeed, as the "best Bishop" in the land. Who, moreover, can believe that the accuser, a St. David's clergyman, who was so angry at the words, would not have denounced the fact, had it been one ?

214 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

througli tlie whole of his hfe to have been married ; and those, whose interest led them to assail his estate at law, never impeached the fact of such marriage, when to do so truly would have ensured them instant success, — then the bare facts, that a notoriously careless incumbent had omitted to enter the marriage, in common with a fourth of all the others within his incumbency, or that it did not occur in a fragmentary register, or, again, that the individual had once let drop some words making light of marriage, while the whole tenour of his life and formal acts on the contrary made much of it, would assuredly weigh nothing against an affirmative decision. And whether or no a court of law might decide for the fact (which might, perhaps, decide on the ground, that some decision was better than none) ; assuredly, as a matter of evidence, in order to produce inward assent to that fact, such a balance of testimony could leave no fair doubt but that the marriage had actually taken place.

It appears also, from a minute examination of the facts, that there was plenty of opportunity for the consecration of Barlow during the first half of the year 1536, although the record alone could deter- mine precisely, and beyond controversy, the exact day of his consecration. The proceedings, indeed, respecting Barlow's Bishoprics were of a kind com- mon enough at that particular period. The Epis- copates of Bonner, e. g. are almost an exact parallel to his. He, too, was one of Henrv's ambassador-

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 215

ecclesiastics, and was appointed and confirmed in his absence to two sees in succession, viz. Hereford and London, in 1538 and 1539, but was not con- secrated until some months after his last confir- mation, viz. in 1540. Barlow, however, must have received consecration a httle more speedily, viz. before the Parhament and the Convocation of June, 1536, in both of which he sat as Bishop. Now he was appointed to St. Asaph January 7, 1535-6, and confirmed during his absence in Scotland on the ensuing February 23. He was appointed to St. David's upon April 10, and confirmed in person April 21, 1536; and during this period he was in London, although in Scotland again during the ensuing May. Upon June 30 we find him in London, and acting (as was said above) as a duly consecrated Bishop. There was nothing then to hinder his consecration either to St. Asaph in the beginning of April, or to St. David's, and if the latter, then either in the latter half of April or in June. But the documents relating to his successor at St. Asaph, dated in May, June, and July, 1536, seem to exclude the possibihty of his having been con- secrated to that see; as they on the one hand speak of him throughout as merely Episcopus Assa- vensis electus % and, on the other, describe the vacancy as occurring, not by his " translation,"

• In his own documents for St. David's, Barlow is described as Episcopus Assavensis simply, without the addition of electus, but the negative evidence of the omission of the term can weigh nothing against the positive evidence of its insertion.

210 CONSECRATION:^ u k^HBISHOP PARKER

US if ho luid been a cosecrated Bishop, but -per ccHHumcjnydlmissionrrn. •-" fransmutationem dni. W. Ihirhwc. Kplscopi ihi '/; as though the regis-

ii'iii'H had boon at a los ^ Dr a term to describe the tran.sferonco from one ?o to another of a person sitnply cdnfirniod to tlm rst, but not consecrated. A ^v^i^ of sunnnons to i • '••""'^>nt to the Bisliop of St. Diivid's upon April ; :•) ', might intimate, if it vstood alone, that bwas by that time conse- crated, and to St. David, to which he had been in person eontirmed (but coiiinly not on the same day ooT\socratod) upon April i, and its temporalities re- stored to him April 26 ; ad he accortlinorly sicms his hitters as Wilimus. V and is called Biahop of St, David's, on and ; ^ril 25, but not before,

\vhon\Ks in March (althoph then confirmed to St.

Asi^ph) ho signs simply thou, it Ux^ks at least ho shoxild have boon e which, iu 15SG, Tras a o^^rtaiulv in London. T: . .. OYW, in tho IIouso of Loi<, a:

I m Barlo." So far, ^ supposition that d upon April 25, and when he was '' •*- "^"-^ence, how- . 'jiore in the

'■-< cvGTse c£ ft list nt «iAir BiAijf» ftwi j«w«v » >» to tluB writ,

Jfcsflf *«* »«« «x«st. It tj Tvvva ilcaua^j fs Jr<Mfv>. c M»i tl» SMM» Bi^fAV of ma imimI

^••A >«t^ «bM»$iri!v«» www iotuleii tior

J^^J*J****^ " vvnr wTtt a ISSS h

•*?**** *^ ' -V ttt Onsco run

ni

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW

217

^1-;

Iff*

Upper louse of Convocation, which, altliougli not absolutiy unvarying, yet adheres to a nearly un- varied Lst, places Barlow after the Bishops of Chichec-er and of Norwich ^ who were consecrated, the later certainly, the former probably, upon June 1. 1536. And the present writer, when editinL l^ramhall's works, on the strength of the presuiDtion thence derived, conjectured June 11 as the robable date of Barlow's consecration also. He is iclined, upon reviemng the question, still to maintai the probabiHty of the conjecture, although an ab] and friendly American critic and writer, Mr. Hffh Davey Evans ^ prefers the earher date. Upon ither supposition the possibihty of Barlow's consecation (which has been denied) is equally made at. The correct day must wait for certain deternnation, until the record, if it was ever made, is draged out of some corner where the binder (on that hpothesis) must have left it, when collecting the *' tsjecta membra " of Cranmer's Archiepis- copal rcords, in order to bind them into their pre- sent sape. Meanwhile, and however this may be, the prgumptive evidence is conclusive. A fact, and the orinary, regular, and technical record of that fact, a© two very different things ; and our know- ledge )f and behef in the former are not deter-

* Thj assertion has been questioned. On re-examination, I repe: : , and refer to the Appendix for details.

' "\\;-.e removal from us by death was announced almost as these Tords were being written, and will be learned with respeetll sorrow by all Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantl'

216 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

as if he had been a consecrated Bishop, but 'per cessionem, dimissionem, seu transmutationem dni. W. Barlowe Episcopi ibidem electi; as though the regis- trars had been at a loss for a term to describe the transference from one see to another of a person simply confirmed to the first, but not consecrated. A writ of summons to Parliament to the Bishop of St. David's upon April 27, 1536 ', might intimate, if it stood alone, that he was by that time conse- crated, and to St. David's, to which he had been in person confirmed (but certainly not on the same day consecrated) upon April 21, and its temporalities re- stored to him April 26 ; and he accordingly signs his letters as Willmus. Menev., and is called Bishop of St. David's, on and after April 25, but not before, whereas in March (although then confirmed to St. Asaph) he signs simply as " William Barlo.^' So far, then, it looks at least a possible supposition that he should have been consecrated upon April 25, which, in 1536, was a Sunday, and when he was certainly in London. The order of precedence, how- ever, in the House of Lords, and still more in the

' The endorsement on the writ to the Archbishop, of the sending such a writ to St. David's, in the course of a list of other Bishops and sees, is the evidence to this writ, which itself does not exist. It is thereon described as sent to T. Menev. ; and the same mistake of an initial letter — a very common one indeed in like cases — is made in the endorsement of the writ respecting the Parliament of 1541. But plainly both writs themselves were intended for Barlow. Indeed, in the House of Lords' Journal the very writ of 1536 is described as " lu>gium Breve Revcreudo in Christo Patri W. Menevens. Episcopo directum."

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 217

Upper House of Convocation, which, although not absolutely unvarying, yet adheres to a nearly un- varied hst, places Barlow after the Bishops of Chichester and of Norwich ^, who were consecrated, the latter certainly, the former probably, upon June 11, 1536. And the present writer, when editing Bramhall's works, on the strength of the presumption thence derived, conjectured June 11 as the probable date of Barlow's consecration also. He is inclined, upon reviewing the question, still to maintain the probabihty of the conjecture, although an able and friendly American critic and writer, Mr. Hugh Davey Evans ^ prefers the earher date. Upon either supposition the possibility of Barlow's consecration (which has been denied) is equally made out. The correct day must wait for certain determination, until the record, if it was ever made, is dragged out of some corner where the binder (on that hjrpothesis) must have left it, when collecting the " disjecta membra " of Cranmer's Archiepis- copal records, in order to bind them into their pre- sent shape. Meanwhile, and however this may be, the presumptive evidence is conclusive. A fact, and the ordinary, regular, and technical record of that fact, are two very different things ; and our know- ledge of and behef in the former are not deter-

* This assertion has been questioned. On re-examination, I repeat it, and refer to the Appendix for details.

* Whose removal from us by death was announced almost as these words were being written, and will be learned with respectful sorrow by all Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic.

218 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

mined by the imperfect and fragmentary nature of the latter. That man's canon of historical incre- dibihty must be of the strangest, who should limit his eccentric acceptance of historical facts to those only for which there exists the precise technical completeness of rigorously legal evidence, and should exclude all others; and who should thus absolutely suspend his belief upon the accident of an official's carelessness or mistake. Thousands of estates in England would change hands if ever the law itself acted upon such a theory. And nearly all the history of the world, save that of the last few centuries, and a large portion even of that, would be blotted out.

The importance of the fact thus established is, however, considerably hmited by the circumstance, that Barlow was only one of four who joined in consecrating Archbishop Parker, and that the con- secration of the other three has, as a fact, never been doubted. There is, indeed, the regular evi- dence of consecration in the case of all three, Coverdale, Scory, and Hodgkin; and that pre- sumptive evidence also, which it must be said is the stronger evidence of the two in almost all cases of the kind here discussed. And in the case of Scory this presumptive evidence includes the spe- cially strong testimony of a formal recognition of his Episcopal orders, albeit conferred by Edward's Ordinal, by Bishop Bonner, and that in 1554 during Queen Mary's reign, in the " rehabilitation " by that

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 219

Bishop of Dr. Scory upon tlie latter's putting away his wife. The unfortunate Eegistrar of Oranmer, however, has again been guilty of his usual careless- ness in one of these cases also, although it is easy here to see how that carelessness has arisen. The change in the mode of appointing Bishops during Edward's reign, which swept away Conges d^esUre and confirmation and the whole of the preliminary process previously in use, and substituted merely letters patent, involved of course a correspond- ingly sweeping change in the form of record. And the subsequent change of Ordinal added to this a yet further although trifling alteration. In the entries, accordingly, of the last seven consecrations during Cranmer's incumbency, the Registrar had no model to guide him from previous records ; and he enters Farrer's accordingly, which was the first of them, in one form, and then four others in a diflerent form from Farrer's, but identically with each other, and then again two more in a yet third fashion. Now Scory's and Coverdale's are the last two of the four, and tally in form with each other and with the preceding two ; but whereas Scory and Ooverdale were consecrated on the same day, and evidently at Croydon, the Registrar has correctly so stated the fact in the entry for Scory, but has copied Hooper's (the immediately preceding) entry when he came to enter the consecration of Coverdale, and has accordingly represented him as consecrated at Lambeth, which could hardly have been the

220 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

case wlien every thing else in the two consecrations was identical. The origin, then, and the insignifi- cance of the mistake are suflB.ciently obvious. It is only as a matter of honesty that the circum- stance is here mentioned at all. And any one who should doubt the consecrations themselves on account of it, must remember that, in so doing, apart from all other conclusive evidence, he is in effect saying, that the Archbishop, with the prin- cipal Bishops and divines of the time, formally authorized by both Church and State, dehberately drew up, published, and in set form sanctioned, an elaborate Ordinal, for the express purpose of not using it. We may fairly conclude, then, both that Archbishop Parker was consecrated, and that he was consecrated by four Bishops who were them- selves consecrated, although the civil power had driven three of them from their sees; while, by confession of every one, consecration by one Bishop is vahd, although three, but no more than three, are needed, to render it correctly canonical. We must assume, then, that we have the assent to the fact of these consecrations of every one who believes solid historical evidence in preference to flimsy, incoherent, and libellous gossip, uttered at random and years after the fact by unscrupulous foes ; and again, of every one who, e. g. being born of Christian parents in a Christian land, accepts the fact of his own baptism although he never saw the register of it; and if that register had been

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 221

lost or omitted by its official custodian, would believe tlie fact none the less if his parents had continually assumed it in educating him. We should bear in mind also, that all the four conse- crators of Archbishop Parker joined equally in consecrating him, so that there was no distinction made, as was usually the case, between the conse- ^V^ crating Bishop (usually the Metropohtan) and his " assistents," simply because there was no Metro- politan among the number; and, therefore, that there were still at least three consecrators (as, indeed, there would have been, even had one taken the lead of the others), supposing any one still per- verse enough to suppose that the fourth, unknown to all the world, was surreptitiously unconsecrated. And we may add the judgment of surely a most sufficient witness, Martene, who indeed speaks but common sense when he lays down, that " omnes qui adsunt Episcopi non tantum testes sed etiam co-operatores esse citra omnem dubitationis aleam asserendum est." Let us pass on to the more sensible inquiry, by what right these consecrating Bishops represented the province of Canterbury or the entire Church of England. That they had been vahdly ordained, and had not forfeited their canonical rights by throwing off the Papal Supre- macy or by reason of any vahd Church sentence for heresy, are points, which not only we ourselves of course assert, but which were practically con- ceded by the terms of the recognition of their and

222 CONSECRA TIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

of like orders under Queen Mary and by Cardinal Pole ; and the question will recur again with other Hke general questions. Nor is there any weight in the mere fact of their not actually holding sees, although entitled to them and wrongfully kept out of them, at the time of Parker's consecration. Episcopal jurisdiction over a particular see is one thing, and Episcopal power in the abstract another; and we are concerned here only with the latter. The four Bishops, as Sir W. Palmer has told us, were "vacant" Bishops, i.e. Bishops without sees by no fault of their own; and their Episcopal power, therefore, remained with no hindrance on that score to its exercise. But in discussing the ques- tion of fact, it is as well to point out that Parker's consecrators were precisely the remaining Bishops of Edward's time, survivors of those who had been mostly exiled or put to death under Queen Mary ; and that they assuredly did represent the Enghsh Church of 1553, and had (upon our views and their own) done nothing to forfeit that right in 1559. Over against them there were in the issue ten surviving Marian Bishops, some of them in- truders, while they themselves (omitting the Irish Bishop of Ossory) could have numbered, appa- rently, seven, or at the least six *. And if we take

* Seven Bishops, including Bale of Ossory, were named in the second Commission to consecrate Parker. Omitting Bale, and adding the Bishop of Sodor and Man, Avho, like Ivitchin, complied, there remain seven Bishops of the English Church who at least acquiesced in the Elizabethan Reform.

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 223

in the Irish Bishops, who mostly conformed, the majority would be largely upon our side. But the question, no doubt, is not to be determined by a mere counting of majorities. In both cases, indeed, whether of Mary or of Elizabeth, one is not concerned to defend the nature or extent of the lay interference which either Queen exercised. The simple fact was, that the State in each case lent its aid to one party in the Church to enable it to crush the other. Yet it must be said by the way, that Ehzabeth was certainly guilty of less violent interference than that of her sister. Mary burned an Archbishop and three Bishops, in addi- tion to Latimer, and deprived and exiled (including the above four) fourteen in all, while she left nine not displaced, and three sees at her accession were vacant by death. Elizabeth found the Primacy, and before she caused them to be filled, fourteen other sees, vacant by death (some of the incumbents, how- ever, being deprived before) ; and she ejected the Archbishop of York and nine others, the two re- maining sees (Llandaff, and Sodor and Man) being retained by their occupants. And, further, she did aot eject those who were ejected, upon doctrinal grounds, but as refusing to take an oath which many of them had previously taken under Henry the Eighth, and which referred to her civil power as its main subject. But however this may be, (1) the Edwardian Bishops had the prior right, while the Marian Bishops were the intruders ; and, (2)

224 CONSECRA TIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

the Churcli of the land was the party really con- cerned. The moral and doctrinal succession was the most important. And they who preserved the spirit, while they also preserved the frame in which it was set, claim om* rightful allegiance. If the Church of this land (and this we must here claim to take for granted) was justified in her measures re- specting both the Church, and still more the doc- trine, of Rome ; then was she perfectly entitled to accept those among her own Bishops, who were wilHng to lead her in the path she had chosen. EHzabeth, in point of fact, took that Hue which the Church and nation demanded ; and it would have been hard indeed that half a score of Bishops, in order to stop a reformation which they dishked, should have been able to prohibit nearly as many more of their own order, and whose rights as Bishops of the Province were prior to theirs, from acting in their own proper functions and in their own proper Province. And this half score, let it be added, (1) forfeited their right by wrongfully re- fusing to exercise it, and (2) went abroad or died — happily unhke the Nonjurors of later date, although as happily the efforts of the latter failed — without taking any steps to perpetuate their succession; and so (in the issue at least) left their rivals in abso- lute and unquestionable possession of their sees. In a word, as in many a stormy crisis in the Church of Rome itself, and as in the whole Church repeatedly since the days of Constantine if not before, earthly

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 225

politics and interests, throughout and on both sides, jostled rudely against spiritual rights, and wrought out — but among ourselves, by God's pro- vidence, within the forms of Church order — the purposes which God designed. And the very intri- cate turmoils, and dangerous crises, and hardly-pre- served rights, and half-compounded good and evil, and balancings to and fro of party successes, which, out of a seemingly hopeless chaos of violence, thus emerge into the light of God's Word and of Apos- toHcal order, only bring out into deeper rehef the special protection extended by God to His Church in this land. It may be pointed out in conclusion, how singularly strong a recognition it was of the principle of Apostolical Succession, and of its importance, that the Queen and her advisers strove so hard as they did to secure a transmission of the Episcopate by Episcopal consecration, and if possible (had not the unhappy prejudices of the Marian Bishops kept them aloof) by an united Episcopalconsecration, that should have left no pretence for a Roman schism ; and farther, what a strong proof this is also, that no one had ever dreamed then of doubting the con- secration of any of the Bishops (Barlow being one of them) named in Elizabeth's commission.

The link that connects Parker with the goodly chain of English Archbishops is the one hnk about which any thing need be said in this place. To any one who looks into the facts and the evidence, it would be superfluous to go on to prove the lineal

226 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

succession of English Bishops, either since Arch- bishop Parker or in backward series from him through Augustine to the early Bishops of Rome, and so to the Apostles. Professor Stubbs's " Regis- trum Anglicanum " will supply facts and proofs in detail, and point out the sources of information re- specting their extent and certainty, for the due con- secration of every Saxon, or Norman, or Enghsh Bishop from St. Augustine to our own time. And in mentioning this, the one complete and thorough work on the subject — a work that bears upon its face the plain marks of that exact, honest, and critical examination of original authorities, which characterizes so creditably our modern Enghsh school of historians, and not least the Begins Professor himself — it would not be fair to omit also our obligations as a Church to the earlier and (unavoidably) more imperfect work of Mr. Per- cival, which was directed expressly to the estab- lishing of our due succession by facts, names, and dates. A paper by Professor Stubbs also claims a reference, in which he has briefly put together the case for our succession in sujQ&cient detail to establish his argument, with a view to the doubts and difficulties of the Church of Russia, to which that paper is in effect addressed. But there is, in truth, not only no doubt, but no pretence of doubt, on the part of any one worth listening to, upon the subject ; unless, indeed, we are to notice the silly cavil, not of Romanists, but of those of the

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 227

opposite extreme, who would go back to the very beginning, and deny the certainty, and therefore the value, of Apostolical Succession, because, for- sooth, there is no possibiHty of stating with cer- tainty the exact order of the immediate successors of the Apostles in the Church of Rome herself, nor indeed to which Apostle they succeeded. The suggestion of a double Church in Rome, and so of a double succession for a while, Jewish and Gentile, seems to be the most scholarlike — possibly it is the true — solution of the conflicting testimonies on the subject ; although this is a mere conjecture of divines, and without historical authority. The real and conclusive evidence is the unhesitating assump- tion of such as Tertullian and IrenaBus, and of the historians and others, in spite of their differing about the order of the names, that there was such a succession : without, indeed, any one even thinking of doubting it. To which it may be added, that if there had been really no such doctrine, and no such corresponding order of succession at Rome, it would have been strange indeed to find St. Clement of Rome, himself one of those whose place in the line is now most disputed, stating in terms the doctrine of the Succession, as he does, and laying such stress upon rightful ordination by those whom the Apostles had authorized to ordain. It is impossible, however, to refrain from pointing out to our Roman Cathohc brethren, that their own succession thus rests at its very

Q 2

228 CONSECRATIONS OF ARCHBISHOP PARKER

fountain-liead upon precisely the same kind of evidence, and lacks precisely that direct and tech- nical evidence, which they respectively reject, and demand, in the case of ourselves. Historical evi- dence which places St. Clement as first, or second, or third, or fourth, is evidence open to objection, to say the least, if the lack of an ofi&cial entry be so ; and presumptive evidence is good to prove the consecration of Barlow, if it is good for the purpose of proving (not the actual order of succession, for this is as much unknown in the absence of con- sistent records as is the day of Barlow's conse- cration, but) that there actually was a succession in some order or other. Upon the whole question, however, and leaving this argumentum ad homines to the fair consideration of those whom it concerns, the evidence to the succession of Bishops from the beginning is throughout copious and precise, for the most part, according to the time and circum- stances of each period. Mathematically rigorous proof, proof such as technical law might require, direct and express statement of names and dates, may not in all cases be forthcoming. But de- ficiency in records is of singularly Hmited extent, considering the nature of the subject. The hues of Bishops in almost every see. Eastern and Western, are traceable in almost every case almost from the beginning, and in the chief sees are traceable from the very beginning throughout. And that moral evidence upon which all men act

AND OF BISHOP BARLOW 229

in secular matters, and wliicli is the very sufficient foundation of the majority (nay, of almost all) of the beliefs of mankind on all subjects, even including the most important of all, and which is made up of presumptive, and historical, and logical, and purely moral and sentimental, and of merely cir- cumstantial elements, and which may rise to the highest, as it may sink to the lowest, degree of persuasiveness, exists in this particular case to an amount and with a strength that can leave no practical doubt upon the minds of reasonable men. If any profess to doubt it, who really are capable of forming a judgment, it can only be from a fore- gone conclusion or from ignorance of the real state of the case.

CHAPTER VIII

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID.

IN passing from the special matter of fact to the general subject of the canonical validity of English orders, it may be as well to clear away, first, certain grounds of merely rhetorical or sentimental objection, which Eomanists actually have alleged, but which would in themselves have required no reply. One can hardly bring oneself indeed, even as the case stands, to condescend to notice such a roving and flimsy conjecture as that, perhaps, some one Bishop or other at some time or other in the English Church of last century was not baptized, either as having been originally a Dissenter, or by reason of carelessness on the part of clergymen, and therefore was no Bishop because no Christian ^ Quakers are the only noticeable sect that has no baptism, and it would be hard to find even one English Bishop who had begun life

* Butler and Seeker are the two cases out of which the whole thing has grown. The cavil is one of many years' standing. Rut how could Dr. Newman revive it I

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 231

as a Quaker. And if scliismatical baptism be pro- nounced by the objector to be no Baptism, tben still the number of English Bishops who began life as Dissenters of any sort is one that may be more than counted on the fingers of one hand, among a total of several hundreds, and cannot by any possibihty affect the validity of EngHsh orders in general, even granting the extreme and untenable assertion that it could do so in the particular cases themselves. The same answer holds as against the possibihty (even allowing it to be a possibility, and certainly it is not a proved fact, or any thing like one) of a few cases where carelessness in Church clergymen reached to the point of no actual baptism at all. And even granting the utmost possible truth to a conjecture so vaguely gratuitous, and so utterly in- capable of proof or disproof, assuredly, upon large- minded and sensible grounds, and in cases of (at the most) such exceeding rarity, the general in- tention of the Church must needs cure unconscious default, or individual and unknown neglect. Nor can Komanists, who Hterally maintain on their own behalf in the (supposed and admittedly possible) case of an unbaptized Pope, that any oflicial act, as e. g. the declaration of such a Pope ex cathedra in a question of doctrine, not only covers defects in his Christianity and so in his orders, but lite- rally, if it does not undo past fact, at least reverses men's belief about it (the evidence, remember,

232 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

remaining tlie same), and infallibly proves that the individual Pope had been baptized after all; and this on the a jpriori ground of the mischief which would arise from an infallible doctrinal decision made by one who was, in truth, not infallible because not Pope, and not Pope because not baptized: — Romanists, I say, who plead this for themselves, cannot fairly refuse to us the far less, and far more reasonable belief, that in a like case to theirs. Almighty God will not indeed dyevrjra TTOieiv acrcr au rj Treirpayixeua, but will supply defects to those who are not only guiltless, but un- conscious of them. Nor is it without pain and a certain sense of undue condescension, that the further, and even more flimsy and more cruel, assertion is noticed ; which assumes Enghsh priests to be no priests, because, if they were, then their Eucharist would be a true Eucharist, and it is out of taste and jars with right feeling — (Tj-XTy/A/xeXe?, I suppose, and cltottov, in the oracular style of ethical intuitions) — to imagine a true Eucharist in hands so irreverent. It is, indeed, better for the English clergy themselves — so alas ! writes one, from whose lips such words are sad indeed — that they should not be so. Has the writer of this really forgotten the not few cases of poison ad- ministered in the Eucharistic cup, and that not by English clergy, but by those in communion with Rome ? Is it not only too notorious, that the cha- racter of Roman clergy at various times and places, and that of Pope after Pope in Rome itself, has often

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 233

been as vile as words could paint it ? Does any one seriously believe tliat we even now have a monopoly of irreverence or carelessness ^ ? Popes indeed have formally, yet suicidally, quashed one another's orders before now, on the ground of wickedness. And the cold deadness of last century, which more- over spread its dark veil over Koman Cathohc countries quite as much as over our own, is yet not to be named, as regards its extent among our- selves, in comparison with the hideous combina- tion of atheism and profligacy that overran the Papacy and the Church of Pome during the eighth and ninth centuries ; or, again, during the years preceding and contemporaneous with the early part of the Reformation. Yet Poman orders are, it is to be supposed, vahd still. Surely, too, our accuser is the last person whom one would have expected to commit himself to the extreme Protestant principle, repudiated by our own branch of the Church as plainly as by any, that the validity of a Priest's acts depends upon that Priest's holiness or faith. Still less can one of so logical an intellect argue in seriousness, that, because a clergyman is irreverent (if so it be), or because his ways are secular (if they are so), and still less because he lacks the conventional and pecuhar and (it must be honestly said) not always attractive stamp, that is burnt into the very dress and gestures and entire outward man of the Poman

* This was written before Mr, Ffoulkes's pamphlet ap- peared.

234 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

Catholic priest ; tlierefore, be the direct evidence what it may, it is a priori impossible that that clergyman — nay, actually, that any clergyman, — should have been validly ordained.

There are, however, other arguments alleged, like in character to these when sifted, yet at first sight more plausible. As, first, that we do not beheve in our own Priesthood. Apostolical Suc- cession itself is no " tradition," we are told, " of the Enghsh Church," in the sense of being a doc- trine held by the enormous majority of individual Churchmen, and one the denial of which, whether legally condemned or not, would be unhesitatingly repudiated by the great body of Church members, and would place its author under a religious ban. Granted that it is in our formularies, it is there, we are to suppose, if at all, only in the antiquarian letter, and not in the hving spirit; only as a formula, which has ceased to have any force or meaning, and by which Churchmen in their hearts regulate neither belief nor practice. And the inference we are intended to draw from this, is, that our clergy have, as a matter of fact, not been Apostolically ordained. Now if the question had been, what estimate we were to form of the prac- tical force of the English Church as a hving religious power in this country, the fact alleged (in proportion to its truth, and, doubtless, there is in it too much of truth) would be certainly relevant. There are, indeed, reasons for a prac-

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 235

tically fainter belief, under present circumstances, in sucli a doctrine, wliicli are purely accidental and temporary. The compacter organization, and more determined party effort, and sharper and more tenacious grasp of distinctively contro- versial doctrines, are characteristic usually of minorities, — of those who are, as it were, not in possession, and who are thrown by their position into a self-assertory attitude ; and these therefore at present (however the case may shortly come to be) mark other religious bodies in this land, and not the Church; and this especially with regard to cha- racteristically Church doctrine. Yet at the same time it would be affectation and dishonesty, un- happily, to deny, that while, indeed, in our present freedom we pretty well know the full extent of every existing difference of sentiment, and party divisions are made the most of, and so there can be no sus- picion that the case is worse or even so bad as it looks, yet still the Church of England does not, as a whole, livingly and unitedly believe in her own formularies in their fall Church aspect. And it is not to be denied — worse still — that there are (to come to the particular point itself) clergy who disbelieve, and others who suppress, and very many who shrink from maintaining in due propor- tion, the true powers and the Divine nature of the office which the Great Chief Shepherd has laid upon them, and which their Church distinctly recognizes to be theirs. And all these causes do

236 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

seriously impair tlie influence and weight of the Church herself in the land. It is no new, although it may be a wholesome thing to remind us of, that if the whole English Church worked with the compact union of a single living and undivided force, instead of being divided and half-hearted in her belief of her own powers and mission, we should be in a far other position than we now are, not towards Dissent only, whether Protestant or Eoman, but towards vice and atheism too. But the one question here and now is of a different sort. And as evidence to the completeness or defec- tiveness of the formularies of the English Church, or to the fact of their having been used or not used in actual reality, or to the formal and authorita- tive belief of the Church as a body represented by its formal and public acts, it would be waste of words to set about proving, that the existence of a partial unbehef in one particular doctrinal aspect of those formularies on the part of a portion of the Church is simply nought. And even as a matter of fact, although it does not affect the present ques- tion at all, yet surely the extent of that unbehef is unduly exaggerated. It is a thing of which no doubt can be made, that the mass of Church members throughout this land (and, so far as senti- ment goes, with the most trifling exceptions) — the ordinary Churchmen every where, who have no party theories — ^would shrink from receiving the Holy Communion from any other hands than those

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 237

of an Episcopally-ordained minister ; and this, not because it is the law, but as deeming it profane for any others to intermeddle with that Sacrament. In other words, every such member of the Church, with these exceptions, does believe in Apostohcal Succession. The exceptional cases arise from a sceptical temper in a comparative handful of educated men, and a vague confusion of thought in the uneducated ; and from a theological theory in alas ! far too large a number of clergy and laity of extreme views, which struggles hard in the strength of popular and negative rehgionism to maintain a precarious hold on unaccommodating formularies, but which as a pure matter of fact has never yet won its way to be regarded as the doc- trine of the Church, or as any thing else but the gloss of a school, within the Church, but scarcely of it. And the very courage required in the few notable clergymen who have made up their minds to brave opinion by practically and markedly re- jecting the doctrine in open act, gauges precisely the strength of the feeling to which by so doing they run counter ; or, in other words, proves, that Apostolical Succession is the " tradition " of the Church of England on the subject. And if it be said that the behef in it in nine cases out of ten is that of unreasoning education and of mere asso- ciation, possibly it may be so. But the assertion made relates, not to intelhgent belief, but to behef at all. And no one can doubt that the great body

238 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

of Churcli people would simply be shocked if an unordained person were to administer the Eucha- rist, i. e. that they do beheve as a fact in the Divine Commission of a rightly-ordained clergy.

We are told next, that our orders must be invalid, because, from the very first outbreak of the divi- sion, Roman Catholics, Church and individuals alike, have unhesitatingly condemned them ; inso- much that, e. g. no single person even, among those who were put to death in England in Eliza- beth's days or the Hke, ever sought absolution, in default of a Roman priest, at the hands of an English one ; although the latter, if really ordained, and even though admittedly in schism or heresy, was canonically able to administer valid absolution in the moment of death. Now no answer certainly need be vouchsafed to the special fact here alleged, granting it to be one. It is mentioned simply to show the wire-drawn feebleness of argument to which Ultramontane controversy is content to resort. But to the general position, that the Pope and Roman Catholics have condemned our orders absolutely and without hesitation from the beginning, and therefore that they are invalid, there is but one line of answer to give ; viz. that, first, the fact alleged is not true ; and next, if it were, that the inference drawn would not follow from it except upon our opponents' own unadmitted as- sumptions. Papal condemnation of our orders (so far as that condemnation is a fact) renders those

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 239

orders invalid, it is hardly necessary to say, only if the Roman Church is the Church, and if the Pope is its infallible exponent ; which are the very questions in dispute, and of which, if the Roman view be admitted, we should not need to trouble ourselves any more about the question of orders. And if, as it appears, the intention is to allege a special pecuHarity in our case in matter of fact, whereby it is differenced from all other cases of disputed or condemned orders in earher times, in that in the case of England the orders of our Church were denied immediately, absolutely, and consistently, from the very first moment ; then the statement itself is, as a matter of fact, one very far removed indeed from the truth. It is perfectly clear, on the contrary, that the Court of Rome held back for above a century and a half from any such absolute condemnation, and did not consider the question to be finally and conclusively determined until the year 1704, if then. The very request of Bishop Gordon in that year, and the mock inquiry and consequent sentence that followed, sufficiently show the absence of any previous formal deci- sion on the subject. And call it a mock inquiry, simply because every party whatever to it was on the same side, petitioner and all ; because there is not in the proceedings the slightest pretence at an investigation of the real evidence for the fact of our consecrations ; because there is nothing more in tJiem tnan unproved assertions of the "uncertainty"

240 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

of our legitimate succession; and statements, also unproved, of the want of due form, matter, and intention in our ordinations, of whicli tlie first isi founded on a not over-honest suppression of the form really used in our formulary, and the last upon the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice as ruled in their own (Roman) sense : in short, because the document is a mere record of the opinion of one who was a judge in his own case, and who accepted the agreeable testimony of interested witnesses without sifting it, or confronting it with independent testi- mony, and without even consulting the party really most concerned, viz. the English Church herself; and who yet, after all, only reached the point of pro- nouncing our orders invalid, not as certainly so, but because he held them doubtful. And for these reasons, — apart from Papal authority, which men will estimate according to their Church, — it is, as a I'udicial decision, purely worthless. But, worthless or not, otherwise, one thing it does unanswerably prove, viz. that the Papal Court did not consider the question of English orders as finally determined until, at least, this so-called determination of it. And the date of this determination is 1704. Nor can any one who fairly considers the facts relating to the case prior to 1704, doubt, that the question really was not considered as finally decided up to that year. It may not be clear what were pre- cisely the conditions imposed ; but it is clear, that, under conditions certainly short of re-ordination,

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 241

botli Julius III., and Paul IV., and Cardinal Pole acting witli their sanction, did accept English orders under Mary's reign, by whatever Ordinal conferred, wherever the person so ordained sub-

mitted and was reconciled to the Pope. Sanders himself is sufficient evidence to the general beliei of the time ; who in so many words tells us, that Cardinal Pole " confirmed aU Bishops made in the former schism, so they were Catholic in their religion." And the words of Pole's own document, confirming such persons "in suis ordinibus et beue- ficiis," and "rehabilitating," not " reordaining " them, — and Bonner's Visitation Articles of 1554, which speak of only "reconciling and admitting" these, who had been " ordered schismatically and contrary to the old order and custom of the Cathohc Church," which are illustrated by the specimen of Bonner's actual practice in " rehabilitating " Bishop Scory, — show that, when Pole quahfies his acceptance by the proviso — " dummodo in eorum (ordinum) coUatione Ecclesise forma et intentio sit servata," and when Bonner, according to Queen Mary's Articles, is only to " admit " such orders (which by themselves were incomplete, and those " ordered " by them, " not ordered in very deed ") after " supplying the thing which was wanting in them before," the orders thus treated were cer- tainly not regarded by the Eoman Church as ipso facto and absolutely null and void. They were not simply repeated, as the Roman Church repeats

E

242 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

them now ; but tlie question was conveniently left, undecided. Pope Julius's Brief itself indeed recog- nizes those orders without any such qualification as that inserted by Pole. But this we need not here insist upon. Suffice it to say that, at the very lowest, the fact is undeniable, — not indeed that the Pope absolutely admitted our orders at first, but that he deliberately did not from the first condemn them, as is now asserted. If he had done so, it would have been simply the verdict of an adver- sary judging in his own cause. But, in truth, he temporized, until all hope of submission was passed ; and then at length, upon the first occasion that happened to offer, put the coping-stone to his own schismatical treatment of the Church of England by breaking off communion with her, and by proclaiming her outright to have no clergy and to be no Church.

But to pass from merely declamatory topics hke these to the really argumentative points upon which issue has been joined on the subject. And here one cannot refrain from beginning with an expression of amazement, at the character which prominently marks almost if not quite all the points thus raised. Speaking generally, it is really not an unfair account of the objections, other than those of historical matter of fact, that are brought against our orders by Roman Catholic objectors, to de- scribe them as either antecedent to the special auestion of orders, and belonging properly to other

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 243

controversies or as simply suicidal. They either condemn our orders incidentally only, and upon the assumption of the Koman view of certain other doc- trines not part of the special question of orders; or they turn upon assertions, fatal, if true, to Roman orders, and so to the Roman Church herself. For such objections rest (1) upon our having dropped certain unessential ceremonies in ordination, which were never heard of in the Church until the sixth, the ninth, and in some cases the twelfth centuries, and the absence of which, consequently, if fatal in our case, is equally fatal to Roman orders them- selves before those dates, and therefore absolutely ; while Roman authorities of weight and character unhesitatingly pronounce them to be unessential, and to pertain to the solenmity, and not to the essence, of orders; or (2) upon our having so omitted certain words in the form of ordination, that between 1549 and 1662 the words priest and Bishop did not occur in the actual form of ordaining; an objection likewise fatal to Roman orders if to ours, in that the word Bishop is absent to this day from the formal words used in the Roman Pontifical in Episcopal consecration, and its absence there is expressly and sufficiently defended by Roman divines, e. g. by Vazquez, against supposed objectors, in language exactly identical with that employed by English divines in defending our own rite ; viz. as a mere verbal omission, amply supplied by the context of the Ordinal and by the entire cii^cumstances of the

E 2

244 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

act of ordination ; or (3) upon our restricting our- selves (or nearly so) to a form of words in priestly ordination, in use since the tenth centuiy, although not earlier, so as (with certain other words added to them) to express the office of the priesthood, and express it (as we maintain) adequately, — and, indeed, in words held by one pre-Eeformation school of hturgical writers to constitute the essen- tial words, — but so as also to vary, partially at any rate, from the present forms of other Churches ; although Roman divines of no lax views expressly maintain, that the words of ordination are not of Scriptural appointment, and therefore may be varied by each Church for herself, so that they answer the pm'pose. Or (4) the objectors travel beyond the form itself of ordination, and pro- nounce our orders, however adequate the formu- lary may be, to be invahd by reason of our being in schism or in heresy ; thus shifting the question from that of orders in themselves to the broader issues between the two Churches. Or (5), alleging certain particular doctrines, as the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the necessity of formal absolution to the pardon of deadly sin, — to which Eastern divines appear inclined to add the infalhbihty of the Church as represented by her Bishops, — and ruling these in their own sense, they condemn our orders for lack of intention to confer, in giving ordination, any of the powers relevant to the several doctrines so ruled. Or (G) and lastly, they

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 245

require, in order to the valid exercise of the power of orders, the grant of jurisdiction from the right- ful spiritual source, by which they intend of course the Pope. In brief, granting the bare fact of suc- cession, our orders are assailed, either upon the a •priori ground that we are, as a Church, in the wrong, either altogether or in certain particular doctrines, or as having rejected Papal jurisdiction ; and therefore, that our orders, otherwise (so far as this class of objections goes) good, are, under the circumstances and by indirect result, bad ; or upon the suicidal grounds of alleged defects in our ordi- nal itself, such as were common to all ordinals up to the sixth, ninth, tenth, or twelfth centuries, and exist in some cases to this day, even in the Eoman ordinal inclusive; and grounds, therefore, which are but one more example of the too common fault of controversiahsts, and do but rashly place in our hands the satirist's " unrighteous law," to wield against Roman Catholics themselves.

I. First, then, of our forms of ordination. It may be taken as certain, that, from the beginning, the laying on of hands by an ordainer who was himself rightly ordained, accompanied by any words that sufficed to convey the formal intention of the Church, but not necessarily every where one and the same form of words, has been held suffi- cient to a valid ordination : sufficient both as regards matter and form ^ No other outward act

* It is really superfluous to give references. Let it suffice

246 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

is stamped by Scripture as Apostolical, save tlie laying on of hands. No form of words at all either has Scriptural authority, or has received the sanction of the entire Church, whether at all times and in all places, or even in all places at any one time. As a matter of fact, many differing forms of words have throughout been in use at various times and places. It has simply been held to be necessary, — ^inferring the rule of essentiality from ordinary and actual Church practice, — so to frame the accompanying words and ceremonial as to mark the purpose wherewith the appointed out- ward act is being used ; and this, without of neces- sity specifying in detail the several functions of the Episcopate or the priesthood in the actual words used in conferring either, still less con- ferring each function by a special matter or act of

to refer to a copious list of authorities in Morinus, De Sacr. Ordin. P. III. Exerc. vii. c. 3, ending with the words, " Et alii complures, quorum isti sunt pars minima." In the same work, ib. c. 1, after stating the opinion on the point, "quae materiam sacerdotii constituit solam manuum impositionem," Morinus continues, " Hauc solam" (sc. manuum impositionem) '' omnis Ecclesia, Latina, Grasca, Barbara, semper agnovit ; banc solam commemorant omnes antiqui Ritualcs, Latini, Groeci ; omnes antiqui et recentiores Patres, Graeci, Latini." A con- siderable list, too, of the same kind may be found in Mr. Wal- cot's Introduction to the Ordinal in Bhuit's Annotated Book of Common Prayer : which I mention in order to mark, in Mr. Wal- cot's learned j^aper, the first attempt hitherto made to exhibit in one view the gradual enlargement of the successive ordinals in use in the Church, so as to show precisely and at a glance $he eflect and nature of our o'.vn changes.

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 247

its own, as well as in express words. The term Bishop, or the term priest, expressed sufficiently by the context of the rite, whether or no also by the actual employment of the letters and syllables themselves, determines the act of laying on oJ hands to convey the office meant; and in con- veying that office, thus named in effect if not in terms, to convey by necessary implication all that the Church intends by that office. So far, both Holy Scripture, and the canons of the Church Cathohc, and all ancient ordinals, and the Fathers with one voice, and the soberer sort of even Roman canonists and theologians are agreed; however later schoolmen, as, e. g., Durandus, seeking to weigh exactly the precise force of each of the more cumbrous rites of their own times, or commentators of the ultra-Papal school hke Cata- lani, may be rash enough to elevate this or that among the accretions of a later age into the rank of essentials of the Divine institution itself. So far too the plain dictate of sound reason is in accordance with testimony. And the question is summarily and decisively settled in the same sense by the unanswerable argiunent, that if the case were otherwise, then — unless, indeed, upon that ex- tremest of Ultramontane theories, which supposes a power in the present Church to make that to be now true and now essential, which in time past was notoriously not true and not essential, — then, save upon this extravagant hypothesis, there could

248 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

not possibly be any orders any wliere any longer in any part of tlie Churcli Catholic at all. For from six to nine centuries, speaking rouglily, had elapsed before any of these supposed essentials were devised. Tried, then, by this test, the English Ordinal, before 1662 as well as after, is in form and matter a valid ordinal. K Acd'pe Spiritum Sanctimi, with the appropriate accessories (not to perfect what was otherwise incomplete, but) to determine the form to the office meant, be a sufficient form of words to make a Bishop, though the word Bishop be not added, in the Church of E-ome ; it was a sufficient form of words also, with the like respective and un- mistakable accessories in each case, and even had it stood without other words, which it did not, to make Bishop and priest severally in the Church of England prior to 1662 ; much more, of course, as joined with other and express words, since that year. If the Eastern Church and the several branches of the Eastern Church, and the Roman Church at various times, have rightfully employed differing forms of words in ordination, and (as, e. g. Habert and many other Roman doctors ex- pressly argue) are not tied to any one such form, because no form is determined by Scripture or by ought else to be Apostolical ; and the Roman Church has throughout none the less acknowledged all these orders, thus varyingly conferred ; then has the Church of England not invalidated her orders by using a like liberty. If laying on of hands

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 249

without unction, and without (in priests' orders) delivering of paten and chalice, made valid Bishops and priests severally in the Church of Rome for 800 or 1000 years, and makes vahd Bishops and priests in the Eastern Church to this day ; then it makes, and has all along made, vahd Bishops and priests also in the Church of England. If the several offices of the priesthood were validly con- ferred for hundreds of years in the whole Western Church by necessary implication in conferring the priesthood itself, and needed not to be specially and severally granted each by its own appropriate words and act; then are these offices validly con- ferred in the English Church also, even had they not been specified in words (as they are) ; and although not accompanied by several and special acts in several and special grants (as since 1552 they are not). And without any "if" in the matter, and without further reference to other Churches, the Apostles, as we know from Scripture, ordained Bishops and priests by the laying on of hands, but with no further act any where even inti- mated, and with words, no doubt, that sufficiently made it plain to what end they did so, but with words which are nowhere recorded, and which may, for ought that appears either in the Bible or in Church documents, have varied at different times. And those who came after the Apostles, knew of no other formal act in the solemn rite of ordination, and have transmitted no prescript form

t:50 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

of words connected with it. And we of the English Church do in the act of ordination as Apostles did, and therefore in that act, and so far as the form of the act goes, give that which Apostles gave. If Apostolic ordination was complete in matter and form, so also is ours, which retains their matter and appoints a sufficient equivalent for whatever may have been their form.

But to enter a little more into detail. It is a curious fact, considering the present state of religious feeling in England, that as our Reformers retained, in the form of Visitation of the Sick, out of all the mediaeval and earlier forms of Absolu- tion, precisely that which was at once the most recent and the most absolute, so in the form of Ordination also they followed a very similar course. The direct words, " Receive the Holy Ghost,'^ and the direct application to all priests now, together with these words, of the whole power also of remitting or retaining sin, as given in sequence to them by our Lord to the Apostles — a form which is not in the Eastern ordinals, and was not in the Roman or in any Western form in any shape until the tenth century; which after the tenth century occurred in the shape of a prayer and in another part of the service, and was changed into direct terms and applied as a formula of ordi- nation only in the end of the twelfth ; which then became only a part, but a part gradually held to be essential, and still more gradually and by some to be the essential part of the several steps of

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 251

priestly ordination ; — this, which is precisely the most recent, and in its claims one of the most unqualified, portions of the previously used forms, was precisely also that which Cranmer and the divines associated with him for the revision of the Ordinal, while compressing or laying aside the other forms, distinctly and specially retained, although with an addition of their own. In the Ordinal, as repeatedly also in other documents, they laid special stress upon the ministerial power of absolution. Combining the several portions of the various forms of words in the old Ordinal into one form, and enjoining only a single laying on of hands instead of several, they substituted " minis- try of sacraments " for " offering of sacrifice," and otherwise condensed the specification of the several parts of the priestly office, but retained the words respecting the power of absolution un- changed and in the forefront of the condensed form adopted by them; while they incidentally dropped, as it happened, the word " presbyter " from that form, by retaining only as a prayer (what was once the whole, and was still at that time held by many to be the essential part, of the form of ordination), the form containing the words " quos ad presbyterii munus elegit." Doubtless their motive in doing this was simply the fact, that the words thus put foremost are precisely the form, and the only form, that can lay claim to Scriptural authority; not indeed as the form of ordination used by Apostles, but as that by which

252 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

our Lord ordained the Apostles themselves ; while " dispensers of the word and sacraments," which expresses distinctly the other priestly functions, and is not a new form of words in itself, might seem to come nearest in terms to the Scripture phrase of " stewards of the mysteries of God." And if presbyters now are in truth (special Epis- copal powers apart), what Apostles in their ordi- nary office were then, there could not possibly be found more appropriate words whereby to confer that office, than the sacred words which conferred it in the very first and normal instance of all, together with those inspired words, or their nearest explanatory equivalent, in which Apostles themselves described it.

To make this plainer by a more precise com- parison between the older and the Reformation forms. We find in the Sarum (as in the Roman) Pontifical, what may be arranged as five several steps in priestly ordination. (1) Laying on of hands in silence by the Bishop, the other assistent priests joining in the act ; and then, following this, the prayer, " Oremus, dilectissimi, Deum Patrem omnipotentem, ut super hos famulos Sues, qiios ad preshyterii munus elegit^ coelestia dona multiplicet ; et quod Ejus dignatione suscipiunt, Ipsius conse- quantur auxiho." During the recitation of which by the Bishop, himself and the other priests ex- tended their hands over the candidates, which seems to be reckoned by some a second laying on

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 253

of hands. And this, as it was the oldest part of the office, so was also at first the whole of the essential part of it, the ordination being held to be complete at the words, " quos ad presbyterii munus elegit.'^ (2) Then followed investiture with stole and chasuble, and (3) anointing of the priest's hands, of which two the former (at least as regards the chasuble) was added before the time of Gregory the Great, c. a.d. 600, and the latter was older than this in Gaul and Britain, but either unknown or dropped at Rome as late as the middle of the ninth century, and in the East unknown altogether ; and both are, of course, mere accessories, upon which no one worth mentioning has ever laid any stress. (4) Then came that which was reckoned the second, and by many the one, essential matter and form, the delivery of the chahce and paten, with the words, " Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium Deo missamque celebrare tam pro vivis quam pro defunctis :" — a rite, however, unknown, either word or thing, to the Latin Pontificals before a.d. 1000, and to the Eastern Pontificals altogether, so that they who assert it to be essential, first ot all cut off the stem of the branch upon which they themselves depend, by condemning of necessity the ordination of their own ancestors in the faith, and next decide a solemn religious question with respect of persons, if, admitting Eastern orders which have it not, they condemn ours for the want of it. (5) And last, after a considerable interval.

254 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

and almost at the end of tlie Service, came another imposition of hands, this time by the Bishop alone, with the words, " Accipe Spiritum Sanctum : quorum remiseris peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum retinueris, retenta sunt." And this, as above said, was not in its full form a part of the Ordinal until about a.d. 1200, nor at all before the tenth century (and then as a prayer), and yet came to be held by some to be fhe sacramental act and form, and is included by the Council of Trent as of the substance of ordination, together with those other two before mentioned, the imposition of hands with the prayer Oremus, and the delivery of chalice and paten with the authority to " offer sacrifice."

The changes introduced, so far as they are of moment, have been as follows. Omitting alto- gether the unction and the investiture, and re- taining at the beginning of the service an expansion of the prayer Oremus^ but as a direct prayer and without any imposition of hands, and in that prayer retaining also an express mention of the candidates as " now called to the office of the priesthood," the re\dsers combined the last of the above five steps with a changed form of the fourth of them, and re- tained the essential act of imposition of hands and its accompanying words as in that fifth step, with no other change than that now in this (as had been the case in the Sarum (and Roman) rite in the first step of all) the assistent Priests should likewise impose hands : — a practice about which the Roman

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 255

Churcli lias no difference with us, wliich dates from the fourth Council of Carthage, and which lastly is Scriptural. For the fourth portion, however, now subjoined to the fifth, they substituted the words, " Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God and of His holy Sacraments ;" and they repeated the same in effect immediately afterwards with the addition of a formal grant of " authority " to preach and minister sacraments, and with the act of the delivery of the Bible ; the paten and chalice also being deHvered in the rite of 1549, but omitted in 1552 and thenceforward. The addition of words, specifying "the ofl&ce and work of a priest " in express terms in the actual form of ordination, and attaching also the giving of the Holy Ghost expressly to the laying on of hands, belongs to 1662.

Now in all this where is the wrong-doing ? It is surely needless to argue the abstract question of the right of each Church to order her own Liturgy, so that it be within the bounds of the common faith. Such a right is one of the commonplaces of divinity, upon which every Church habitually acted, without objection made, for centuries ; which Gregory the Great recognized almost in terms in respect to our own Church herself; and which indeed it is only in comparatively recent times that the Church of Rome has endeavoured to set aside, and has striven to cramp the Litur- gical formularies of each several Church in her

256 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

own communion into a precise and verbal uni- formity with those which happen to be now her own. And any claim of the Church of Kome, according to present Ultramontane views, to subject to her own minute and absolute control every act whatever of every other part of the Church, is a question, not about our orders, but about the supremacy of the Pope, and cannot be argued here. And if we turn to the nature of the changes themselves, there is certainly only one of them, to which we will come presently, about which any argument can be even plausibly raised. The dropping of the omitted ceremonies can by no pretence be called an essential change. Men ma^/ question, according to their tempers and prepos- sessions, whether or no it was desirable to omit them. But in the face of the undisputed non- Apostolic and non-primitive character of all of them, and of the exceedingly recent date of the only one upon which stress could possibly be laid, viz. the delivery of the instruments (admitted to be "accidental" by such as e. g. Becanus), and of the fact of their absence from Eastern ordinals, no reasonable and no fair Roman Catholic can hold their omission to affect in the slightest degree the validity of our form as conferring true orders. Neither is it true to say, that prior to 1G62 we " omitted " the word priest in conferring priests' orders, so that before that year the Bishop, as far as his words went, might be conferring any

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 257

office at all, and not necessarily that of the priest- hood. On the contrary, the express words occur in the Ordinals of 1549 and 1552, precisely as in the Sarum and Roman Ordinals, — " these Thy servants now called to the office of priesthood." But the prayer in which they occur is in those Ordinals reckoned a part (originally the whole) of the words of actual ordination ; in our own, that prayer is not so reckoned, but is one that conies at the beginning of the service, and only as a simple prayer. And the difference, — obviously, in this particular, unintentional, and the incidental result of another change, — is only that which may be discovered between, on the one hand, naming an office in the act of conferring it, and, on the other, naming it (and those who are presented, as candidates for it) before conferring it, and then proceeding to confer it, not by name, but by speci- fying its several functions. The latter course, which was our own between 1549 and 1662 (at present we name the office at both times), is in itself beyond all reasonable question equally deter- minate with the former, and is also the identical course followed by the Eoman Pontifical itself to this day in consecrating a Bishop. Now, in the words of Habert, " Cum verba, Acci^e Sjpiritum Sanctum, perfecte exprimant effectum ordinationis EpiscopaHs, assumi possimt ab Ecclesia ut forma ejus essentiahs." And in those of Yasquez, *' Although the word Bishop is not in that form,

s

258 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

yet tlie other circumstances, accompanying tlie form, suflB.ciently express it^" And so undoubtedly, in the parallel case, they sufficiently expressed the office of the priesthood, for the like reason, in our own form for ordaining priests before 1662. Neither, again, can it be needful to defend the addition of the rite of the delivery of the Bible, which is simply the introduction into the ordination of priests (with the substitution, for the Gospels, of the whole Bible) of a rite existing in some form or other in diaconal ordination in the whole "Western Church, and in the consecration of Bishops both in East and West ; and which, as it is an unessential, so is at the least a harmless — one would rather say a happy — addition to the ceremonial of the rite. There remains the substitution of " authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister" (or "dispense") "the holy Sacraments," in lieu of the words, " to offer sacrifice and to celebrate mass as well for the living as for the dead." And here, doubtless, there is a difference, and a serious one. The question of doctrine, indeed, and of the consequent intention of the Church in the use of her formulary, shall be recurred to presently. But in the abstract, and apart from intention, the doubt

* See Vasquez, P. III. Disp. ccxl. num. 58 : and Coninck, De Ordin., Disp. xx. dub. 7, num. 58, arguing tliat imposition of hands with tlie words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum are sufficient jure Divino to confer Episcopal orders ; proving this, among other grounds, from the Council of Trent.

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 259

is raised, whether the words, as they stand after this substitution, are sufficient, as a form, to con- vey the fall powers of the priesthood. Now, if the office of the priesthood was fully conveyed for nine centuries, and is in the Eastern Church conveyed still, without any words at all respecting sacrifice or sacrament, so that neither the words we have dropped were employed, nor any other words in their place ; then it is plain, that they who allow ordinations in giving which no such words occurred, preclude themselves from condemning ours upon the ground that we have left them out. It is obvious to argue farther, that it cannot be necessary to specify any power of the kind, or even any at all, with respect to the Eucharist ; inasmuch as the whole Church from the beginning did not think it necessary to do so, nor did even the Western Church for many hundred years. And our own Church, therefore, cannot have impaired the office of her priesthood by desisting from the use of any particular words of the sort. If she has, then were there no orders any where in the Church at all before the tenth century, and there- fore there are none now, even in the Chui^ch of Rome herself. And yet farther, since the power to do whatever is rightly contained in the ministry of the Sacraments is necessarily imphed in a general commission to minister them, the words which we do use, and which give such a commis- sion, do convey of necessity the power to " ofier

s 2

260 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

sacrifice," just so far as, and no further than, those words are apphcable to the particular sacrament of the Eucharist. In whatever sense that sacra- ment is a sacrifice to be ofiered, in that sense the words of our Ordinal empower priests to " ofier " that " sacrifice." And as our form would have been sufficient, Eoman Catholics themselves being judges, if they only judged without respect of persons, without any such words at all, so much more is it sufficient, as a form, with the words added which we have. Behind this, no doubt, there still remains the question, what is the inten- tion of the English Church in giving this com- mission respecting the Sacraments, and inclusively the Holy Eucharist ? and since the intention of the Church must be determined by her doctrine, what is her doctrine on the subject ? But our question at this moment is simply about our form as a form. And as nothing can be more pre- posterous and more suicidal than to assert words to be essential which only came into use at all in the tenth century, — as nothing can be more unfair than to condemn ourselves for their absence, while allowing Eastern orders, whence they are absent too; or, again, than to reject our orders for the consequent want of specification in the essential form of ordination of one particular (alleged) func- tion of the priesthood, whilst they themselves consecrate Bishops with a parallel want of spe- cification of any Episcopal function at all; — so

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 261

in itself is it utterly futile to insist upon tlie vital and crucial importance of words, tliat spring from no higher or older authority than the opinion of one among several conflicting schools of modern mediaeval schoolmen, even although adopted by the Council of Trent. The " probable opinion '* of " some doctors " cannot be exalted into an essential of the faith by a sixteenth century council of only a part of the Church. It must, surely give way, let us not say even to common sense and common fairness, but at any rate to the whole Church of earlier days and the whole Eastern Church until now. And that form of words, which no one in his senses can dream that Apostles used, and of which there is no trace and no equivalent, special or implied, in any Ordinal for ten centuries (except, indeed, so far as the word priesthood may be held to imply it, and that word we have always had), can certainly be no essential. If we only share the omission of it with Apostles themselves and with the undivided Church, we need not be troubled, because there is against us a mediaeval opinion, exalted into an essential by the Council of Trent. To conclude, indeed, with the words, not of one of our own Church, but of a Pope, and a very late Pope too *, — setting aside, however, first, on our own behalf, the superstition which would attach unchangeableness to words of human device, and assuming only the right of each Church * Innocent IV., De Sacram. Iterandis vel non, c. Preshyta'

262 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

to appoint its own forms within tlie limits of the faith (a right evidenced abundantly by the almost count- less variety of allowed forms and rites collected by Liturgical writers), and, lastly, looking simply to the point of Divine authority, — " De ritu Apos- tolico invenitur in Epist. ad Titura, alias Timoth., quod manus imponebant ordinandis, et quod ora- tionem fundebant super eis ; aliam autem formam non invenimus ab eis servatam : unde credimus, quod nisi essent formae postea inventae, sufficeret ordinatori dicere, * Sis sacerdos,' vel aha asquipol- lentia verba." Such is the admission of a Pope, and such, too, is the plain result of the plain facts. The case is a similar or a stronger one with respect to the consecration of Bishops. Here too we have dropped certain ceremonial rites, as e. g. the unction of head and hands of the Bishop to be consecrated. The Eastern Church never knew such a custom, nor the ancient African, nor the Church of Rome herself in Episcopal consecration until the time of Pelasius, close upon a.d. 500. We have dropped the custom of delivering the ring, the mitre, and since 1552 the pastoral staff, in the like case. All of them were neither ancient nor essential practices, and were of the Western Church only, and even of that but recently. Writers such as e. g. Durandus, may choose to dignify these things as essential. No one, it is to be hoped, now will follow him in so doing. We have re- tained in substance the delivery of the Gospels

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 263

(a custom as old as the Fourth Council of Carthage), save that instead of laying them open upon the neck and shoulders of the Bishop consecrated, or (as in the Roman Pontifical) upon his head, we have adopted the certainly non-essential change of delivering them into his hands ; and whether shut or open, certainly matters not. But we have re- tained on the contrary, and unchanged, that which (as we have learned from Morinus) all antiquity and all ancient and even Roman divinity with one consent holds, and which Scripture itself declares, to be the one really essential matter, viz. the laying on of hands. And we require more- over three Bishops at least, although no one who knows of what he speaks can hold conse- cration by one to be invahd. And we have also that which Roman divinity itself allows and main- tains to be the essential form, viz. the words, Receive the Holy Ghost. This form indeed is not (verbally) essential. It is but recent in the Western Chm^ch. It is not the form at all in the Eastern. It is not in the Sarum Pontifical, or in any other English formulary save one. It is indeed actually taken by us from the Roman Pontifical itself. But in our rite, as in that of the Church of Rome, it would, and did, by itself adequately supply all that is really essential, viz. a form sufficient to express the act intended. Nor can it be of consequence, whether we categorically affirm with the Greek Church, that 'H O^ia x*^P'5 Trpo^eipC^eTaL, or

264 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

pronounce aiitlioritatively witli the Roman, Receive the Holy Ghost. And as, before 1662, we (witi tlie Roman rite) identified the office conferred with the Episcopate by the whole context of the rite, and by the declared intention of both the Church in framing the formulary at all, and the individual consecrators who expressly set forth the office they intend to convey; so, since that year, we have certainly not impaired the form itself of consecration by adding to it ex- press words to specify by name the Episcopal office, and by adding words, also, more ex- pressly attaching the gift of grace to the act of laying on of hands. In all this there is really nothing that seriously needs defence. If there are true Bishops in the Church of Rome, although they were not called Bishops in the very act of conse- crating them, — if there are true Bishops in the Eastern Church, although unanointed, — then, so far as the form of consecration goes, there are, and always have been, true Bishops also in the Church of England ; true priests first of all, because truly ordained to the priesthood, and then by as true a consecration true Bishops also. And upon grounds which Rome is bound in fairness to admit, if ever our Church and theirs should be reconciled, and if other stumbling-blocks should be removed out of the path, our Bishops and our priests ought to be received, not as laymen, but in their orders.

Let us add only, in concluding this part of the

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 265

subject — but merely as carrying on to the present moment the unbroken and otherwise more than sufficient chain of evidence to the facts of the case — the testimony of the latest, and from his date and abundant information, the most learned of those who have treated of Eastern rituals, viz. Denzinger ^, himself of the Roman Communion : who, in a copious and exact summary of the rites of each several body of Eastern Christians, lays down with respect to unction, and proves at length, that, as well in Episcopal as in presbyteral ordi- nation, " apud Orientales plane deesse;" and while reckoning up in detail the almost numberless ways in which the " traditio instrumentorum " (as by the widest possible phrase he terms it) was practised in each communion, plainly marks out, that (1) chalice and elements occur at all only in Maronite priestly ordinations, and then distinctly as a pure ceremony, not as material to the orders given, and (2) that the various other rites of the kind, as delivery of vestments, or of a thurible, or in Episcopal consecration, imposition or delivery of the Gospel, or delivery of the pastoral staff, were in no case reckoned, as indeed no reasonable men could reckon them, of the essence of the rite.

II. But grant the sufficiency of the outward rite, and that our " verba " are (in the phrase of Innocent IV.) '* gequipoUentia," there yet re- mains, besides matter and form, another requisite

Ritus Orientalmm, &c., torn 1. Wirceb. 1863.

266 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

to the validity of orders, viz. a sufficient inten- tion. That is to say, tlie words and act of ordination are not a charm, which imprints a character by the mere material use of the syllables of the one, and by the merely physical movements of the other; but they are the out- ward expression of a reasonable official trans- action, by which the body of the Christian Church, through its appointed ministers, and in the way sanctioned by Divine authority, transmits, and intends to transmit, the promised grace of God for the special office of the ministry. The Church, then, must mean to convey the diaconate, or the priesthood, or the Episcopate. It may be indeed, and is, a question, up to what point a defective conception of the office may go on the part (not of the individual ordainer, which matters nothing, but) of the Church in whose name he acts, before such defect must necessarily be taken to defeat the meaning of the act altogether, and transform it into something else than that which it in a manner professes to be. But, on the whole, it seems com- mon sense, that orders which are conferred by a Church that does not in any sense mean to confer what ought to be meant by orders, must be, not indeed of necessity invahd absolutely, but certainly invalid for the time and under the circumstances. Intention, then, in some sense at any rate, is essen- tial to ordination.

Let it be said, however, at the outset, that such

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 267

intention, whatever it be, is the intention of the Church as expressed in her formal acts, not of the individual minister who ordains. What the private theological opinions of the ordainer may be, or what perverse thoughts may inwardly pass through his mind in consequence of those opinions or for any other reason, cannot possibly affect the validity of an act, which does not depend upon his will or power, but rests upon the promise of Christ; any more than his moral character can affect it. Popes like Alexander YIII. may tell us, if they will, that a minister invahdates a rite by with- drawing his interior intention from it, even while complying with and enacting the whole range of its outward expression by act and word. But common sense, and the mere vital mischief of such a position, sufficiently put aside a doctrine so pre- posterous. And soberer schoolmen, at least on this point, as Aquinas, Bonaventura, Soto, and indeed, ^'communiter Doctores" (as Ferraris tells us), limit the required intention to nothing more at the least than a virtual intention to do as the Church does. Such, too, is the doctrine of the Council of Trent itself. And in plain common sense even this goes beyond the mark, unless the evidence of outward acts be taken as sufficient evidence of the existence of such a virtual intention. Provided the persons concerned are seriously engaged as in a religious rite, and so far intend to do what the Church appoints them to do as to do it with outward

268 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

seriousness, the appointed words and acts being presupposed to be in themselves sufficient, and the right conditions being of course also presupposed in the recipient, it is obvious that the ordinary- rules of human life and actions would pronounce the act to be rightly and perfectly done. No act of any man towards any other man could stand good in any concern of life whatever, if, after a complete outward performance of whatever consti- tutes that act, with no notice given and no sign expressed of any lack of intention to perform it, it were open to the person who did it to quash the whole as null by the simple statement, that at the time, and in his own mind, he had not meant to do it, or that he had a different view of its nature from that which he had then expressed, and claimed now to be ruled by that view, although at the time he had not uttered one word about it. "We need not concern ourselves, therefore, in the pre- sent case, with the opinions of individuals in the Church of England. Neither can the faulty the- ology of Bishop Barlow or of any one else affect their official acts as Bishops, when those acts were performed duly and with every outward appearance of a serious performance of them. In the very sensible language of St. Thomas Aquinas *, in a

• In TN.Dht. 7, qn. 1, art. 2. And so in his Summa, P. III., qu. 64, art. 8, ad 2, after mentioning the opinion of those who do require a " mentalis intentio in ministro ut sacramenta valcant," he proceeds to lay down, that " Alii melius dicunt, quod

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALL V VALID 269

parallel case, " Non requiritur mentalis intentio, sed sufficit expressio intentionis per verba ab Eccle- sia instituta ; et ideo, si forma servatur, nee aliquid exterius dicitur quod intentionem contrariam ex- primat, baptizatus est catecbumenus ;" or, as fol- lows by parity of reasoning, * ordinandus ordina- tus est.'

The formal intention of the Cliurcb, however, stands on another footing. And the change in our form of priestly ordination undoubtedly gives room for the question, whether in such change of words is involved also any essential, and if essential, whether any fatally erroneous, change in the conception of the priestly ofi&ce ; and this, whether by the altera- tion of the words in itself, or as ruled authori- tatively elsewhere. The Church of England con- fers the office of priesthood by name. She specifies,

minister sacramenti agit in persona totius Ecclesias, cujus est minister ; in verbis autem quae profert, exprimitur intentio Ecclesiae, quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi contra- rium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri vel recipientis." St. Augustin, indeed, whose words in his Cont. Donat. vii. 53, are (so to say) the classical patristic passage about intention, goes so far as to affirm in the anti-Roman direction, that " nihil interest ad integritatem sacramenti in Ecclesia Catholica, utrum id aliqui fallaciter an veraciter agant." If any one wishes to see a not otherwise than plain matter obscured in the opposite direction to this by subtle and unpractical distinctions, and finally left in a position which takes away all certainty what- ever from every administration of every sacrament since sa- craments were in the Church at all, he need look no further than to the Promta Bibliotheca of an authority so high as is that of Ferraris, sub voce intentio ; who quotes Aquinas and St. Ausustin as above, but does not rest content with either of them.

270 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

in conferring it, the function of absolving from sin, that of preaching the Word of God, and that ot dispensing or ministering the sacraments : all these in the plainest of words, so that they who deny any one of them contradict express and solemn decla- rations, made, as none can seriously doubt, by the Church herself. But she not only does not specify the " power of offering sacrifice;" but first of all de- sists from expressly conferring such a power, in the sense attached to it at the time of the Reformation, by omitting the words which were previously in use to specify it in that sense, and next shows that the omission was intentional, while at the same time limiting its meaning, by the 31st of the Thirty-nine Articles: although, none the less-, the power of " ministering sacraments," and inclu- sively the Holy Eucharist, does still imply also the power of "offering sacrifice," in whatever sense the Eucharist is a sacrifice; since that sense only of the term is denied, wherein other words elsewhere, e. g. in the 31st Article, rule it to be not so. Now it holds good certainly, judging by ample early precedent, that a Bishop may be truly a Bishop without having been previously a priest, and that the question now raised affects only our priestly ordination. But then we desire true priests as well as true Bishops, even granting that we might conceivably have the latter without the former. It is true also, that the early Church held even Arian baptism valid if administered with

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 271

sufficient words and matter ; proving also the rule by tlie exception, in that she condemned at the same time Eunomian baptism, wherein the form was changed ; and that the 67th Apostohcal canon, which is the earhest Church rule on the subject, places orders and baptism, in the matter of in- validity and consequent repetition, on the same footing, although the later Church did not. And therefore it might be fairly claimed, — upon the assumption that our form is sufficient in itself, and only lacks a right intention to put the true and full meaning into its words, — that even were we in the wrong in this matter, our orders ought yet to be acknowledged by the Church of Rome as needing nothing more than reconciliation, and not repe- tition. But be all this as it may, our position is not one that merely evades a difficulty, or rests upon even a hypothetical admission of error. Here, as in most points of controversy between Rome and her- self, the Church of England claims to have abohshed a mediaeval error, while retaining the primitive truth out of which the error had grown. She claims to have simply abolished a doctrine of the school, elevated by the Council of Trent, as time went on, into a necessary dogma, but which in reahty was nothing more than a corrupt development of a truth, or rather of a combination of truths, that had been carried at length to the point of encroaching upon and contradicting, materially if not formally, a plainly Scriptural and essential doctrine of the faith

272 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

itself. And, in order to tliis, words were dropped from the ordination service, wliicli liad grown into use in medigeval times, and wliicli enshrined this purely mediaeval doctrine — ^words which, with- out explanation, by their natural force, and by their historical origin, expressed that doctrine ; — while the 31st Article specifies the ground upon which, and therefore the purpose with which, the change (with other corresponding changes else- where) was made. It may be true, indeed, that in the recoil from opposite error the popular behef of our own Church-people has come to make too little of the truth itself which had been thus dis- torted. Nay, it may be admitted, that even our own formularies, out of anxiety to strike out what- ever might encourage the error, hardly dwell with sufficient emphasis upon the truth out of which that error grew. And it certainly is the case, unhappily, that because the Roman schools have obscured and practically lost the sacrament in order to exalt the sacrifice, the bulk of English Church-people on the other hand, in fear of Roman error, have almost forgotten the sacrifice while dwelling upon the sacrament. But the question is not of popular belief, but of formal Church acts. And our position is, that the Church of England has not condemned the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but (simply and absolutely) one particular view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, viz. that sense of it, in which it encroached upon, and (however it

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 273

miglit be glossed over by subtle distinctions) at least seemed to contradict, the completeness once for all of tlie One only true Sacrifice, tliat of tlie Cross. The trenchant objection made to our orders on the Roman side, and to some extent on the Eastern side also, is, that we have essentially altered the character of the ministerial office, and even if we retain its form, have evacuated it of its spirit; because we have substituted preaching ministers for sacrificing priests. But the contrast thus sharply drawn, although it may point to a danger or a tendency, as a fact is untrue. A change in the relative prominence of priestly functions is not a denial of any of them. And a denial of one view of a Sacrifice is not a denial of that Sacrifice itself. Our Ordinal shows, that what we have really substituted, or, more correctly speaking, retained under a change of words, are " priests," with the power of absolution, who are indeed "preachers of the Word," but are also " ministers of the Holy Sacraments." What we have done in this point, so far as Church acts go (and for these alone is the Church answerable), is precisely this and no more, — that we have merged the special office of *' sacrificing," under the general terms of " ministering Sacraments," instead of stating it by itself in words both dangerously un- qualified and actually mischievous. And if we look outside the Ordinal for the ground and limit of the change, we find it embodied in what is now our 31st

T

274 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VAIJD

Article : i. e. we find it, not in a denial of the Eu- charistic Sacrifice, but in a denial of the Sacrifices of Masses, i. e. of a particular view of that Sacrifice which trenches upon a fundamental doctrine of the faith. Certainly the tenet of Tr an substantiation, combined with the assertion of a "true and proper" sacrificeof theTransubstantiated elements (and that a sacrifice disjoined from the Sacrament, as in the crucial case of private masses), does at least seem to imply, by an apparently inevitable inference, a repetition of that Sacrifice which Scripture tells us was offered once for all upon the Cross, And although this inference may be, and is, repudiated (nor is it either wish or business of ours to seek to force it on those who formally reject it), yet it must be avowed to be so natural an inference, to say the very least, as to make it not only inno- cent, but obligatory, to guard against even leaving room for it in the language of authoritative Church formularies. In order then to keep the one faith unimpaired, the Church of this land (among other things) omitted from the Ordinal, not Scriptural words, not even patristic words, not the words of ancient ordinals, but a comparatively modern for- mula, that had crept into use parallelwise with the error itself. And she substituted for that formula a general authority to minister Sacraments, so that Sacrament and Sacrifice should be no more put asunder. The motive of the change in the Ordi- nation Service, and therefore the meaning of that

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 275

change, must necessarily be measured by the 31st Article; and the 31st Article expressly alleges the perfectness of the One past Sacrifice as the ground, and therefore the limit, of the withdrawal of the power of sacrificing from the priest. Assuredly, at a period when the doctrine of a sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist had been carried to so monstrous an extreme, that doctors were found who taught, that our Blessed Lord had died upon the cross only to atone for original sin, and that it was the Church that offered the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist for the actual sins of men, — the tenet against which the clause in our 2nd Article also is directed, — it was high time, not only to protest against, but so to word our services as to shut out, such an utter perversion of the most fundamental truth of the Gospel. And if we turn from the negative side to the positive, certainly the " memory " of a " sacrifice," in which " memory " is *' no untrue figure of a thing absent," — ^which are the words of our present service and of the Homily, — is no mere mental recollection or merely subjective presentation to the mind of the conception of a past event. It is, by the very force of the terms, to say nothing of the word " memory " itself, and of its well-known theological meaning, a presenting to Cod of that which is mystically, but truly, the Body and Blood of Christ, as a memorial of that One past Sacrifice, effectively pleading It to Him. If, then, by

T 2

276 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

sacrifice is meant one identical in kind witli tliat on the Cross, tt.e Holy Eucliarist is to us a " memory, and not a sacrifice ;" but if by the word is meant an efiectual representation of the One Sacrifice, then it is (according to our formularies) a sacrifice indeed, but a commemorative one, a "memory of a sacrifice." And so the Fathers, from St. Cyprian onwards, call it. In the words of St. Chrysostom, it is a dvaia indeed, [xaXkov Se avdixvr](Ti<? ^vcriag. l^^ay, even so late a schoolman as Peter Lombard tells us, that it is indeed " called a sacrifice," but that it is so called, " quia me- moria est et repraesentatio veri sacrificii."

It would be easy, as every one must know, to close the argument by a catena of English divines asserting such a doctrine. But the question is, no doubt, of Church documents, rather than of current and admitted, but individual teaching. For the sake only of a specimen of that, which is at least so general as to claim fairly to repre- sent our Church's doctrine, take the words oi Bramhall ; who declares the terms of our ordina- tion-formula to " give sufficient power to sacrifice, so far as an evangelical priest doth or can sacri- fice; that is, a commemorating sacrifice, or a representative sacrifice ; or to apply the Sacrifice of Christ by such means as God has appointed : but," he adds, " for any sacrifice that is merito- rious or propitiatory by its own power or virtue distinct from the sacrifice of Christ, it is to be

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 277

hoped no one will affirm it." Or the words again of Bishop Beveridge ; who affirms, that " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper may as properly be called a sacrifice as any that ever was ofi'ered, except that which was offered by Christ Himself; for this indeed was the only true expiatory sacrifice ; those under the Law were only typical, and this is a commemorative sacrifice." Or those again of Bishop Ridley ; — " It is well said, if it be rightly understood, that the priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the Body of Christ, .... it is offered after a certain manner and in a mystery as a re- presentation of that Bloody Sacrifice." Or, lastly, to conclude with the very recent words of one of whom it may be allowed without offence to say that he was the very representative of the so- called Protestant school in the Enghsh Church, — of the late Dean Goode; — "It is strictly true, in a sense, that the real sacrifice of the Cross, the true Body and Blood of Christ, are offered up in the Eucharist, not by iteration, but in the prayers of the faithful ; nay more, remission of sins can only be obtained by the offering up of the true Sacrifice of the Cross ^" And again : — " The Fathers, as a body, speak (and justly) of the offering up of the real Body and Blood of Christ in the Eu- charist, and attribute the impetration of remission of sins to such a Sacrifice alone ^"

III. But beyond order lies jurisdiction. Grant ' Biv. Eule, &c. ii. 187.

278 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

that we have the power of orders validly conferred, the canon law restrains the rightful and (save the narrowest limits of absolute necessity) the valid employment of such power to those only who have the authority given them to exercise it, and that in a definite sphere, by their (in this case spi- ritual) superior. And not the canon law simply, but the requirements of unity, the necessary de- pendence of mission upon ordination, and the very charter of the Church's existence at all as a spiritual kingdom, imply, that spiritual juris- diction over this or that part of Christ's flocls should emanate from the spiritual authorities oi the Church herself. The objection, then, to our position in this matter is apparently twofold — that English clergy do not derive their mission from the Pope, and that they do derive it from the civil power. But the first of these needs little argu- ment in a discussion limited specially to holy orders. It is simply a branch of those usurpations of the Pope, as we hold them to be, which stand or fall together with the question of Papal supre- macy. Jurisdiction of Bishops over clergy we admit to be of Divine right. The very form of institution into every living in England shows that we act upon that doctrine. Jurisdiction of Metropolitans over Bishops, or of Patriarchs over Metropolitans, we hold to be of human right; and, therefore, in itself alterable. Jurisdiction of one Chief Bishop, viz. of Rome, over all other Bishops,

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONIC ALLY VALID 279

we hold to be of tlie nature of human right also ; and to be a jurisdiction which, if confined to right- ful limits, might be granted for expediency's sake if it were thought expedient, but certainly stands upon no higher ground ; which grew up through circumstances, and was in some sense, yet never wholly, acquiesced in by the Enghsh Church and nation ; and which at length, when pushed to an exorbitant degree and made the source of intole- rable oppression and evil, was rejected. All this is matter of history. Any claim, indeed, of jurisdiction on the part of the Bishop of Rome, as his by Divine right, so that no Bishop or priest can act as such rightfully or validly save as deriving mission from him, rests, even with such a writer as Bellarmine, upon foundations so ingeniously imaginary that really to state them is to refute them. Assuredly, outside religious polemics, no reasonable person could accept for a moment the gratuitous fiction, that while all the Apostles received their mission im- mediately from our Lord, that mission was personal to all the others, and transmissible to the future Church and ministry only through St. Peter. And if from Divine we turn to human right, — without even discussing whether we were right or wrong in the sixteenth century in rejecting the then Papal claims, or attempting here to go over the old and oft-repeated proof, that what we then rejected were really mediaeval usurpations, — it is undeniable, that the present Ultramontane concep-

280 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

tion of the Papacy in all points, and in the point of Episcopal mission among others, has assumed such an extent and fixity, and has been so utterly transformed, both as regards the degree of its claims, and still more by the practical proof of its actual mode of exercising them, as to constitute it a perfectly new and distinct claim, far beyond even that which was then rejected. Putting aside the almost comic ingenuity of such unpractical spinners of unreal and transitory theories as the well-known writer in the Dublin Bevieiv, Papal claims, now at any rate, are no mere questions, in any point of view, of human right or expe- diency. They claim to convert what is really a matter of ecclesiastical and (let it be honestly said) partially also of State arrangement, into a fundamental dogma of a Divinely-appointed centre of all valid orders, of all true faith, of the very knowledge of Christianity at all as a saving reli- gion; of a single earthly source, in short, of grace and truth to the whole Church. And if this be the real nature of such claims, in the very name of the Christian faith itself, and as the one hope of preserving it, we are bound to reject them. Surely no man with his eyes open dare commit himself to an irresponsible power, which, judging by the past, will go on year after year to conse- crate popular superstitions and theological specu- lations into articles of the faith. What theorv, indeed, of corporate unity for the whole Church

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 281

will work in point of fact, or, in otlier words, how Christians throughout the world are to be one without a Pope, is another question. Yet it seems a want of faith in the One Head of the Church, to doubt that it is a question which has an an- swer. And, meanwhile, that question has never yet been fairly before the nations of modern European, or still less American civilization ; nay, it has never yet practically been tried even in the Eastern Church; — the question of the practical working of a single corporate Church throughout the world, in combination with independent and educated nationahties, on the basis of a union upon the primitive principle of a unity of Epis- copal Churches. The nearest approach to an at- tempt at realizing, under modern circumstances, the faint beginning of that primitive and Scrip- tural idea has been, we must boldly say, the Lambeth Conference of 1867. Meanwhile, as re- spects our own orders, English clergy derive their jurisdiction from their own Bishops, and these from the Bishops who went before them, back to the beginning ; as every Christian Church whatever derived theirs, without one thought of the Bishop of Rome, for some 1200 years; and as the whole Eastern Church derives hers, until this very day. If the Bishop of Eome owns Eastern orders vdthout demur in the matter of jurisdiction, — and he has formally owned them at the present time by inviting Eastern Bishops, in

282 ENGLISH ORDERS CANOXICALLY VALID

this very year just passed, to the so-called (Ecu- menical Council of Rome to be held in 1869, — then by parity of reasoning he ought, in respect to this point, to own our orders also.

But of course it will be said that we derive our jurisdiction from the State, and that we do so by plain confession and avowal on our own parts.

And here, then, first for the past; distinguish- ing, however, first, between coercive jurisdiction, which is of the State, and spiritual jurisdiction, which alone is of Christ ; putting aside, also, such important but secondary questions as that of patronage and the like; and prefacing only, far- ther, that in one division of a single chapter so voluminous a subject cannot be discussed in detail.

Now let us not for one moment deny either our dangers or our difficulties. Let us not bhnk the fact, that both the Roman Church, which holds firmly to the principle of a Church as such, and religious Dissenters, who shrink from the palpable incongruity of a State tribunal deahng with rehgious belief, are alike strengthened in their hostility to the Church in this land by this one thing above all others. Let us not forget, oq the other hand, (1) that the Churches in the Roman communion have suflered wrong in this very kind at the hands of the several States whereto they pertain, to quite as great an extent in fact, and at various times, as ourselves; and (2) that the belief of Nonconformists

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 283

is dealt with by the law of our own land quite as freely and (in effect) on the like principles as is our own, and to an extent limited only by the com- parative fewness of the cases where endowments or other like circumstances give a temporal side to their faith or disciphne. Bearing, then, all this on both sides fairly and candidly in mind, it seems undeniable, first, that the extreme State claims of Henry YIII. and Edward YI. were pro- voked, although not justified, by previous usurpa- tions, quite as indefensible, of the Church upon the State; usurpations upon pohtical rights as extreme, and resting on the very same ground (viz. as necessary outworks for things spiritual), as are the attempted usurpations of Rome at this moment upon intellectual rights : secondly, that even the extremest claims of the two princes just named, however monstrous, were yet singularly (juahfied by restrictions and admissions large enough to cover a position defensible in the letter, however much the practical results of them, and probably their intention, may be indefensible : and thirdly, that every one of these untenable claims has been long since (viz. from Elizabeth's time) renounced and abolished; so that the principles laid down now by authority, are such, in the letter, as no Christian Church has a right to complain of, and (so far as their ideal goes) are no more than the most independent of dissenting bodies, the very Free Kirk of Scotland, for instance, nay the

284 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

Romanist body in Eiigland itself, must and do accept for themselves, modified only by accidental difi'erences of material and social position.

The first of these facts — which is too notorious to need proof — is, no doubt, more of the nature of an excuse for the individual actors in the case. It bears upon ourselves only as giving the transac- tions of that period the character which truly belonors to them, viz. that of a violent and tem- porary reaction from opposite extremes and from evils well-nigh intolerable ; and so of transactions, for which, retracted also as they subsequently were, neither Church nor nation can be held per- manently responsible.

The second goes more home to our case. The formula, " All spiritual authority belongs to me, except so far as by Divine law it does not," is obviously one which (putting logical coherence aside) saves principles for the future, whatever usurpations it may cover for the present. And such is the formula under which Henry's usur- pations were cloaked. The very continual use of words which may be so described shows the strength of the principle, which even such a one as Henry was compelled, as it were, to deceive by fair professions. It was the homage which wrong-doing felt obliged to pay to truth. The very title of " Head of the Church," as we all know, was qualified by the clergy, in conceding it, \?/ith the clause, "Quantum per Christi legem licet;"

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 285

and while accepted by Queen Mary, was repudiated as a usurpation by Elizabetb, and is not a legal title of the Queen now. And if the gloss put upon it by Cranmer when in danger of his life can hardly be accepted, and indeed partially refutes itself by going too far for the plain facts, yet that of Henry himself, whether sincere or no, must needs rule the meaning of his own claims. That these were no more than to a purely external jurisdiction in purely civil things, such that " the Turk" in the same sense is head of the (Christian) Church in Turkey, as Cranmer said, is doubtless not consis- tent with facts, e. g. with the licences to preach which Henry took upon him to issue. But that the words meant, as Cranmer also said, a headship, not over the Church (" of which, and of the faith and religion of the same, Christ only is Head"), but only over " all the people of England, eccle- siastical as well as temporal," is simply Henry's own gloss upon his own phrase. " It were too absurd," are his own words in his letter to the clergy of the Province of York in 1533 (in Wilk. Cone. III. 763), " for us to be called Head of the Church, representing the mystical Body of Christ; and therefore, although jE/ccZesm is spoken of in these words touched in the proeme, yet there is added, et cleri Anglicani, which words conjoined restrain, by way of interpretation, the word Ecclesiam, and is as much as to say, the Church, i. e. the clergy of England.^' And if any one is disposed to say that

286 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

this is a gloss that contradicts the text, let him remember that text and gloss are from one and the same person, explaining himself. Further, even this headship over the clergy means, as appears by the same authoritative commentary, only that " their persons, acts, and deeds, should be under the power of the prince by God assigned;" and this, through ordinances made in Convocations assembled by authority of the King, and receiving " civil authority " from him; while, " as to spiritual things, meaning by them the Sacraments, . . . they (the clergy) have no worldly nor temporal head but only Christ."

And as with the title of Head of the Church, so with the primary Reformation statute of Henry, that which " restrained appeals to the Pope." Here, too, side by side with a claim to possess "plenary, whole, and entire power," &c., "and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folks," &c., " within this realm, in all causes," &c., &c., — yet all this directed to the exclusion, not of the English Church, but of the Pope, — comes an assertion, that for " any cause of the law Divine, ... or of spiritual learning, it was (always) declared, interpreted, and showed, by that part of the body politic called the Spiritualty, now being usually called the English Church, which . . . hath always been thought, and is also at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 237

exterior person or persons, to declare and deter- mine all sucli doubts, and to administer all such offices and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain" (24 Hen. VIII. c. 12).

The very Commissions which Henry VIII. issued to the Bishops in 1535, hcencing them among other things to ordain, which bear the express title of " Licentia Domini Regis ad exercendam juris- dictionem" (Gollier, Records ^ 41), and which are, perhaps, the extremest of Henry's assumptions on the subject, — and the like Commission sued out by Bonner in 1539 {Burnet, Records, Bh. III. 14), — to which may be added those, the last of their kind, issued in the 1 Edward VI., — contain an exception of all Divinely-given jurisdiction. The sweeping claim advanced in them, that " juris - dictio omnimoda, tam ilia quge ecclesiastica dici- tur quam ssecularis, a Begia potestate primitus emanavit," is hmited in the end by the signi- ficant addition, "prseter et ultra ea quae tibi (i.e. Episcopo) ex sacris literis Divinitus commissa esse dignoscuntur." And while these Commissions are now a mere thing of the past that does not con- cern ourselves, they were even at the time an act of the State, affecting only the individuals receiving them, not an act of the Church. And the contempo- rary Church acts, ratified, too, by the State, change the aspect of the case altogether. In the year 1537, at the very time itself, the Church of England, in the Institution of a Christian Man (cited in the

288 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VAIJD

case by Sir W. Palmer in his book on " The Churcli"), declares in terms, that whereas the "whole power of priests and Bishops is divided into the power of orders and the power of jurisdiction," the latter, " about which alone any question had arisen," is " committed unto priests and Bishops by the authority of God's law," or as it stands in a later passage, " by Christ and His Apostles ;" and that the sole power of Christian kings and princes in the matter, is, to be " as the chief heads and overlookers over the said priests and Bishops, to cause them to administer their office and power committed unto them purely and sincerely ; and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof, to cause them to supply and repair the same again :" adding also, that Christian princes had indeed at various times " given unto priests and Bishops fur- ther power and jurisdiction in certain other tem- poral and civil matters," which additional jurisdic- tion, and obviously none other, they might, if they would, "revoke and recall again into their own hands." The document containing these state- ments was ratified by the King's authority ; and it is fair, therefore, — rather it is necessary, — to interpret the loose and vague claims of the Com- missions by the special and precise statements of the authorized explanation of those claims, put forth solemnly by both Church and State. The broad statements of the preamble of the 1 Edward VI. c. 2, long since repealed, must in faii'ness

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 289

share the same explanation; and are actually limited to a like sense by the contemporary In- junctions of the same King, which assert the func- tion and office of "priests and ministers of the Church" to be appointed "of God."

But then, further, the Church of England now, and since Queen Elizabeth's accession, is not responsible for any one of the claims or usur- pations of the preceding troubled period. Of the documents just mentioned, the Statute for Re- straint of Appeals is the only one still in legal force. And the terms of the adjustment between Church and State from 1559, and at this moment, first of all, claim to follow precedents, both Scrip- tural and primitive, such as at the least (supposing them duly followed) must needs leave the Church that follows them a true Church; and, next, they are, in their own terms, rightly and rea- sonably limited ; and lastly, they are explained in precisely the same tone, and with interpretations quite as anxiously orthodox, as their predecessors. For what are the documents upon which our present settlement rests ? The 1 Ehzabeth, c. 1, and the Queen's Injunctions of 1559, and the 5 Elizabeth, c. 1, which refers to the Injunctions, and above all the Thirty-seventh Article, referring also to the Injunctions ^, limit the jurisdiction of

' As to the Supplentes clause, in the Commission of Eliza- beth relating to Parker's Consecration, it so obviously relates to purely legal difficulties, as to need no mention here, except to show that it has not been overlooked.

U

290 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

the Crown, first of all, to its *' ancient " jurisdic- tion, and therefore to that which had coexisted with the Church for centuries while in communion with Rome ; and then, further, define it to be only " over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual ;" and this, not as originating any spiritual power, whether of teaching or discipline or any thing else, but as for " visitation " and for " reformation, order, and correction." They claim no original jurisdiction, except that of an external power, to see justice done, and of a civil power, adding civil sanctions. They exclude expressly "the ministering of the Word and Sacraments." They limit the civil power to the " civil sword." They refer for prece- dent to " Godly princes" under the Jews ; or, as the subsequent canons of 1604 prefer to do, to " Chris- tian Emperors in the primitive Church." And then, further still, as Henry deigned to argue and explain his own less tenable claims, so did Eliza- beth. She too, in 1570, in that most valuable document to which Bishop Forbes has again caUed attention, declares expressly, that " she had neither claimed nor exerted any other authority in the Church than had attached from immemorial time to the English Crown, although that au- thority had been recognized with greater or less distinctness at various times ;" that " the Crown challenged no superiority to define, decide, or determine any article or point of the Christian £aith or religion ; or to change any rite or cere-

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 291

mony before received and observed in tbe Catholic Church ;" that, in short, " the Eoyal supremacy in things spiritual means no more than this, that she being by lawful succession Queen of England, all persons born in the realm were subjects to her and to no other earthly ruler;" and that " she was bound in duty to provide that her people should live in the faith, obedience, and observance of the Christian rehgion; and that consequently there should be a Church orderly governed and esta- bhshed ; and that the ecclesiastical ministers should be supported by the civil powers, so that her sub- jects should live in the fear of God to the salvation of their souls." Further, after providing a loop- hole for toleration in respect to the latter part of the theory thus laid down, the Queen goes on to oflfer submission to the decision of any " fi^ee and general assembly," as against " any potentate chal- lenging universal and sole superiority," provided that assembly were such that this " potentate should not be only judge in his own cause."

Pass to the canons of 1604, and we have the like extent of claim, followed, remarkably enough, and limited, by the like explanation and toning down. The "ancient jurisdiction," the "supreme governor- ship in things or causes spiritual or ecclesiastical as well as temporal," the precedents of Jewish Kings and Christian Emperors, recur as before. And then King James also, descending to argument even more formally than his predecessors, and speak-

u 2

292 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

ing by the pen of Bishop Andrewes (Tortura Torti, p. 380), explains for us what he held the canons to mean ; and protests for himself as King, that "docendi munus vel dubia legis explicandi non assumit, non vel conciones habendi, vel rei sacraa prseeundi, ,vel sacramenta celebrandi ; non vel personas sacrandi vel res ; non vel clavium jus vel censuras ; verbo dicam, nihil ille sibi, nihil nos illi fas putamus attingere, quae ad sacerdotale munus spectant, seu potestatem ordinis consequuntur : . . . procul hsec habet Eex ; procul a se abdicat : atqui in his quae exterioris politige sunt, ut prsecipiat, suo sibi jure vindicat, nosque adeo illi lubentes merito deferimus : religionis enim curam rem regiam esse, non modo pontificiam."

Take, then, the existing adjustment as here set down and as expressed in general terms, — ^remem- ber also the difference between the position of the Enghsh Sovereign then and now, and the revo- lution in men's minds respecting the duty or even the right of governments to protect or assist the religion of subjects, — and while passing no judg- ment whether or no it is the best ideal concordat between Church and State, let us refrain also from the consideration of particular applications of it in this or that case or in particular detail; and certainly it is preposterous to consider the accep- tance of such terms as those above laid down as fatal to the claims of the English Church as a Church. It is equally unwise either to exagge-

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 29 J

rate, or to ignore, either the material advantages, or the serious evils, of a Church settlement, hampered and in many ways weakened, but in others also undoubtedly supported, by State law. But it is worse than idle to regard as fatal to the Church the acceptance of such outward aid, given upon terms which in principle carefully leave un- touched the essential functions of the Church, be- cause these terms, while productive of much good, do also, indirectly and through circumstances, both threaten and inflict actual mischief. The principles upon which they are based fully bear out Bramhall's summary of the case, with which we may conclude this part of the question. We do not, he says, " draw or derive any spiritual jurisdiction from the Crown ; but either liberty and power to exer- cise, actually and lawfully, upon the subjects of the Crown, that habitual jurisdiction which we received at our ordination; or the enlargement and dilatation of our jurisdiction objectively, by the prince's referring more causes to the cog- nizance of the Church than formerly it had; or, lastly, the increase of it subjectively, by their giving to ecclesiastical judges an external coercive power, which formerly they had not :" or, " to go yet one step higher, in cases that are indeed spiritual, or merely ecclesiastical, such as con- cern the doctrine of faith or administration of the Sacraments or the ordaining or degrading of ecclesiastical persons, sovereign princes have

294 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

(and liave only) an ' architectonical ' power — to see that clergymen do tlieir duties in their proper places ; but this power is always most properly exercised by the advice and ministry of ecclesiastical persons : .... in sum, we hold our benefices from the King, but our offices from Christ ; the King doth nominate us, but Bishops do ordain us."

But from the past turn to the present. And here, remembering that the terms of our charter are unimpeachable, let us see how change of cir- cumstances, and the revolution that has come to pass, both in men's opinions about the relations of the State to religion at all, and in the distri- bution of power in the State itself, and other incidental results rather than designs, have altered the apphcation of those terms to actual facts, and their consequent actual working. That which Cranmer long ago stated as an extreme parallel, and a kind of a fortiori argument, viz. Turkish supremacy in Turkey, has come now within sight of a possibly hteral application, and has for some time been in efiect the actual fact, — I mean, that the State as such is no longer one with the Church; and no longer holds it a State duty, but even the contrary, to support religion directly at all. And Church cases are accordingly de- cided by judges and by other tribunals, not only lay, but not necessarily in communion with the Church, and very often out of it. Yet this

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 295

by itself is certainly not fatal in principle, so long as these tribunals adhere honestly to their own repeated professions and to the terms of the laws and canons; and, dealing solely with civil rights of individuals, really do abstain from inter- meddling with questions of faith. The civil tribunals of even a heathen land must needs de- termine questions of civil right. Treat us then as Dissenters are treated, — i. e. regard the Church as a rehgious body, having its own laws and spiritual powers, and simply provide that justice is done according to these to individual members of that body, — and no one could or would complain. But the danger is, first, — and let it be added in the outset, that nothing of the kind has yet been actually and professedly done, — lest the case of the Church be regarded as so far exceptional to those of other rehgious bodies, that we be taken to be essentially and primarily a national Church, in the sense of a Church that must needs include the whole nation, or at least the great bulk of it ; and not (as we really are) a branch of the Church Cathohc, whereof, happily for themselves, the bulk of the nation are actually members; and therefore that our faith is to be interfered with, and vital doctrines set aside, in order to comprehend the nation, or most of it, even those who do not beheve those doctrines, within the same nominal Church. And then next, a hke danger threatens in two other ways.

296 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

on the side of legal tenderness for individual rights, and on the side of a quasi-contract theory, which practically regards the State as in covenant, not with a Hving and acting body with its proper powers, viz. with the Church, but with the letter of certain limited and special documents, and with these alone. Legal inge- nuity is set to work to devise any kind of gloss, whereby the language of particular individuals may be forced into at least a possibility of harmony, no matter how utterly " non-natural," with theo- logical language interpreted untheologically. And the civil rights of individual teachers, as depen- dent on their teaching, are to be determined according to the letter of documents, framed long since, and so, very possibly, bearing either no refer- ence, or a very indirect reference, to forms of error not then existing, or not then of importance, or even which were then so absolutely taken to be confessed error, that no express condemnation of them was thought necessary, or perhaps even thought of at all. Here, then, are our dangers : in- tensified by the prevalent latitudinarianism, which arises partly from a righteous horror of persecution and partly from an indifference to religious truth, and by the habit ingrained in Eughsh minds of re- garding the Church in its legal aspect, and of look- ing to State tribunals as the one security against change and against schism, and, lastly, by the groundless bugbear of some imaginary personal

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 297

supremacy in tlie Crovm, in special relation to the Ohurcli, dijQfering essentially from that which the law gives to it over every one else. And now, how does all this affect our position as a Church, or the valid exercise of our orders ? The Queen is supreme governor over all persons, and therefore over Dissenters and Romanists as well as ourselves. And this means, in their case as well as ours, that legal tribunals will settle all questions in any way involving civil rights, as for us, so for them also. Those tribunals have, in fact, done so repeatedly already ; and it is quite right they should. They have discussed Baptist doctrine, for instance, apro- pos to the (Baptist) orthodoxy of a Baptist minister, and to his consequent retention of an endowment or a salary. And of the dangers above mentioned, all save the first affect all classes of rehgionists alike. It assuredly makes no difference (save the unreal mockery of calling it a Church tribunal), that the Committee of Privy Council (for it is but nominally the Queen) determines for us, what ihe ordinary law-courts determine for them. And to say that e. g. the House of Commons may vitally interfere (not that it lias interfered) with Church doctrine, or that law-courts (professing all the while that they have no jurisdiction what- ever to determine doctrine) have incidentally, in the effort to protect individuals, or to enforce what they considered the terms of a compact, compelled the admission or retention of particular unfit

298 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

persons in Church offices, — to say all this tells, na doubt, of danger and of wrong ; it saps the disci- pline and the vigour of the Church ; it is a scandal, and a source of weakness ; but surely it leaves the principles of union between Church and State un- touched. And our duty, therefore, even granting all this to the utmost, would be to cling to the Church still, and strive and pray for a remedy. If the Judges, for instance, in the Gorham judg- ment chose to say, not that Baptismal Regenera- tion was not the doctrine of the Church of England, but that somehow Mr. Gorham did not deny Baptismal Regeneration, as that Church held it ^ ; we may wonder how they came to be able to say so, and ma}^ grieve over the practical unsetthng of the truth which their judgment caused for the time; but the doctrine itself, as held by the English Church, remains where it was before. Nay, as one actual result of that judgment, it is held more in- telligently and widely than it ever was. And the real remedy is, that every member of the Church should be active and earnest in his own sphere of Church duty. Judges will strain words to non- natural senses, only to protect popular heresies or those that are fancied to be so. And the Legis- lature will leave us alone, if the whole Church holds Church doctrine universally and heartily, and just in such proportion as the Church leavens and

' See the remarks on the subject in Prideaux's Guide to Churchwardens.

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 299

absorbs the wliole nation. The entire tendency also of thought and feehng in the nation is towards self-government, and that tendency must needs by sheer fairness include the Church in time. If the Church is not to be protected, it is only common justice that it be let alone. Nor can any one fail to see, that the Church's consciousness of her own Divine mission and powers is beyond all con- ception stronger now than it has been for many generations. Meanwhile, incidental wrongs do not vitiate essential principles. The problem of a free Church in a free State, indeed, has yet to be worked out, among ourselves quite as much as elsewhere. And with us it has to be worked out under the inherited conditions of a perfectly dif- ferent theory, ingrained into almost every institu- tion of the land, and yet thrown, as has been truly said, " out of gear " by the drifting of men's opi- nions into totally different views. That the precise bounds of theoretical truth should be transgressed from time to time during such a process, is un- avoidable. But to say that the Church ceases to be a Church, because the State, recognizing her to be so, yet violates her rights incidentally and in par- ticular cases, and with a vehement disclaimer all the while of any such intention, as it would be the narrowest pedantry in a matter of speculation, so in that which concerns the Church of God and the salvation of souls, is mere faithless perversity. And look too at the alternative in the Roman

300 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

communion. A Clitircli tribunal tliat invents false dogma, and demands interior belief in it, is surely worse tban a State tribunal wMcli only binders the Cburcb from condemning error in tbis or tbat case ; wbicb does so as an external power doing us a wrong, wbile it disclaims all intention of doing so ; and wbicb does it indirectly, and in tbe dis- cbarge of a duty tbat in itself is certainly its proper duty, viz. tbat of protecting tbe civil rigbts of in- dividuals. And furtber, if tbe Cburcb of Eome were in our position in England at tbis moment, can any reasonable man doubt, tbat tbe very same causes wbicb now affect ourselves would affect tbat Cburcb in tbe like kind ; and only in a less degree, tbrougb circumstances irrelevant to tbe religious question, as e. g. in proportion to tbe extent of tbat Cburcb, and to tbe moral support it would derive from its more wide-spread communion, and tbe like causes ?

lY. Tbat our orders are invalid because giveu in beresy or in scbism, or in botb, is, of course, primarily a question, not about our orders tbem- selves, but about tbe prior assumption — tbat we really are in beresy or scbism. It were super- fluous to say tbat we deny botb. But tbese are questions not to be discussed bere. It is sufficient for tbe present purpose to point out, tbat tbe in- validity of even beretical orders, a valid form pre- supposed, is far from being a ruled question in tbe early Cburcb. Tbe 68tb Apostolical Canon, con-

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 301

derailing, as it does, all reiteration of orders ex- cept in the one case of orders given by such as were in heresy, has been interpreted by parity of reasoning, from the parallel case of Baptism, to be limited in that exception to heresy respecting the Holy Trinity ; and if so, condemns absolutely that reiteration of our orders which is now the practice of the Church of Rome. And even St. Basil {ad Amijliilochium) , and other Fathers far more decidedly, and the general Council of Ephesus in the case of the Messahans, seem to have accepted some such hmited interpretation of it. St. Augustine, again, in so many words places Bap- tism out of the Church, and ordination out of the Church, upon the same footing, in that neither ought to be repeated upon admission into the Church; and this, speaking of ordinations given out of the Church, not merely of ordained persons who had quitted the Church subsequent to ordina- tion within it. And although other Fathers have thought differently from St. Augustine, and the behef prevalent widely in the Church at various times and places has differed from his, yet the actual practice of the Church for nine or ten cen- turies varied in the matter, and this to such an extent that no principle can be laid down that would account for those variations. In respect to schismatical orders, also, there has been much the same variation; and yet, while the instances on the negative side — against the vahdity of

302 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

such orders — depend upon a difficult, althoug"h a probable, interpretation of tbe Sth canon ot the Council of Nice and of the Synodical letter of that Council in Socrates' History (which, however, probably do mean that in the cases in question, those of the Novatians and of the Meletians, the orders really were declared null) ; certainly the very opposite rule was plainly followed, without any question at all, in the case of the Donatists. Lastly, the Church of Rome, assuming and allow- ing in the case (not the Roman form and matter, but a different although) sufficient form and matter of ordination, has precluded herself from absolutely condemninof either schismatical or even heretical orders, by admitting what she must necessarily con- sider to be both, viz. Eastern orders. In this point, at any rate, if those of the Roman Communion in- sist upon Cardinal Wiseman's ingenious parallel — ingenious in its minuteness and curious detail to the degree of provoking a smile, — between our- selves and the Donatists, let them at least take the whole parallel, and not stop short where it suits themselves. That parallel, no doubt, is defective ah initio in the one rather important point of assuming the separation between ourselves and Rome to have been essentially like, instead of essentially unlike, that between the Donatists and the Catholic Church, in its causes, in its voluntari- ness on our side, in the nature of the body from which we and they respectively became divided.

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 303

But be this as it may. If we are as the Donatists, let them at least treat us accordingly. It was the Donatists then, — it is the Church of Rome now, — that regarded their opponents' orders and even their baptisms as void. It was the Cathohc Church then, — it is ourselves now, — that was willing to acknowledge Donatist, as we now Roman Catholic, orders (and, of course. Baptism) ; and this, not only at the beginning, in the case of those who being already ordained in the Church had lapsed to Donatism, but throughout. If Rome would follow the Church's then precedent, instead of setting up Bishop against Bishop, she would at least be willing to receive English clergy in their orders, in suis honoribus as the African canon directs; and to leave the EngHsh Bishop, if the senior, as the Church did then^ the Donatist Bishop in like case, in possession of his see.

But all this it is really superfluous to argue. It assumes that we are in schism or in heresy. And if so, the treatment of our orders would matter little, except to the charity of our opponents. If we are schismatics or heretics, the sooner we cease to be so the better, orders or no orders. If not, we need not trouble ourselves to argue (save as testing the charity and love of unity of others), what ought to be the case if we were.

Y. But there remains one more topic, directed, indeed, rather against our message than against * S. Aug. Epist. 162.

804 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

our orders, — against that which, is preached, rather than against the authority to preach it : — an ob- jection taken by Roman Cathohcs in one shape, and recently in another, yet in result the same, by Eastern controversialists. English clergy, it is said, cannot teach the Word of God as such, and so as to be matter of religious faith, because they teach it as private opinion, and not as the infalhble doctrine propounded by a present infallible Church. And urging in effect and substantially the same argument, Mr. N. Damalas' recently, on the Eastern side, admitting loyally our undoubted Apostolical Succession of Bishops, pleads some- what in the like way — that Apostolical Succession of Bishops carries with it in truth the infallibility of (Ecumenical Councils, so that they who deny the latter take all the real value and meaning out of the former ; but that the Church of England, by her special profession of faith in the Thirty-nine Articles, does deny various points ruled by the an- cient Church of the seven (Ecumenical Councils, e.g. it may be said, denies the seventh Council itself; not to add, that she denies in those Articles the infalh- bility of General Councils ; and that she is therefore reduced to the alternative of either giving up her own conclusions, as the opinions of a small part of the Church, in submission to the determination of

' Ilcpt Trj% 2xco"co)S T^s 'AyyXtK^s ^YiKK\q<jLa<s irpos Tr]v 'Op$6- So^ov, vTTo NtKoXaov M. Aa/AoAa. London : Clayton & Co.. 1867 ; pp. 67 sq. &c.

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 305

the Church universal, or of admitting that her ApostoHcal Succession is futile, and that her Bishops teach their own private opinions, and not the dogmas of the Church as such. Now both these arguments rest upon the assumption, that a rightful ministry of the Word carries with it, and requires to its own existence, the possession, not merely of infalhble truth originally revealed, but of a continuous and formal infallibihty in the application of that truth to all times and persons ; lodged, indeed, in differing persons severally by Rome and by the East, viz. in the Bishop of Rome according to one, and in an (Ecumenical Council of Bishops according to the other. And they infer, therefore, that our English ministry, granting it to be (so to say) technically valid (which Mr. Damalas unhesitatingly admits), has forfeited one at least of its essential functions, that of keeping and proclaiming the deposit of faith ; on the one view, — because we deny the formal infalli- bility of the Pope; on the other, — ^because, enforcing though inconsistently our own national and par- ticular confessions as though tliey were infallible, we deny, nevertheless, the formal infallibihty of Councils which at least claim to be (Ecumenical. Mr. Damalas' remark about the Thirty-nine Arti- cles, as such, is indeed easily disposed of. No one certainly puts those Articles forward as "infal- libly" true, or as "de fide" in themselves, or except so far as they embody the Creeds. And it

X

306 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

is not only a right, but a duty, of every particular Cliurcli, to guide its own members to the utmost of its power in disputed controversies, subject (as we have always admitted ourselves to be subject) to the free and deliberate judgment of the really universal Church. We simply deny it to have been shown, that we have in these Articles contradicted any such judgment of past times. But the more substantial objections take us, indeed, to far broader questions, and require a longer answer; and yet not one, in this place at least, in detail and at length; for the ques- tions raised concern the nature, limits, and powers of the Apostolic ministry, and this book is concerned with these, only so far as they bear upon the question of its actual transmission to ourselves. First, then, religious faith, on its external and logical side, with which alone we are here concerned, must undoubtedly rest as its foundation upon some infallible Word of God, although human reasonings and testimony are necessarily also mixed up even with the original proof. But the issue here raised does not relate to the original foundation of the faith, but to its trans- mission to individual Christians as time goes on. And considering the actual conditions of human life in all practical questions whatsoever, it is pre- posterous to say, that religious truth must in the nature of the case be propounded to each several Christian of all times and places by an immediate

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALL V VALID 307

infallible proponent ; or else that it cannot be believed by him as religious truth at all. A mes- sage of God is not less a message of God to us, because he to whom it was first dehvered told it to other men who were uninspired and so not infallible, and they to other like men, and so at length it reaches ourselves through many links that were not infallible. Such a transmission may indeed (not that it must) afiect the practical cer- tainty that the message is accurately conveyed, but it cannot alter the nature of the message or the fact that it comes from God. It is obviously sufficient, that we have moral certainty, that the message, as it comes to us, is the same (at the least in all essentials) as that which Christ gave to His Apostles, when He bade them make disciples throughout all the world. The element indeed of falhble human testimony must perforce intrude itself even into the structure of his faith who beheves in Papal infallibility. Certainly he has no infallible proof that the Pope is infallible. And even if he had, still the belief that such and such is the Papal utterance, must of necessity come to all but the smallest fraction of Roman Catholics upon the evidence of informants or of priests whom no one dreams to be infallible. And the same reasoning applies in its degree to a Council also. Putting aside, then, this gratuitous a priori con- dition of a necessary formal infalHbiHty in each several propounder of the faith, let us ask whai;

X 2

808 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

actually is the nature of tliose links whereby it is transmitted to ourselves. First of all, there is the testimony of the Church, considered simply as a body of men, whose numbers, and the mutual independence of their evidence, and whose posi- tion both in time and place, and the universality of their testimony, and all the other circumstances that conspire to give human evidence weight, make up when combined an overwhelming moral proof, that certain books, and a certain doctrine, and a certain discipline, actually did come from Christ our Lord through His Apostles; and then, further, this doctrine and this discipline are guaranteed to us by the contents of those books themselves to be the genuine revelation uncorrupted and unchanged. The very test itself of a doctrine, supplied by the well-known Semjper, Ubiquei and Ab Omnibus, is conclusive against a direct, formal, and oracular infalhbility in any one line of Bishops. But then, beyond this simply human weight of testimony, there come the promises of the Saviour to be ever with His Church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and that the Spirit shall lead the Apostles into all truth, and the command to " hear " the Church, and the like. And the effect of these promises and commands certainly is, that no Christian can beheve that the whole Church can dehberately commit itself, absolutely and con- tinuously, to fundamental error in the faith; or in a less sphere, that 'the grace of God will not be

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 309

proportionably witli His ministers to guide tlieir deliberations, in accordance with tlieir own use of that grace. But a formal infallibility is another thing altogether. Just as we are limited by the facts of the case to the written words of Apostles and Apostolic men, as alone guaranteeing to us with sufficient certainty what Apostles taught ; so, by the nature of the case, the free and deliberate determination of the whole Church, speaking, after full discussion, by the voice of its Bishops *, and that voice finally and deliberately accepted by the Church as a whole, must needs supply the ulti- mate decision of controversies, because we can reach to no other. And, doubtless, Almighty God will not sufier such a determination to err in essentials. The first and great Councils, therefore, which really did represent the whole Church, and the decisions of which (limiting themselves, as they did, solely to the testifying of what the Church had always held, and what Scripture showed that the Apostles had held too) were accepted by the ultimate and universal voice

* The Eastern Bishops in this very year just past, 1868, in their answer to the Pope's invitation to his Council, maintain, it is to be well noted, the infallibility of really CEcumenical Councils with a most important qualification — " if in harmony with Scripture and Apostolic tradition" (Answer of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope's letter, in Guardian of Dec. 23, 1868) : which is precisely English doctrine, neither more nor less, almost in identical words. M. Damalas must see to it that he is himself in harmony with his own Church.

310 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

of the Churcli itself, possess so overwlielming a force of conviction, as to make it morally impossible that they should in these fundamentals have erred. But the office of Councils is limited to the decla- ration of the one original faith ; and by the nature of the case, therefore, it must be open to the Church to compare their declarations with those of the Apostles themselves, and to decide accordingly; while it remains plain, none the less, that in pro- portion to the universality, and to the moral weight, of such declarations, does it become presumptuous, and in the last and highest degree of such testi- mony, preposterous, for a particular part of the Church to suppose itself to be wiser than the whole Church, always, everywhere, andfrom the beginning. Be it so, then, that I, as a clergyman of the Church of this land, have no formally infallible and living oracle to consult upon every emergent doubt ; or that the Church of this land holds the Bishops of some particular time and place to have erred, even when assembled in Council, because she sees that their determinations were against Scripture ; and that, therefore, it follows, that some, or oven many, individuals of the chain through which the Apostolical Succession has descended to English clergy, have, in her judgment, fallen into error. How does all this affect either the vali- dity of English orders, or the Divine nature of the message that I, as an English clergyman, have to declare to the flock committed to me?

ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID 311

As regards fundamentals, I have to proclaim to them a message of Christ, and, therefore, a message infallibly true. Is that message less in- fallible, because I bid them find it for themselves in Holy Scripture, telling them the while, first of all what it is, and next that the whole Church from the beginning has found it there, and that, if they study the Scriptures with humble use of the right means of understanding them, and with a readiness to acknowledge that the faith of God's people from the beginning cannot have been other than fundamentally right, they will certainly find it there for themselves ? A faith does not cease to be a true faith in proportion to its intelligence ; nor become a faith not religious, in proportion as it is founded upon the Word of God itself. Nor is the historical or the moral weight of the past belief of Christendom slighted, by referring it to the word of Apostles fi:'om which it took its rise, and by which it is limited. Nor, again, is the rightful authority of the Church, past or present, denied, by subordinatirg it to that very Christianity which "is presupposed" to the existence of the Church herself. Nor are the Creeds de- prived of their absolute authority, by resting that authority, not upon an assumed infallibihty of the Bishops, — who did (not indeed frame but certainly) enlarge them with further and explana- tory additions, — but upon the combined grounds of (1) their plain harmony with Scripture, and (2)

312 ENGLISH ORDERS CANONICALLY VALID

the moral but absolute impossibility, either in the nature of the case or in the face of the promises of God, that the whole Church with one accord should have deliberately and continuously erred in funda- mentals. Nor lastly, — to come back, in con- clusion, to our proper point, — is the oflB.ce any more than the message of the clergy invalidated, because the gift of infaUibihty is not formally attached to any one Bishop or line of Bishops, or even to all Bishops together, and so some of the Bishops who have transmitted to us the gift of the ministry have, in our judgment, held erroneous doctrine. The gift that is transmitted is not necessarily no gift at all, because it is not formal infallibility. IN^or is authority to teach forfeited by an order of men, because some or even many of that order have at this time or that taught erroneously. And English clergy are none the less descended from the ancient Church, and none the less inherit a real ministry through her, be- cause they hold that parts of that Church did not indeed cease to be parts of the Church, but did at various times and places fall into error.

APPENDIX

S. Clement. Epist. ad Corinth, xl. — xliv.

IIpoB^Xmv ovv -qixtv ovtcov rovrwv, koX e^/ce/cu^oTe? ct? TO. ^ddr} rr]<i Qeia^ <yv(i)cre(i)<;, irdvra rd^ei iroieiv o<^el\ofiev, ocra 6 AeaTTorr)^ etnTekelv e[«eA,]ei;[cre]i' Kara Kaipov<; Tera<y/ji6Vov<;' ra? re 'rrpoa(popa<} koI Xeirovpjla^ eViTeXet- adai, Kol ovK el/crj rj draKTCoi; eKekevcrev <ylvea6at,, aSX a>pL(T[xivoi<i Kaipol'i koL wpat?' ttov re koI Sia tlvcov iime- \eicr6ai OeXei, AvTO<i copiaev rrj vTreprdrr) Avrov ^ovkrjaeL' 'iv 6(Ti(£i<i rrdvra ra jLVOfieva iv evSoKrjaei,, evTrpoaBe/cTa elrj rS Oekrj^iari Avrov. 01 ovv roh 7rpoaT€TayfxevoL<i Kaipoi<i TTOiovvre'i ra? irpoacpopa.'i avroiv, evTrpoaBeKTot re koI fiaKdotoi' TOi? <yap vofii/u^oi^ rov AecyiroTOv dKo\ov6ovvre<i ov SiafjbapTdvovaiv. TS <yap dp')(Lepei IBiai XeiTovpyiM SeSojJbivai elcriv, KoX T0i9 iepevaiv iSio^ 6 totto? irpoariraKraiyKai \€vtTai<; IBiai BtaKoviai iiriKeiVTaL' 6 \alKo<; dvdpa)'7ro<iTOi<i\aiKol<i7rpoa- Tay/xaaiv BiBerai. " JS«ao"T09 vfJ^wv, dB€\,(f>ol, iv rS IBlm rdyfiari €v^apLa-T€LT(o Qew, iv dyaOfj avveiBrjaei v'JTdp-)(ODV, firj trapSK- ^aivcov rov wpia-fiivov t>}<j XeiTovpyla^; avrov Kavova, ev aejjbvo- TTjri,. Ov 'Kavra')(ov, dBe\(f>oi, rrpocrcf^epovrai dvcrlai ivBeXe^^ta- fiov, rj €v')(cov, rj irepl d/Jiapria<i koX 7r\r]/jifi€\ia<i, aW r) iv 'lepovcraXrjfj, fiovrj' KUKel Be ovk iv rravrl roirrp Trpocripeperai, jX}C e/xTrpocrOev rov vaov 7rpo9 to OvcnaarrjpLov^ /xfo/jLoaKOTrrjOev TO '7rpoa(jiep6aevov Bca rov dp'xtepkco'i koX riav rrpoeiprjfMevcov

314 APPENDIX

\eiTovp-)wv. 01 ovv irapa to kuOt^kov tt}? /BovXijcreco'i Avtou TTOiovvTh Ti, ddvaTov TO TTpoaTifiov 'i^ovaLV. ' OpcLTe, aZeK^oi, oa(p TrXeioi/o? KUTTj^LcoOrifiev yvcoaeo)^, TOaovTO) fiaXXov viroKei- fieOa KLvBvvM. 01 ' AttogtoXol r/fuv €VT]yy eXiaOijcrav airo tov Kvpiov ^Irjcjov XpicTTOu, ^Ir]aov(; 6 XpcaT6<; uTrb tov 0eov. 'E^e7ri/jL(f)dTj 6 XptaTO^ ovv arro tov Qeov, kuX ol ^ AiroaTo'kot. airo TOv XpiaTov' iyevovTO ovv afi(f)6Tepa evTUKTco^i i/c OeXij/xa- T09 060V. UapajyeXla^; ovv \a^6vTe<i, koI '7T\T]po<popT]devTei Bia Tri<i avacTTocreoif; tov Kvpiov tj/jlcov ^Irjaov XpiaTOv, koI ttkt- TO)6evTe<; ev rw Xoyw tov Qeov, fiCTa 7rX'r)po(f)opta<i UvevfiaTO'i ' Ayiov, e^rjXOov evayyeXL^o/xevoi Tr]v ^acnXelav tov Qeov fieXXetv €p)^ea0ac. Kuto, ')(ci)pa<; ovv koI 7r6Xei<; KT]pvacroifT€<i, KaOecTTUVov Ta<i a7rap)(^a<; avTwv, BoKLfj,daavTe<; tu> IIvevfiaTi, eh ^E'iTL(7KQTrov<; koX BtaKovovi tcov /jbeXXovTOJV irLGTevetv. K.aX TovTo ov Kaivo3<i' €K jup Bt) ttoXXcov ')(p6va)v iyiypaiTTo irepl 'ETTLCfKOiroiv KoX SiaKovcov o{/Tft)9 yap irov Xeyei, rj TpacpT], " KaTa<7T7]a(a tou? ^EnrLa-Koirovi avTcjv ev BtKacocrvvr}^ koX Tov<i BiaKovov; avTOiv ev irlaTei." Kal to OavfiaaTov, el ol ev XpicTTM 7riaTev6evTe<: irapa Qeov epyov tolqvto, KaTeaTrjaav -rov<i 7rpoetp'r]/ji,evov<; ; oirov koX 6 fiaKdpto<; iriaTO^ OepdiroDV ev '6X(p T<5 oIk(i) M(ov(Tr]^ to, SiaTeTayfxeva avTa> irdvTa ecnqpLeid)- aaTO ev Tat9 lepah ^i^ot<;, w Kal eTTTjKoXovdijaav ol Xonrol 7rpo<prJTai, <rvve7n/MaprvpovvTe<; toI<; v-n avTov vevo/ModeTijfie- voi<i. ^EKeZvo<i ydp^ ^t'jXov e^ireaovTO'i irepl t^9 lepcocrvvrji;, Kal (TTaaia^ova-cov T<av (f>v\a)v oTroia avTwv ecT] to) ivBo^ay ovojxaTt KeKoafiTjfievT], eKeXevaev tov^; BcoBeKa (j)vXdp'yov<i irpoaeveyKelv avTa pdjBBov<i i7nyeypa/ji/ji,eva<; eKda-TT]<i <f>vXf]<; KaT ovofia' Kal Xa^cov avTO,^ eBrjaev, koI ear(f)pdyca'€v TOL<i Bax- TvXioi<; T(t)v <pvXdp')(cov, Kal direOeTO avTd<i et? t^i* (tktjvtjv tov p-apTvpiov eirl ti)v Tpdirel^av tov Qeov' Kal KXelaaf ttjv (Tktjv^v, €a(f)pdyi(Tev ra? KXelBa^, waavTco^ Kal Toix; pd^Bovi;' Kal elirev avToi<;/AvBp€<; dBeX(f)ol, 779 av (jivXtj^ 1) pd^Bo<; ^\aaTi]ar]^ Tav- T1JV eKXeXeKTai 6 0eo9, et9 to lepaTeveiv Kal XetTovpyelv Avtw. IIpQ)La<; Be yevofiev7]<i, avveKoXeaev irdvTa tov ^laparjX, Ta<i e^aKoa-ia<; ')(^iXidBa<i tcov dvBpcii)[y, Kal eVeJSe/^aTo Tot9 (fivXdp- XOi'i [Ta9 cr(f)pa'\ycBa<;, Kal rjvoi^ev Tri\y fTK7]vi]v'\ tov fiapTV- piov, Kal 7rpoa[7]veyKev^ pd/3Bov<;' Kal evpidrj 1) p[d^Bo<i\

APPENDIX 315

^Aapoov ov fiovov ^e^\a[cm}K.vla\ , aXka koI Kapirov t'^ovaa. Ti BoK€iT€, dyairTjToi ; Ov irp\oe'yv(o] Maivarj<i tovto fMeXXetv [eaecrdai] ; Md\i(7Ta ■jjSer aXX iva fir) dK[aracrTa]<7ia jipTjTai, iv Tc3 ^IcrparfK, ovTOi\^ eTToi^rjaev, et? to So^aadi^vai t[o opdj/xa Tov aX.rjdivov koI fxovov [^06ov],^f2i, rj Bo^a et? rov'? alwva<i Twv alcovcov. ^Afxrjv. Kat ol Atto(TToKol i]fxS)v eyvcoaav Sid TOV Kvpiov Tjfioov ^Irjaov Xpiarov, on epi? earac iirl rov ovofiaTO'i T?}? eiTKTKO'TTrj'i. Aid ravTTju ovv TrjV ahiav irpo- 'yvcoaiv etXiy^ore? rekelav, KaTiarrjcrav Tov<i Trpoecprjfxivov^, /cal /juera^v iTrivofirjv BeScoKacriv, 07r&)9 idv KOi/utrjdMaiv, BiaBe^covrai erepoi SeBoKi/xaafiivoi dvBpe^ ttjv Xeirovpyiav avrcov. Tov<> ovv KaraaraOivra^ vtt eKetvwv, t) fiera^u vcp erepcov iXXoyc- fiQ)v dvBpcov, (TVvevBoKr]adcn]<i t^9 ^EKK\rjaia<i Tracr?^?^ koi XeiT- ovpyijaavTa'; a/xe/xTTTO)? rw Troifivio) tov Xpiarov fxerd rairei- vo<^poavv7]^, rj(TV-)(co<i koi d^avavaca, fienaprvprj/xevovi re '7roWo2<; ')(p6voi<i virb iravrcov, rovrovi ov BiKalw^ vo/jui^ofj,6v diro^aXeadai t^? Xeirovpyia^;. 'Afiaprla yap ov /xiKpa rjfuv earai, idv rov^ dfjiifMirrco'; Koi 6ai(o<; TrpoaeveyKovra^ to. Bwpa, Tri<i i7riaK07rr}<; dTro/SaXw/Jiev. MaKapioi ol TrpooBoiTrop^jaavre'i "Kpea^inepoi^ o'iTive<; eyicapTrovKaX reXeiav e(j')(ov rrjv dvdXvaiv ov <ydp evXa^ovvrai fJirj rt? avTov<i fieraaT^ar] aTro tov iBpv- jxkvov avToi<; tottov. 'Opoofjiev <ydp on iviov<i v/Jiei<; fieTayd- <yeT6 /caXw? TToXiTevo/xivlovi], ex tt}? d/jie/ui7rTa><; avTol<i rert- firjjjievrj'; XeiTovpyia^. — (Pp. 136 — 156, ed. JacobsoB.)

B

Bishop Jeremy Taylor, ''Episcopacy Asserted',' § 32 in part.

But then are all ordinations invalid wlicb are done by mere presbyters? What think we of the Reformed Churches ?

1. For my part, I know not what to think; the question hath been so often asked, with so much violence and pre- judice, and we are so bound by public interest to approve

316 APPENDIX

all that they do^ that we have disabled ourselves to justify our own. For we were glad at first of abettors against the errors of the Roman Church; we found these men zealous in it; we thanked God for it, as we had cause; and we were willing to make them recompense by endea- vouring to justify their ordinations, not thinking what would follow upon ourselves : but now it has come to that issue that our own Episcopacy is thought not neces- sary, because we did not condemn the ordinations of their presbytery.

2. Why is not the question rather what we think of the primitive Chm'ch, than what we think of the Reformed Churches ? Did the primitive Coimcils and Fathers do well in condemning the ordinations made by mere pres- byters ? If they did well, what was a virtue in them is no sin in us : if they did ill, from what principle shall we judge of the right of ordinations? since there is no ex- ample in Scripture of any ordination made but by Apostles and Bishops ; and the presbytery that imposed hands on Timothy is by all antiquity expounded either of the office or of a college of presbyters ; and St. Paul expounds it to be an ordination made by his own hands, as appears by comparing the two Epistles to St. Timothy together ; and may be so meant by the principles of both sides ; for if the names be confounded, the presbyter may signify a Bishop ; and that they of this presbytery were not Bishops, they can never prove from Scripture, when all men grant that the names are confounded. So that whence will men take their estimate for the rites of ordination? From Scripture ? That gives it clearly to Apostles and Bishops, as I have proved ; and that a priest did ever impose hands for ordination can never be shown from thence. From whence then ? From Antiquity ? That was so far from licensing ordinations made by presbyters alone, that pres- byters in the primitive Church did never join with Bishops in collating holy orders of presbyter and deacon till the fourth Council of Carthage ; much less do it alone, rightly

APPENDIX 317

and with, effect. So that as in Scripture there is nothing for presbyters ordaining, so in Antiquity there is much against it; and either in this particular we must have strange thoughts of Scripture and Antiquity, or not so fair interpretation of the ordinations of Eeformed presbyteries ; but for my part I had rather speak a truth in sincerity, than err with a glorious correspondence.

But wiU not necessity excuse them who could not have orders from orthodox Bishops ? Shall we either sin against our consciences, by subscribing to heretical and false reso- lutions in materia Jldei, or else lose the being of a Church for want of Episcopal ordinations ? Indeed if the case were just thus, it was very hard with good people of the transmarine Churches; but I have here two things to consider : —

First, I am very willing to believe that they would not have done any thing either of error or suspicion, but in cases of necessity. But then I consider that M. du Plessis, a man of honour and great learning, does attest, that at the first Eeformation there were many Archbishops and Cardinals in Germany, England, France, and Italy, that joined in the Eeformation, whom they might, but did not, employ in their ordinations ; and what necessity then can be pretended in this case I would fain learn, that I might make their defence. But, which is of more and deeper con- sideration, for this might have been done by inconsideration and irresolution, as often happens in the beginning of great changes, — ^but it is their constant and resolved practice, at least in France, that if anj^ returns to them they wiU re-ordain him by their presbytery, though he had before Episcopal ordination ; as both their friends and their enemies bear witness.

Secondly, I consider, that necessity may excuse a per- sonal delinquency, but I never heard that necessity did build a Church. Indeed no man is forced for his own particular to commit a sin ; for if it be absolutely a case of necessity, the action ceaseth to be a sin ; but indeed if God

318 APPENDIX

means to build a Church in any place. He will do it by means proportionable to that end ; that is, by putting them into a possibility of doing and acquiring those things which Himself hath required of necessity to the constitution of a Church. So that, supposing that ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the vocation of priests and deacons (as I have proved it is), and therefore for the founding or perpetu- ating of a Church, either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such ordinations, and then necessity of the contrary is but pretence and mockery; or if He hath not given such possibility, then there is no Church there to be either buUt or continued, but the candlestick is presently removed. [Taylor proceeds to quote the case of Frumentius and ^desius, who came to St. Athanasius to Alexandria to obtain a Bishop for the Christians whom they had themselves converted — and then continues, — '\ Thus the case is evident, that the want of a Bishop will not excuse us from our endeavours of acquir- ing one ; and where God means to found a Church, there He will supply them with those means and ministers which Himself hath made of ordinary and absolute necessity. And therefore, if it happens that those Bishops which are of ordinary ministration amongst us prove heretical, still God*s Church is catholic, and though with trouble, yet orthodox Bishops may be acquired. For just so it hap- pened, when Mauvia, queen of the Saracens, was so earnest to have Moses the hermit made the Bishop of her nation, &c., &c. Moses refused to be ordained by him that was an Arian. So did the Reformed Churches refuse ordinations by the Bishops of the Roman Communion. But what then might they have done ? Even the same that Moses did in that necessity, " Compulsus est ab Episcopis quos in exi- lium truscrat (Lucius) sacerdotium sumere/' — those good people might have had order from the Bishops of England, or the Lutheran Churches, if at least they thought our Churches Catholic and Christian.

If an ordinary necessity will not excuse this, will not an

APPENDIX 319

extraordinary calling justify it ? TeSj most certainly, could we but see an ordinary proof for an extraordinary calling, viz. an evident prophecy, demonstration of miracles, cer- tainty of reason, clarity of sense, or any thing that might make faith of an extraordinary mission.

But shall we then condemn those few of the Eeformed Churches whose ordinations always have been without Bishops ? No indeed, that must not be ; they stand or fall to their own Master. And though I cannot justify their ordinations, yet what degree their necessity is of, what their desire of Episcopal ordinations may do for their personal excuse, and how far a good life and a Catholic belief may lead a man in the way to heaven, although the forms of external communion be not observed, I cannot determine. For aught I know, their condition is the same with that of the Church of Pergamus, " I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is ; and that thou heldest fast My faith, and hast not denied My Name; nihilominus Jiabeo adversus te pauca, some few things I have against thee ;" and yet of them, the want of canonical ordinations is a defect which I trust themselves desire to be remedied; but if it cannot be done, their sin indeed is the less, but their misery the greater. I am sure I have said sooth, but whether or no it wUl be thought so I cannot tell ; and yet why it may not, I cannot guess, unless they only be impeccable ; which I suppose will not so easily be thought of them, who them- selves think that all the Church possibly may fail. But this I would not have declared so freely, had not the necessity of our own Churches required it, and that the first pretence of the legality and validity of their ordina- tions been buoyed up to the height of an absolute necessity; for else why shall it be called tyranny in us to call on them to conform to us and to the practice of the Catholic Church, and yet in thorn be called a good and a holy zeal to exact our conformity to them ; but I hope it will so happen to us, that it will be verified here what was

320 APPENDIX

once said of tlie Catholics under the fury of Justina, " Bed tantafuit perseverantia fidelium populorum, ut animas priiis amittere quam Episcopum mallent ;" if it were put to our choice rather to die (to wit, the death of martyrs, not rebels) than lose the sacred orders and offices of Episco- pacy, without which no priest, no ordination, no consecra- tion of the Sacrament, no absolution, no rite or sacrament, legitimately can be performed in order to eternity. — [Works, V. 118—122, ed. Eden.]

Law*s Second Letter to Bishop Ho ad ly, pp. 69 — 75, ed. 1835.

I shall now, in a word or two, set forth the sacredness of the ecclesiastical character as it is founded in the New Testament ; vdth a particular regard to the power of con- ferring grace and the efficacy of human benedictions.

It appears therein, that aU sacerdotal power is derived from the Holy Ghost. Our Saviour Himself took not the

ministry upon Him tUl He had this consecration

When He ordained the Apostles to the work of the minis- try, it was with these words — '^ Keceive ye the Holy Ghost.** Those whom the Apostles ordained to the same function, it was by the same authority : they laid their hands upon the elders, exhorting them to take care of the flock of Christ, over which the Holy Ghost had made them over- seers

From this it is also manifest, that the priesthood is a grace of the Holy Ghost ; that it is not a function founded on the natural or civU rights of mankind, but is derived from the special authority of the Holy Ghost ; and is as truly a positive institution as the Sacraments. So that they who have no authority to alter the old Sacraments and substitute new ones, have no power to alter the old

APPENDIX 321

order of the clergy^ or introduce any other order of them.

For why can we not change the Sacraments ? Is it not because they are only Sacraments, and operate, as they are instituted by the Holy Ghost ? Because they are useless, ineffectual rites without this authority. And does not the same reason hold as well for the order of the clergy ? . . . .

How comes it that we cannot alter the Scripttu-es ? Is it not because they are Divinely inspired, and dictated by the Holy Ghost ? And since it is express Scripture, that the priesthood is instituted and authorized by the same Holy Spirit, why is not the Holy Ghost as much to be regarded in one institution as in another ? Why may we not as well make a Gospel, and say it was writ by the Holy Ghost, as make a new order of clergy, and call them His? ... .

From this it likewise appears, that there is an absolute necessity of a strict succession of authorized ordainers from the Apostolical times, in order to constitute a Chris- tian priest. For, since a commission from the Holy Ghost is necessary for the exercise of this office, no one can now receive it but from those who have derived their authority in a true succession from the Apostles.

We could not call our present Bibles the Word of God, unless we knew the copies from which they are taken were taken from other true ones, till we come to the originals themselves. No more could we call any true ministers, or authorized by the Holy Ghost, who have not received their commission by an uninterrupted succession of lawful ordainers As to the uncertainty of it (the uninter- rupted succession), it is equally as uncertain as whether the Scriptures be genuine. There is just the same suf- ficient historical evidence for the certainty of one as the other. As to its not being mentioned in the Scriptures, the doctrine upon which it is founded plainly made it unnecessary to mention it

Y

322 APPENDIX

The clergy have their commission from the Holy Ghost : the power of conferring this commission of the Holy Ghost was left with the Apostles : therefore the present clergy cannot have the same commission, or call, but from an order of men who have successively conveyed this power from the Apostles to the present time. So that I shall beg leave to lay it down as a plain, undeniable. Christian truth, that the order of the clergy is an order of as necessary an obligation as the Sacraments, and as unalterable as the Holy Scriptures ; the same Holy Ghost being as truly the author and founder of the priesthood, as the institutor of the Sacraments, or the inspirer of those Divine Oracles

If therefore we have a mind to continue in the covenant of Christ, and receive the grace and benefit of His ordi- nances, we must receive them through such hands as He has authorized for that purpose, to the end we may be qualified to partake the blessings of them. For as a true priest cannot benefit us by administering a false Sacra- ment, so a true Sacrament is nothing when it is adminis- tered by a false, uncommissioned minister.

[I have taken these quotations from a sermon of Dr. Hawkins, preached in 1 842, but with a somewhat different purpose to that with which they are there cited. Mr. Law's work was then (in 1842) still recommended on authority to candidates for Holy Orders, and its language is simply a repetition of that of Cranmer and the divines of the Reformation] .

D

Record of Archbishop Parker s Confirmation and Consecration^ from the Lambeth Register ^

Registeum Reuerendissimi in Cheisto Pateis et D'ni, D'ni Matthei Paekee, m Aechie'pum Cantuaeien. per

' This record occupies from the second to the eleventh leaf of " Parker'8 Register," vol. 1, the first leaf being emblazoned with hisarms and motto

APPENDIX 32J

Decanu. et CapYlm. Eccli' e Oath, et Metropolitice Xpi Cantuaeien. p'dict.^ vigore et auc'te Licentie Eegie eis m hag p^te pact., Peimo die Mensis Augusti Anno D'ni

MiLLESIMO QUINGENTESIMO QUINQUAGESIMO NONO ELECTI AC p'.

Eeuerendos P^res IVnos Will'um Baelowe nup. Bathon. ET Wellen. E^pum, nu'c electum Cicestren., Ioh'e™ Scoey DUDu. Cicesteen. E'pum, nu^c electu. Heeeporden., Milone.

COVEEDALE QUO'dA. ExON. E'pUM, ET Igh'EM HoDGESKTN

E'puM suppEAGAJoiu. Bedpoeden., vigoee L'raeu. Com-

MISSIONALIU. ReGIARU. PatEN. EIS DIRECTARU. NONO DIE

Mensis Dece'bris tunc prox. sequen. coneiemati, necno. p\ ip'os Eeuerendos P'ees Auc^te p'dict. Decimo septimo DIE EiusDEM Me'sis Dece'beis co'secrati, Anthonio Huse aemigeeo tunc Ee^geario primaeio dicti Eeueeendissimi Feis ^

Acta Habita et Facta in Negocio Con-

, . . , .,. ... Cantnr.

piRMAC 0 IS electionis venerabilis et eximij

and the second containing the title of the entire volume, which is the first paragraph printed above in the text in capitals, as it is written in the Register itself. The volume is an entire volume, bound together before it was used ; not a collection of separate documents, bound together after they were written. And the remainder of it contains Confirmations and Consecrations of Bishops, Inductions in various dioceses. Commissions, Visitations, Inductions in the diocese of Canterbury itself.

There is a copy of that portion which records the actual Consecration of Parker in C.C.C. Library, Cambridge, given to the College, no doubt, by Parker himself. It is a parchment, with Parker's arms emblazoned in the centre. Two similar Transcripts, on paper, are amongst the State Papers preserved in the Public Record OflBce, one apparently contemporary.

The earliest acts of jurisdiction recorded in the Register are dated Dec. 11 and 12, being two and three days respectively after Parker's Confirma- tion ; and the earliest Commission is dated Dec. 20, being three days after his Consecration. The description also of Parker as electus, &c., &c., changes with the correct dates. For all the names and particulars mentioned in the record, which tally precisely with all that is otherwise known, full information will be found in the notes to the octavo edition of Bramhall's Works, vol. iii.

1 can only repeat that any one who can examine this Register on the one hand, and measure it against the unsupported hearsay of such a one as Holy- wood on the other, and imagine the latter to be any thing but a preposterous and groundless libel, must simply have lost his senses.

2 Two notes in a later hand are added at the foot of this page in a blank space ; one to the effect that A. Huse died June 1560, and was succeeded by John Incent, the other recording the death of Parker himself, May 17, 1575.

V 2

324 APPENDIX

viri mag'ri Matthei Parker Sacre Theologie Professoris in Arcliie^pum Cantuarien. electi, Nono die mensis Decembria Anno D'ni Milli'mo quingen°. quinquagesimo nono, et Eegni felicissimi illustrissime in Xpo. Principis et D'ne n're_, D'ne Elizabetlie Dei gr'a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibemie Regine, fidei defons., &c. anno secundo, in eccli'a paro- cliiali Beate Marie de Arcliubus London, Eccli^e Metro- politice Xpi. Cantuar. jurisdictionis immediate, coram Reuerendis in Xpo. patribus, D^nis Will'mo quondam Batbon. et Wellen. Ep'o, nunc electo Cicestren., lob'e Scory quondam Cicestren. Ep^o, nunc Hereforden. electo, Milone Coverdale quondam Exon. E'po, et loVe Bed- forden. E'po suffraganeo, median. I'ris Commissionalibus paten, d'ce illustrissime D'ne n're Eegine in bac parte Commissarijs inter alios, cum bac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor Vrum, &c. Necnon cum bac adiectione Supplentes nibilominus &c. Ftime fulcitis, in p'ntia mei ffrancisci Gierke ^ notarij pu''^ in actorum scri- bam in bac parte propter ab'iam mag'ri Antbonij Huse Reg'rarii &c. assumpti, prout sequitur, viz. —

Die et Loco predict, inter boras octava. et

Acta Confir- , .,. ^ ...

nuitionis Elec- nonam ante meridiem coram Oommissarijs

tionisd'm suprano'iatis, comparuit p'sonal'r lob'es In-

Parker Arcbi- cent notarius pu'^'^^ ac p'ntauit eisdem reuer- ep'i Cant. endis d'nis Commissarijs I'ras Commissionales

patentes Eegias eis in bac parte directas, bumil'r sup- plicando quatenus onus executionis I'rarum Commissiona- bu. patentium b'mo'i in se assumcre, ac juxta earum con- tinentia. procedend. fore in dicto Confirmationis negocio decemere dignarentur. Quibus quidem I'ris Commissiona- libus de Mandate d'corum Commissariorum per eundem lob'em Licent pu'=^ perlectis, ijdem Commissarij ob reueren- tiam et bonorem dc'e serenissime D'ne n're Eegine, acceptarunt in se onus I'rarum Commissionaliu. patentium

' Apparently he had been "register" to Cardinal Pole. See what is known about him and his sen in Bnimhall, Works III. 98, 99, and note^ there.

APPENDIX 325

Eegiaru. h^moi, et decreuerunt procedend. fore iuxta vim forma, et effectum earundem. Deinde dictus lollies Incent exliibuit procuratorium suu. pro Decano et Cap't^lo eccli^e Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. et fecit se partem pro eisdem, ac no'i'e Procu^rio eorunde. Decani et Capt^li p'ntauit eisdem Commissarijs^ venerabilem virum mag'rum Nicliolau. Bullingliam Legum doctorem, ac e regione decorum Commissariorum sistebat. Qui exliibuit Procura- torium suum pro dicto venerabili et eximio viro mag'ro Mattbeo Parker Cantur. electo, et fecit se partem pro eodem. Et tunc d'cus loli'es Incent exliibuit Mandatum Citatorium originale unacum Certificatorio in dorso super executione eiusdem^ et petijt omnes et sing'los citatos p^ce preconizari ; ac consequenter facta trina pu"^. pre- conizatione omniu. et sing^lorum oppositorum ad foras eccli'e p'ocli'is de Arcbubus predict, et nullo eorum com- parente, nee aliquid in bac parte opponen., obijcien., vel excipien., d'cus loVes Incent accusauit eorum Gontu- niacias_, et petijt* eis et eorum quemlibet reputari con- tumaces, ac in pena. contumaciarum suarum b'moi viam ulterius in bac parte opponendi contra d'cam electionem, formam eiusdem, aut p'sona. electam precludi. Ad cuius petic^o'em d'ci d^ni Commissarij pronunciarunt eos con- tumaces^ ac in pena. &c. viam vlterius in bac parte oppo- nendi eis et eorum cuiHbet precluserunt. Necnon ad petic'o^em d^ci lob'is Incent ad vlteriora in b^mo'i Con- firmationis negocio procedend. fore decreuerunt, prout in Scbedula per prefatu. d'nm WiU^mu. Barlow electum Cicestren. de consensu Collegarum suorum lecta pleniua continetur. Qua quidem Scbedula sic lecta prefatus lob'es Incent in p'ntia prefati mag^ri Nicbolai Bullingbam procu'ris d^ni electi Cant, anted^ci dedit Summaria. petic'- o'em in Scriptis, quam petijt admitti, ad cuius petic'o^em d'ni Commissarij admiserunt d^cam Summariam petic'o'em et assignarunt d^co Incent ad probandum contenta in

* Tbe word " petijt " is interlined in another baud.

326 APPENDIX

eadem ad statim. Deinde Incent in subsidium probatiorda contentorum in d^ca Summaria peticione, exhibuit pro- cessu. electionis de p'sona d'ci venerabilis viri, mag'ri Mattbei Parker per decanu. et Cap^t'lm eccrie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, predict, fact, et celebrat., quo per d'nos Commissarios viso, inspecto, et perspecto, ijdem D'ni Commissarij ad petic'o'em prefati loannis Incent h^mo^i processu. pro lecto kabendu. fore et censeri voluerunt et decreuerunt, Et tunc d'cus Incent super h^mo'i sum- maria peticione produxit loli'em Baker gener. et WilFmum Colwyn* Artium mag'rum in Testes, Quos d'ni Commis- sarij ad eius petic'o'em lureiurando onerarunt, de dicendo veritatem quam nouerint in hac parte, Quibus per me pre- fatu. ffranciscum Gierke seorsum et Secrete examinatis, eorumq; dictis et Attestationibus ad pctic'o'em d'ci loh'is Incent per d'nos Commissarios publicatis, et per ip'os visis et inspectis, ip'i d'ni Commissarij ad petic'o'em dicti Incent assignarunt sibi ad proponend. o'ia ad statim. Deinde Incent exhibuit omnia et sing'la per eum in dicto negocio exbibita et proposita quatenus sibi conducunt, et non al'er neq: alio modo, Et tunc d'ni ad petic'o'em Incent assignarunt sibi ad concludend. ad statim, dicto Incent concludente cum eisdem d'nis Commissarijs secu. etiam concludentibus. Qua Conclusione sic facta dicti d'ni Com- missarij ad petic'o'em Incent assignarunt ad audiend. finale decretum sine S'niam diffinitiuam ad statim. Con- sequenter vero facta alia trina preconizatione Oppositorum sic (ut premittitur) citatoru., et non comparen. nee quicq'; in hac parte opponen., d'ni Commissarij ad petic'o'em Incent pronunciarunt cos et eorum quemhbet contumaces, ac in pena. contumaciaru. suarum h'mo'i decreuerunt procedend. fore ad prolac'o'em S'nie diffinitiue sine decreti finalis in hac causa ferend., ip'orum sic citatorum et non comparen. ab'ia sine contumacia in aliquo non obstan. prout in Schodula per momoratum

' Read " Tolwyn." C. and T. are vc;ry similar letters ia the original And tlip word is probably ini'ant tor " Tolwyn " here.

APPENDIX 327

D'nm WilFmum Cicestren. electum de consensu collegarum suorum lecta dilucidius continetur. Hijs itaq; in ordine gestis, ac prestito per mag'rum Nicli'um Bullingh'm no^i^e procu^rio prefati d'ni electi Cantuarien ac in a'i'am ip'ius d^ni electi luramento corporali, juxta forma, descripta. in Statut. parliamenti Anno primo Eegni d^ce d^ne Regine Elizabethe edit, prefati d^ni Commissarij ad petic'o'em d'ci Incent tulerunt et promulgarunt S'niam diffinitiua. in Scriptis per prefatu. d^nm. Will'mum electum Cicestren. de Consensu coUegaru. suorum lectis, pronun- ciando, decernendo, ceteraq; faciendo prout in eadem continetur. Super Quibus tam prefatus mag^r Nicholaus Bullingli^m quam d'cus loli'es Incent me eundem ffran- ciscum Clerke sibi vnu. vel plura pu''". seu pu"-'^. Instru- mentum sine Instrumenta conficere, ac Testes inferius no'i'atosTestimoniumindeperlubere petiverunt^ Postremo autem d^ci d^ni Commissarij ad petic'o'em tam procura- toris prefati d^ni electi et confirmati quam procu^ris Decani et Cap't^li eccFie Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. predict, decreuerunt ip^um Keuerendissimu. d^nm. electum et con- firmatum consecrandum et benedicend. fore, Curamq; Regimen et Administrationem Sp'ualium et Temporaliu. d'ci Archie'patus Cantuar. eidem d'no electo et confirmato commiserunt, Ip'umq; in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessionem d'ci Archie^patus, luriumq; Dignitatu., Honorum, Preeminen. et pertinen. suorum vniuersorum inducend., et intronizand. fore etiam decreuerunt, per decanum et Cap^t'lm. eccFie catb^is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. predict, aut alium quemcunq; ad quem de lure et consuetudine id munus dinoscitur pertinere, iuxta eccl'ie Xpi. Cantuar. morem laudabilem, Legibus et Statutis modernis buius incliti Regni Angbe non recla- mantem aut aduersantem.

ELIZAEETH Dei g'ra Anglie ffrancie ^.^epa- et Hibernie Regina, fidei defensor etc. Reue- tentes de as-

■* "Petivcrunt" is interlined in another Laud.

328 APPENDIX

sensu regio rendis in Xpo. p'ribus AntHonio Landaven.

adhibit. e'po Wiirmo Barlo quondam Bathon. e'po

nunc Cicestren. electo, loanni Scory quondam Cicestren. e'po^ nunc electo' Hereforden,, Miloni Couerdale quon- dam Exon. e^po, loanni® Bedforden., lohanni Thetforden. e'pis Suffraganeis, loli'i Bale Osseren. e^po Sal'tm. Cum vacante nuper Sede Archie'pali Cantuar. per mortem naturalem d'ni Reginaldi Pole Cardinalis vltimi et Imme- diati Archie'pi et pastoris eiusdem, ad humilem petic'o'em Decani et Cap't^li eccl'ie n're cath^is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien.j eisdem per Fras n'ras patentes L^niam conces- serimus, alium sibi eligend. in Arcliie'pum et pastorem Sedis produce, Ac ijdem decanus et Cap^t'lm. vigore et obtent. Tnie n're pred'ce diFcm. nobis in Xpo. mag'rum Mattbeum Parker Sacre Tbeologie Professorem sibi et eccrie produce elegerunt in Ai'cbie'pum et pastorem, prout per l^ras suas patentes Sigillo eorum communi sigillat. nobis inde directas plenius liquet et apparet, Nos elec- tionem iUam acceptantes, eidem Electioni Eegiu. n^rum Assensu. adbibuimus pariter et fauorem Et hoc vobia Tenore p^ntium significamus, Rogantes ac in fide et dilec- tione quibus nobis tenemini firmiter precipiendo man- dantes, Quatenus vos aut ad minus Quatuor r'rum eundem mattheum Parker in Arcbie'pum et pastorem eccl'ie catVis et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. predicte (sicut prefertur) electum, electionemq; pred'cam confirmare, et eundem mag^rum Mattbeum Parker in Arcbie'pum et pastorem eccFie pred'ce consecrare, Ceteraq; omnia et singula peragere que Vro in bac parte incumbunt Officio Pastorali, iuxta formam Statutorum in ea parte editorum

1 " Electo " is in the Roll, but Rymer has inadvertently omitted the word in printing. It is, of conrse, rightly inserted, both in the Roll and here in the Register ; and was, no doubt, in the original Patent.

8 " loanni " is a correction in another hand for " Richardo," which was first written. Now the Registrar copied from the original Letters Patent, no doubt. And the Roll, which does the same, has precisely the same error. The Bishop's right name was John ; as he is correctly called every where else throusrhout the Register.

APPENDIX 329

et prouisorum velitis cum effectu. Supplentes niliilo- inimis Suprema auc'te n^ra Regia ex mero motu et certa Scientia n^ris Si quid aut in hijs que iuxta Man datum n'rum pred'cum per vos fient, aut in vobis aut Vrum aliquo. Conditioner Statu, facultate, Vris, ad Premissa p'ficiend. desit, aut deerit, eorumque per Statuta liuius Regni n'ri, aut per Leges eccriasticas in hac parte requi- runtur, aut n'cc^ria sunt, Temporis E-atione et rerum necessitate id postulante In cuius Eei Testimonium has Tras n^ras fieri fecimus patentes. T. meip^a apud Westm. sexto Die Decembris Anno Regni n^ri Secundo. Ha. CordeU'.

Pateat vniuersis per p'ntes, QM nos deca- Proeura- nus et Cap't'lm. eccFie cath. et Metropolitice toriu. Decani

•^ . , -"^ et cap 1 11 Can-

Xpi. Cantuarien. in Domo n'ra Cap't'lari, tur. cap't^lariter congregati de vnanimi Assensu et Consensu n'ris Dilectos nobis in Xpo. mag^rum Will'mum Darrell cFicum in Artibus mag'rum eccFie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, predict. Canonicu. et Prebendarium, Anthoniu. Huse armigerum, loh^em Clarke et loh'em Incent Nota- ries pu''°^ CO.™ et di."^ * n^ros veros, certos, Ptimos ac indu- bitatos procu^res, actores, factores, negociorumq; n^rorum gestores, et nuncios Sp^iales ad infrascripta, no^i'amus, ordinamus, facimus, et constituimus per pontes; damusq;

' The following is written on the margin at the foot of the page of the Register in which this Commission occurs : — " Wee whose names be heare subscribicl, thinke in our judgementes, that by this Commission in this forme pennid as well the Queues Matie^ may lawfully auctorize the p'sons within namid to theffecte specified as the said p'sons maye exercise the acte of con- firminge and consecratinge in the same to them committid. Will'am Mate, Eenet Haevet,

EoBEET Weston, Thomas Yale,

Edwaed Leedes, Nicholas Bullingham."

All these are well-known lawyers in oflBce and position at the time. A full account of each may be found in the notes to the Record as printed in Bramhall's works, octavo edit. The document shows plainly that the clause Supplentes &c. in the Letters Patent had reference purely and solely to the laws of the State, not to spiritual or ecclesiastical defects oi powers.

1 i. e. conjunctim et divisim.

330 APPENDIX

et concedimus eisdem procu'ribus n'ris co™ et eorum cui- libet (vt prefertur) per se di™. et insolid., p'tatem gene- ralem, et Mandatu. speciale pro nobis et no'ibus n'ris, venerabilem et eximiu. virum mag^rum Mattheum Parker sacre Theologie Professorem in Arcliie'pum et pastorem d'ce eccl'ie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, per nos elec- tum, sen eius procuratorem Ttimu., Temporibus et Locis congruis et oportunis adeundi, Ip^umq; ex parte n'ra, ad consentiend. electioni de p'sona sua facte et celebrate debita cum Instantia petend. et requirend., Necnon elec- tionem li'mo'i per nos de p'sona prefati mag^ri Matthei Parker (vt prefertur) factam et celebrata., excellentissime in Xpo. Principi et d'ne^ n*re, d'ne Blizabetlie dei gr'a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie Regine fidei defens. &c. d^ce eccFie fiindatrici et p'rone intimandi et notificandi, ac eius Consensu, et Assensu. regios in ea parte humiFr implorand., Ac decretum electionis pred'ce, et p'sonam per nos (vt premittitur) electam, coram quibuscunq; p'sonis Regia auc'te in hac parte I'time fulcitis p*ntandi et exkibendi, Dictumq; decretum siue processum elec- tionis pred^ce, et persona, sic (vt premittitur) electam, in debita luris forma confirmari et approbari, defectusq; (si qui forsan in hac parte interuenerint) debite suppleri petend. requirend., et impetrand., agendiq; et defendend. ac litem seu lites contestand., et contestari vidend., Arti- culu. siue Artic'los, Libellu. siue libellos, seu quascunq; Summarias petic'o'es dand. et proponend.. Testes, Fras, et Instrumenta ac alia quecunq; probationum genera pro- ducend. et exbibend., Testesq; b^mo'i iurari vidend. et audiend., In causa seu causis concludend. et concludi vidend., d'cumq; Confirmationis negociu. vsq; ad finalem expedic'o'em eiusdem inclusiue proscquend., Necnon Administrationem omniu. et sing'lorum Sp'ualium et Temporaliu. d'ci Archie^patus Cantuar. eidem electo com- mitti, Ip'umque in realem, actualem, et corporalem pos- sessionem eiusdem Archie'patus, luriumq; dignitatu., jbonoru., preeminen. et pertinen. suorum vuiuersorum

APPENDIX 331

inducend. et intronizand. fore decerni petend., requirend. et obtinend. Et generaFr omnia et Singula alia faciend., exercend., et expediend.. Que in premissis et cii'ca ea n'cc'ria fuerint sen q^moTt oportuna, etiamsi mandatum de se magis exigant speciale quam Superius est expressum, Promittimusq; nos ratum, gratu., et firmu. perpetuo habi- turos Totum et Quicquid d'ci procu'res n'ri, sen eorum aKquis fecerint sen fecerit in premissis vel aliquo pre- missorum^ et in ea parte Cautionem exponimus per p'ntes. In cuius Rei testimoniu. Sigillum n'rum (Quo in p^nti vaca- tione Sedis Arcliie'palis Cantuarien. predict, vtimur) p'ntibus apponi fecimus. Dat. in Domo n'ra Cap't'lari Tertio die mensis Augusti, anno d^ni Mill'imo, Quingen°, Quinquagesimo_, Nono.

Pateat vniuersis per p'ntes, Q'd ego Mat- Procur. dicti theus Parker, Sacre Tbeologie professor in d'ni electi. Archie'pum eccFie cath'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. per venerabiles et eximios viros decanu. et Cap't'lm eccFie pred'ce rite et I'time electus, diPcos mihi in Xpo. mag'ros Willmu. Mey, decann eccl'ie catVis Divi Pauli London, et Nicholau. Bullingham Legum doctorem, co™ et di™ meos veros, certos, Ttimos ac indubitatos procu'res,actores, facto- res, negociorumq; meorum gestores, et nuncios Speciales ad infrascripta no* i*o, ordino, facio, et constituo per p'ntes, Doq; et concedo eisdem procuratoribus meis co™ et eorum vtriqj (vt prefertur) p'. se di™ et insolid. p'tatem gene- ralem et mandatum Speciale pro me ac vice, loco, et no'i 'e meis coram Reuerendis in Xpo. p'ribus et d'nis, d'nis WilFmo quondam Batbon. et Wellen. e'po, nunc Cices- tren. electo loann® Scory quondam Cicestren. e'po, nunc electo Hereforden., Milone Coverdale quondam Exon. e'po et lob'e Bedforden. e'po Suflfraganeo, Serenissime in Xpo. Principis et d'ne n're, d'ne Elizabethe Dei gr'a Anglie, jSrancie, et Hibernie Regine fidei defens. &c., ad Infrascripta Commissarijs cum hac clausula viz — vnacu. dnis lobanne Thetforden. Suffraganeo et lob'e Bale Osseren. e'po, et etiam bac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus

332 APPENDIX

Quatuor v^rum^ &c. necnon et hac adiectione^ Supplentea niMlominus, &c. special'r et rtime deputatis comparendi, rneq; a p'sonali Comparic'o'e excusand., ac ca'am et ca'as aVie mee li'mo^i allegand., et proponend., ac (si opu3 fuerit) fidem desuper faciend. et iurand., Electionemq; de me et p'sona mea ad d'cm. Archie'patu. Cantuarien. per prefatos decanu. et Cap't^l'm. eccFie catli'is et Metro- politice Xpi. Cantuar. factam et celeb ratam per eosdem Cominissarios regies approbari et confirmari^ meq; in Arcbiepresulein Cantuarien. predict, recipi et admitti. Atq; in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessionem d'ci Arcliie'patus Cantuarien. luriumq; et pertinen. suorum vniuersorum induci, et intronizari petend. requi- rend. et impetrand., decretaq; quecunq; in bac parte n'cc'ria et oportuna ferri et interponi petend. et obtinend., luramentum insuper tam de fidelitate, subiectione et ob'ia dicte Serenissime d'ne n're Regine Elizabetbe, beredibusq; et Succ\ suis prestand. et exbibend., necnon de renunci- ando, recusando, et refutando o^em et o'i'odam auc^tem, p'tatem, lurisdictionem, et Superioritatem forinsecas et extraneaSj secundum vim, forma., et effectum Statutorum huius incliti Regni Anglie in hac parte editorum et proui- sorum, Quam etiam aliud quodcunq; Sacramentu. licitum et honestum, ac de lure, Legibus, et Statutis huius Regni Anglie in hac parte q'moTt requisit. in a'i'am meam et pro me prestand., subeund. et iurand. ; Et generaFr omnia et singFa alia faciend. exercend., exequend. et expediend. que in premissis aut circa ea n'cc'ria fuerint seu q'mo'l't oportuna, etiamsi Mandatum de se exigant magis Speciale quam superius est exprcssum, promittoq; me ratum, gratu., et firmu. perpetuo habiturum, totum et quicquid d^ci procu'res mei seu eorum aliquis fecerint seu fecerit in pre- missis vel aliquo eorundem, sub ypotheca et obligatione om'iu. et sing'lorum Bonorum meorum tam p'ntium quam futuroru., et in ea parte Cautionem expono per p'ntes. In cuius Rei Testimonium Sigillu. venerabiliu. virorum D'norimi decani et Cap't'li eccl'ie Mctropolitice Xpi. Can-

APPENDIX 833

tuar. presentibus aflSgi procuraui. Et nos decanus et Cap^t'lm antedict. ad Rogatum dicti Constituentis Sigillu. n'rum h^mo'i p^ntibus apposuimus. Dat. septimo die mensis Decembris Anno D'ni Miirimo, Quingen", Quinquagesimo Nono^ Regniq; felicissimi d^ce Serenissime D'ne n're Regine Elizabethe Anno Secundo.

"VVILL'MUS quondam Bathon. et Wellen. ^.^^^.^ e'pus, nunc Cicestren. electus, lok'es Scory contra Opposi- quondam Cicestren. e^pus, nunc electus ''^^^' Hereforden.j Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. e'pus et lohannes Bedforden. e'pus, median. I'ris Commissionalibus paten, illustrissime in Xpo. principis et d'ne n're d'ne Elizabetbe Dei gr'a Anglie^ ffrancie, et Hibernie Regine, fidei defens. &c. vnacum bac Clausula vi^. vnacu. d'nis lobanne Thetforden. Suffraganeo, et lob'e Bale Osseren. e'po et etiam bac clausula, Quatenus vos, aut ad minus Quatuor Vrum &c. necnon et bac adiectione, Supplentes nibilominus &c. nobis directis I'time fulciti, Yniuersis et sing'Hs d'ce d'ne n're Regine Subditis per vniuersum Auglie Regnum vbilibet constitutis Sal'tm. Cum vacante nuper sede Arcbie'pali Cantuarien., per mortem naturalem d'ni Reginaldi Pole CardinaHs vltimi et immediati Axcbi- e'pi eiusdem, decanus et Cap't'lm eccl'ie catb'is et Metro- politice Xpi. Cantur. predict, pro electione noui et futuri Arcbie'pi et pastoris eiusdem eccl'ie (L'nia Regia primitus in ea parte petita et obtenta) celebrand., certum Terminu. prefixerint, et assignaueriut, Atq; in b'mo'i electionis negocio, Termino ad id Statute et assignato rite proce- dentes, venerabilem virum, mag'rum Mattbeum Parker Sacre Tbeologie professorem in eorum et d'ce eccl'ie catb'is et Metropobtice Xpi. Cant. Arcbiepresulem elige- rint, Cumq; d'ca Serenissima D'na n'ra Regina ad bumi- lem Petic'o'em dictorum Decani et Cap't'H eidem electioni de p'sona prefati electi (vt premittitur) facte et celebrate, et p'sone electe, Regium suum adbibuerit assensu., pariter et fauorem, prout per easdem I'ras suas patentes^ magno Sigillo suo Angiie sigillat. nobis significauerit, Mandando,

334 APPENDIX

quatenus p'sona. electam, et electionem h'mo^i confirmare, et eundem Mattlieu. in Arcliie^pum Cantur. consecrare, iuxta formam Statuti in ea parte editi et prouisi velimus cum omni Celeritate accommoda, prout per easdem I'ras patentes regias (ad quas h'eatur relatio) plenius liquet et apparetj Nos vero volentes eiusdem Serenissime d'ne n're Regine Mandatis pro Officii n'ri debito parere, ac in h'mo^i Confirmationis negocio juxta luris et Statutoru. huius incliti Regni Anglie exigentia. procedere, omnes et sing'los (si qui essent) Qui contra d'cam electionem^ seu forma, eiusdem, p'sonamue electam, dicere, vel opponere voluerint, ad Diem, locum, et effect, subscriptos euocand. et citand. fore decreuimus, Justicia id poscente, Vobis ig'r CO™ et di"^ committimus et firmiter iniungendo manda- mus, Quatenus citetis seu citari faciatis peremptorie, pu** altaq; et intelligibili voce infra eccl'iam P^ocVem beate Marie de Arcliubus London, ecel'ie Xpi. Cantuar. Jmisdic- tionis immediate, Necnon per affixionem p'ntium in aKquo loco conuenienti infra eccFiam p'ocli'em predictam, vel in alijs locis publicis vbi videbitur expediens, omnes et sing^los oppositores (si qui sint) in Specie, alioquin, in genere. Qui contra d'cam electionem, formam eiusdem, p'sonamue in hac parte electam dicere, obijcere, excipere, vel opponere voluerint, Q'd compareant coram nobis in eadem eccVia de Arcliubus, die Sabbati prox. futur. viz — nono die p'ntis mensis Decembris inter boras octava. et Nona, ante meridiem eiusdem diei, cum continuatione et prorogatione dierum extunc sequen. et Locorum si opor- teat, contra electionem b'mo'i, forma, eiusdem, et p'sona. in ea parte electam (si sua putauerint interesse) dictur. exceptur. et propositur., factur'q; vlterius et receptur. quod lusticia in bac parte suadebit, et d'ci negocii Qualitas et natura de se exigunt et requirunt, Intimantes insuper modo et forma prerecitatis omnibus et sing'lis oppositor. (Si qui sint) in Specie, alioquin in genere, Quibus nos etiam harum Serie sic intimamus Q'd sine ip'i sic citati dictis die, bor. et Loco coram nobis comparuerint, et

APPENDIX 335

contra dictam electionem, forma, eiusdem^ p*sonamue in hac parte electam, objicere, excipere vel opponere cura- uerint sine non, Nos nihilominus in d'co negocio (iuxta luris et Statutorum in ea parte editoram exigentiam) pro- cedemus, et procedere intendimus, ip'orum sic citatoru. et non comparen. ab'ia sine contumacia in aliquo non obstan. Et quid in premissis feceritis Nos dictis die, hor. et loco debite certificetis sen sic certificet ille Vrum qui p'ns n'rum Mandatum fuerit executus prout decet. In cuius Eei Testimoniu. Sigillu. venerabiliu. virorum IPnor. decani et Cap^t^li eccl'ie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Can- tur. quo in p'nte vacatione vtuntur, p^ntibus affigi roga uimus. Dat. Londini sexto die mensis Decembris Anno d'ni Miirimo Quingen°.*

NONO DIE mensis decembris Anno d'ni MilFimo, Quin- gen°, quinquagesimo, nono in eccl^ia p'ocbiali beate Marie de Arcbubus London, eccFie Xpi. Cant. Juris dictionis immediate coram commissarijs regijs retrono^i'atis, com paruit p'sonaFr Thomas Willet notarius pu'^^ mandatarius in bac parte Ttime deputatus, et certificauit se septimo die mensis Decembris jam currentis executum fuisse p'ns mandatum in eccFia p'ocbiali de Arcbubus predict, iuxta forma, inferius descript. super quibus fecit fidem.

IN DEI NOTE AMEN. Nos WiH^mus Prima Sche- quondam Batbon. et Wellen. e'pus, nu'c eontraOpposi- electus Cicestren., lob'es Scory qi^ondam tores. Cicestren. e'pus, nu'c Hereforden. electus, Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. e'pus, et lo'annes Bedforden. e'pus, Sere- nissime in Xpo. Principis et d^ne n're, d^ne Elizabetbe Dei gr'a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie Eegine fidei defens. &c. median. Fris suis Kegijs Commissionalibus paten, ad Infra- scripta Commissarij cum hac clausula viz — ^vnacu. d^nis lob'e Tbetforden. Suffraganeo et lob'e Bale Osseren. e'po, et etiam bac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus Quatuor v^rum &c. Necnon et hac adiectione Supplentes nihilo-

3 " l/ixo." added in another hand in the margin, the line ending with "* Quingcn"."

336 APPENDIX

minus &c. Special'r et Ftime deputati In negocio Con- firmationis electionis de p'sona venerabilis et eximij viri mag^ri Matttei Parker sacre Theologie Professoris in Archie'pum Cantuar. electi, facte et celebrate rite et I'time procedentes, Omnes et sing'los Oppositores, Qui contra d'cam electionem, forma, eiusdem, aut p'sonam electam dicere, excipere vel opponere voluerint, ad comparend. coram nobis istis Die, hor. et loco (Si sua putauerint interesse) contra d'cam electionem, forma, eiusdem aut p'sonam electam in debita luris forma dictur., exceptur. et propositur.j Ftime et peremptorie citatos sepius pu"^^ pre- cognizatos, diuq; et sufficienter expectatos, et nuUo modo comparentes, ad petic'o'em procu'ris et ' Decani et Cap't'Ii Cant, pronu'ciamus contumaces, ac ip'is et eorum cuilibet in penam Contumaciaru. suarum h'mo'i, viam vlterius opponendi contra d'cam electione., forma, eiusdem, aut p'sonam sic electam li'mo'i precludimus in hijs Scriptis ac etiam decernimus ad vlteriora in dicto Confirmationis negocio procedend. fore iuxta luris et Statutorum huius Regni Anglie exigentia., Ip'orum Contumac. in aliquo non obstan.

Summaria IN DEI NOTE AMEN Coram vobis

Petitio. Reuerendis in Xpo. p'ribus et d'nis, D'nis

Will'mo nuper Bathon. et Wellen. e'po, nunc electo Cices- tren., lo'he Scory quondam Cicestren. e'po, nunc electo Hereforden., Milone Coverdale quonda. Exon. e'po et loh'e Bedforden. e'po. Serenissime in Xpo. Principis et d'ne n're, d'ne EHzabethe dei gr'a Anglie, flfrancie, et Hibemie Eegine, fidei defens. &c. median. I'ris suis regijs Commissionalibus paten, ad Infrascripta Commissarijs, cum bac clausula, viz — vnacu. d'nis loh'e Thetforden. Suffraganeo, et loh'e Bale Osseren. e'po, et etiam hac clausula, Quatenus vos, aut ad minus Quatuor v'rum &c. necnon et hac adiectione, Supplentes nihilominus &c. Special'r et I'time deputatis, pars venerabilium virorum decani et Cap't'li eccl'ie cath'is et MetropoHtice Xpi. Ca:i- 3 ^t scored tbrougb in the original.

APPENDIX 337

tuar. dicitj allegat, et in hijs Scriptis ad omnem luris effectuin exinde sequi valentem, per via. Summarie peti- cionis in lure proponit, artic'latim prout sequitur.

[1.] IMPEIMIS viz. Q'd Sedes Arcliie'palis eccFie cath. Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. predicte, per obitum bone memorie d^ni Eegiaaldi Cardiaalis Pole nu'cupati vltimi Arcliie^pi Cantuarien. nuper vacare cepit, et ali- quandiu vacauit, pastorisq; Solatio caruit, bocq; fuit et est veru., pu'='^., notoriu., manifestum, pariter et famosum, et ponit^ CO™ di™ ac de quolibet.

[2.] ITEM Q'd d'ca Sede Arcliie'pali Cantuarien. (vt premittitur) dudu. vacan., ac corpore d^ci d^ni Eegiaaldi Pole eccFiastice tradito sepulture, Decanus et cap't^Im. eccrie catli^is et Metropolitice anted^ce cap't'lariter con- gregat. et Cap^t^lm. facientes, (L^nia Eegia primitus ad id petita et obtenta) certu. diem, ac domu. sua. Cap't^larem Cantuarien., ad electionem futuri Arcbie^pi Cantuarien. celebrand. vnanimiter et concorditer prefixerunt, ac onmes et sing'los eiusdem eccFie Canonicos et Prebendaries lus, voces aut iuteresse in eadem electione babentes vel habere pretendentes, ad diem et Locum predict, in h^mo'i elec- tionis negocio processur. et procedi visur. I'time et pe- remptorie citari fecerunt bocq; fuit et est verum, pu'^". &c. et ponit vt supra.

[3.] ITEM Q'd prefati decanus et CapVlm die, et loco prefixis viz — primo die Mensis Augusti vltimo preterit, cap^t'lariter congregati et plenu. Cap^t'lm facientes, Seruatis primitus per eos de lure, et d^ce eccPie Consue- tudine Seruandis, vnanimiter et concorditer nullo eorum contradicente, ad electionem futuri Arcbie'pi eccl'ie memo- rate per viam seu forma. Compromissi procedend. fore decreuerunt, Ulamq; via. seu forma, vnanimiter assumpse- runt, et elegerunt, Necnon ia venerabdem virum mag'rum Nicbolau. Wotton utriusq; Juris Doctorem d'ce eccFie catb. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, decanu., sub certis ia processu eiusdem electionis expressatis Legibus et Con- dicionibus compromiserunt, promitten. se ilium acceptatur.

338 APPENDIX

in eorum et d'ce eccl'ie Arcliie'pm., Quern d'cus Compro- missarius sub Legibus et Conditionibus pred'cis^ duxerit elegend. et prouidend. Et ponit vt supra.

[4.] ITEM Q^d dictus Compromissarius onus Compro- missi Vmo^i in se acceptans, matura deliberatione apud se habita^ Votum suu. in venerabilem C!t eximiu. virum mag'- rum Mattheum Parker sacre Theologie Professorem dii-exit, Ip'umq; in Arcliie'pum et pastore. eccl'ie catli'is et Metro- politice Xpi. Cant, prcdicte iuxta et secundu. p'tatem sibi in ea parte concessam et Compromissionem pred'cam elegit, et eccl'ie memorate de eodem prouidebat. Et ponit vt supra.

[5.] ITEM Q*d omnes et singuli d'ce eccl'ie Canonici et Prebendarij in domo Cap't'lari predict, tunc p'ntes plenu. Cap't'lm constituentes, electionem per eundem mag'rum Nicbolaum Wotton, Compromissarium anted'cum (vt pre- mittitur) factam acceptarunt et approbarunt, ac rat. et grat. habuerunt pariter et accept. Et ponit vt supra.

[6.] ITEM Q'd electio Vmo'i et p'sona electa die pre- notato in eccl'ia Metropolitica Xpi. Cantuar. predict, coram Clero et populo tunc in Multitudine copiosa ib'm congregat. debite publicat. et declarat. fuerunt, Et pouit vt supra.

[7.] ITEM q'd d'cus Eeuerendissimus d'ns. electus, h'mo'i electioni de se et p'sona sua (vt premittitur) facte et celebrate ad humilem petic'o'em eorundem decani et Cap't'K consentijt, debitis Loco et tempore requisitus, ac Consensu, et Assensu. suos eidem prebuit in Scriptis per eum lectis. Et ponit vt supra.

[8.] ITEM Q'd prefatus mag'r Mattbcus Parker, fuit et est vir prouidus et discretus, Prarum Sacraru. emiuente Scientia, vita et moribus merito commendatus, liber et de I'timo m'rimonio procreatus, atq; in ctate Ttima et in ordine Sacerdotali constitutus, necnon deo deuotus et eccl'ie memorate apprime n'cc'rius, ac d'ce d'ne n're Kegine, Regnoq; suo et Reipublice fidelis et vtilis. Et ponit ut supra.

APPENDIX 839

[9.] ITEM Q'd prefati Decani et Cap't'lm., Vmo'i elec tionem et p^sona. electam prefate Serenissime d'ne <ri^re Regine per I'ras suas patentes Sigillo eorum co'i et Cap't'- lari roboratas pro Officij sui debito, iiixta Statutu. huius Regni Anglie, significaruntj et intimarunt^ Et ponit vt supra.

[10.] ITEM Q*d p'ntato pro parte decani et Cap't'li antedict. eidem Regie sublimitati processu^electionis h'mo^ij eadem Benignissima d'na n'ra Regina^ pro sua Clementia regia, li'mo^i electioni de p'sona prefati venerabilis viri mag'ri Matthei Parker (vt premittitur) facte et celebrate^ Consensum et Assensu. suos Regies gratiose adhibuit et adhibet, illamq; gratam habetj Hocq; fuit et est &c. Et ponit vt supra.

[11.] ITEM QM d'ca Serenissima d'na nVa Regina vobis Reuerendis paribus anted'cis de Assensu et Con- sensu suis Regijs, h'mo^i electioni (vt premittitur) adhi- bitis per Tras suas patentes vobis inscriptas et direct, non solu. signi&cauit, verumetiam earundem Frarum suarum paten. Serie vobis rogando mandauit^ Quatenus vos elec- tionem pred'cam et eundem electum confirmare, ip^umq; e'paHbus Insignijs insignire, et decorare^ Oeteraq; peragere que v^ris in bac parte incumbunt Officij s pastoralibus iuxta forma. Statuti in ea parte editi et prouisi et Frarum patentium b'mo^i velitis cum fauore. Et ponit vt supra.

[12.] ITEM Q^d premissa omnia et singula fuerunt et sunt vera^ pu'=% notoria^ manifesta, pariter et famosa^ atq; de et super eisdem laborarunt et in p'nti laborant pu*'^ vox et fama^ unde facta fide de lure in hac parte requisita^ ad quam faciend. ofiert se pars dictorum Decani et Cap^t^li prompt, et parat. pro Loco et Tempore congruis et opor- tunis, petit eadem pars prefatam electionem et p'sonam olectam confirmand. fore decerni, et cum effectu con- firmari, iuxta luris et Statutorum buius Regni Anglie exigentiam, necnon et Frarum regiarum Commissionalium patentium predict, vobis in hac parte direct. Seriem. Curamq; Regimen, et Administrationem Arcbie^patus Can-

z 2

340 APPENDIX

tuar. eidem electo committi, Ip'umq; in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessionem d'ci Arcliie'patus Cantuar. Im-iumq; honorum, dignitatu., preemiucn. et pertinen. suorum vniuersorum inducend. et intronizand. fore decerni, vlteriusq; fieri et statui in premissis ad ea concernen. quibuscunq; quod luris fuerit et Eationis, Supplendo defectus quoscunq; in hac parte interuenien. iuxta faculta- tem vobis concessam, Que proponit et fieri petit pars ista proponens co™ et di™ non arctand. se ad omnia et sing'la premissa proband., nee ad onus Superfine probationis de quo protestatur, Sed quatenus probauerit in premissis, eatenus obtineat in petitis, luris Beneficio et d'ce d'ne n're Eegine gr'a Speciali in omnibus semp*. saluis. V^i*um Ofiicium d'ni ludices antedict. liumil'r implorand.

Processus EXCELLENTISSIME, SERENISSIME,

Electionis. g^ Inuictissime in Xpo. Principi, et d'ne n're

Elizabetlie Dei gr'a Anglie, firancie, et Hibernie Regine, fidei defens. &c. Vestri humiles et deuoti Subditi Nicho- laus Wotton utriusq; luris Doctor, decanus eccl'ie catb. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien., et eiusdem eccPie Cap't'lm., omnimodas ob'iam, fidem, et Subjectionem, gra'm per- petuam et fellcitatem in eo per quern reges regnant et principes dominantur. AD vestre Serenissime Regie Maies- tatis Noticia. deducimus et deduci volumus per p'ntes QM vacante nuper Sede Ai-cliie'pali Cantuarien. predict, per obitum bone memorie R°" in Xpo. p'ris et d'ni, d'ni Reginaldi Pole Cardiaalis, vltimi et immediati Archie- presulis et pastoris eiusdem, nos decanus et Cap't^lm. antedict. habita prius L'nia v*re excellentissimo Maiestatis, ne eadem eccFia cath'is et Metropolitica per sua. diutina. vacationem grauia pateretur Incommoda, ad elcctionem futuri Arcbie'pi et pastoris eiusdem procedere volentes, vicesirno secundo die mensis Julij vltimi preterit, in dome n'ra Cap't'lari eccFie memorate cap't'lariter congregati et CapH'lm. ib'm facientes diem Martis viz. primu. Diem p'ntis mensis Augusti, ae hor. nona. et decimam ante meridiem eiusdem dici, ac domu. Cap't'larcm predict, cum

APPENDIX 341

Continuatione et prorogatione Dierum et hor. extunc Bequen. et Locorum (si oporteat) in ea parte fiend., nobis- metip*is tunc ib'm p^ntibus, et alijs eiusdem eccFie canonicis et prebendarijs absentibus, lus, voces, aut Inter- esse in electione futuri Arcbie^pi eccFie memorate baben- tibus sen babere pretendentibus futuri Arcbie'pi et pastoris prefate eccFie (diuina fauente Clementia) celebrand. pro Termino et Loco competen. prefiximus et assignauimus. Ad quos quidem diem bor. et domu. Cap't'larem an' diet, omnes et sing'los Canonicos pred'ce eccFie Jus, voces, aut Tnteresse in b'mo'i electione et electionis negocio babentes in Specie, ceterosq; omnes alios et sing'Ios (Si qui essent) qui de lure seu Consuetudine in bac parte lus et interesse babere pretenderent in genere, ad procedend. et procedi vidend. nobiscum in eodem electionis negocio, ac in omni- bus et singulis Actis vsq; ad finalem expedic'o'em eiusdem, iuxta morem antiquu. et laudabile. Consuetudine. eccl'ie pred'ce in bac parte ab antique vsitat. et inconcusse ob- servat. Ftime et peremptorie, citandos, et euocandos, et monendos fore decreuimus, et in ea parte I'ras Citatorias fieri in forma efficaci valida, et assueta, fecimus, Necnon p'tatem et Mandatum diFco nobis in Xpo. Nicbolao Simpson in ea parte commisimus. Cum intimatione, Quod siue ip'i sic citati in b'mo'i electionis negocio die bor. et Loco pred'cis comparuerint sine non, Nos nibilominus in eodem negocio procederemus et procedere intenderemus, ip'orum citatorum ab'ia siue Contumacia in aliquo non obstan. QUO quidem die Martis viz. prime die mensis Augusti adueniente, inter boras prius assignatas, Nos decanus et Cap't'lm. an' diet. (Campana ad Cap't'lm. cele- brand. primitus pulsata) domum Cap't'larem eccFie catb'is pred'ce ingressi et Cap't'bn. ib'm celebrantes, in Dilecti nobis in Xpo. lobannis Incent Notarij pu*=' ac Testium inferius no'i'atorum p'ntijs. L'niam v're Serenissime Eegie Mat^^ supradict., Necnon Tras Citatorias de quibus supra fit Mentio, vnacu. Certificatorio super executione earundem per Nicbolau. Simpson Mandatarium n'rum an^d'cmn^

342 APPENDIX

coram nobis tunc et ib^m introductas et exliibitas pu""" perlegi fecimus, Quarum quidem L^nie, Prarum Cita- toriarum, et Certificatorij Tenores de verbo ad verbum sequuntur et sunt talesj — ELIZABETH Dei gr^a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie E-egina, ffidei Defens. etc. Dilectis nobis in Xpo. Decano et Cap't'lo eccFie Metropolitice Cantuar. Salutem. Ex parte v'ra nobis est bumiFr suppli- catum, Yt cum eccFia predicta, per mortem naturalem Eeuerendissimi in Xpo. patris et d'ni, d'ni Eeginaldi Pole, Cardinalis vltimi Archie'pi eiusdem iam vacat, et pastoris sit Solatio destituta^ alium vobis eligend. in Archie^pum et pastorem, L'niam n^ram fundatoriam, vobis concedere dignaremur, Nos precibus v^ris in hac parte fauorabil'r in- clinati, L*niam illam vobis duximus concedend., Eogantes, Q'd talem vobis eligatis in Arcbie'pum et pastorem qui deo deuotus nobisq; et Eegno n'ro vtilis et fidelis existat. In cuius Eei Testimonium bas Fras n'ras* fieri fecimus patentes. Teste meip^a apud. Westm. decimo octauo die Julij, Anno Eegni n^ri primo \

NICHOLAUS WOTTON vtriusq; luris Doctor, de- canus eccFie catb'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, et eiusdem eccFie Cap^tTm, Dilecto nobis in Xpo. Nicbolao Simpson cl'ico SaFtm. Cum Sedes Archie'palis Cantur. predict, per obitum Eeuerendissimi in Xpo. p'ris et d'ni, d'ni Eeginaldi Pole Cardinalis vltimi Arcbi'epi eiusdem iam vacat, et Arcldepresulis siue Pastoris Solatio destituta existit, Nos decanus et Cap't'lm. predict, in Domo Cap't'lari eccFie anted'ce die subscript, atq; ad efiectum infrascriptum, (L'nia Eegia primitus habita et obtenta) Cap't^lariter con- gregati et Cap't^lm. facien., ne Archie'patus pi'edict. sue vacationis diutius deploraret Incommoda, nobismetip'is pro tunc p^ntibus, Ac omnibus alijs Canonicis eiusdem eccl'ie tunc absentibus, lus et voces in electione futuri Archie'pi eiusdem eccFie habentibus, diem Martis viz. primum Diem prox. sequentis Mensis Augusti ac lior.

* " N'ras " is interlined in another hand.

* Also in Ryiner xv. 436 : from the Rolls.

APPENDIX 343

nonam et decimam ante meridiem eiusdem diei^ et domum Cap^t^larem predict, cum continuatione et prorogatione dierum et liorarum extunc sequen. (Si oporteat) in ea parte fienda, ad electionem futuri ArcMe'pi prefate eccl'ie (deo fauente) celebrand. pro Termino et Loco competen. pre- fiximus et assignauimus, Necnon ad diem, hor. et locum predict, omnes et sing'los ip'ius eccl'ie catVis et Metro - politico Xpi. Cantuar. Canonicos et prebendaries tarn p'ntes quam ab'entes lus et voces in li'mo'i electione et electionis negocio li'entes, ad faciend. exercend. et expe- diend. omnia et Sing'la que circa electionem h'mo'i in ea parte n'cc'ria fuerint, seu de lure aut Consuetudine eccl'ie pred'ce vel liuius incliti Regni Anglie Statutis q'moTt requisita, vsq; ad finalem eiusdem negotij expedic'o'em inclusiue, per Citation. I'ras siue Scliedulas in Stallis Pre- bendarum suar. iuxta morem preteriti Temporis ac Statuta et laudabiles Consuetudines eccl'ie pred'ce bactenus ab antique in ea parte vsitat. et observat. aflSgend., et ib'm dimittend. peremptorie citandos et monendos fore decreui- mus lusticia mediante, Tibi ig'r committimus et mandamus Tenore p'ntium, Quatenus cites seu citari facias peremp- torie omnes et Sing'los prefate eccl'ie catb'is et Metro- politice Xpi. Cant. Canonicos prebendatos in Stallis eorum in Chore eiusdem eccl'ie (Citation. I'ris et Scbedulis in ip'is Stallis pu'^^ affixis et ib'm dimissis) Quos nos etiam Tenore p'ntium sic citamus, Q'd compareant et eoru. Quilibet compareat, coram nobis pred'co prime die mensis Augusti, in Dome Cap't'lari pred'ca, et inter bor. nonam et decima. ante meridiem eiusdem Diei, cum Continuatione et prorogatione Dierum et borarum extunc Sequentium (Si oporteat) in ea parte fiend, in prefate electionis negocio, et in sing'lis Actis eiusdem, vsq; ad finalem d'ci Negocij expedic'o'em inclusiue fiend., I'time processur. et procedi visur. Ceteraq; omnia et sing'la aba factur. subitur. et auditur. que b'mo'i electionis negocij Natura et Qualitas, de se exigunt et requirunt, Intimando nihilominus citatis pred'cis omnibus et Sing'lis harum Serie, Q'd siue ip'i

344 APPENDIX

inxta effectum Citationis h'mo'i die, hor. et loco pred^ci? nobiscum comparuerint siue non, Nos tamen eisdem die hor. et loco in diet, electionis negocio, vsq; ad finalem expedic'o'em eiusdem inclusiue procedemus, prout de lure et Consuetudine fuerit,, procedend., eorum sic citatorum absentijs siue Contumacijs in aliquo non obstan. Et quid in premissis feceritis, Nos dictis die bor. et loco debite certificare cures vnacu p^ntibus. Dat. in Domo n'ra Cap't'lari vicesimo secundo die mensis lulij Anno d'ni MilFimo, Quingen", Quinquagesimo Nono.

VENERABILIBUS et eximijs viris mag'ris Nicbolao Wotton utriusq; luris Doctori, decano eccFie catb' et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. et eiusdem eccFie Cap't'lo, Vester bumilis et deuotus, Nicbolaus Simpson cFicus, vester ad Infrascripta Mandatarius rite et I'time deputatus, omni'odas Eeueren. et ob'iam cum obsequij exbibitione, tantis viris debit. Mandatum v'rum Reuerendum p'ntibus annex. xxij<* die mensis lulij vltimi preteriti bumiFr. recepi exequend., Cuius auc^te et vigore, d'co xxij** die lulij per affixionem d'ci v^ri Mandati in Stallo v'ri prefati d'ni decani infra Cborum eiusdem ecc^lie catVis et Metropoli- tice, atq; per affixionem Citationum Scbedularu. in sing'lis Stallis Canonicorum et prebendariorum d'ce eccl'ie iuxta vim, forma, et effectum mandati v'ri Citatorij b'mo*i pu<=^ affixarum, et ib'm dimissarum, omnes et sing'los Canonicos Prebendas in d'ca eccl'ie obtinentes, in electione futuri Arcbie'pi eiusdem eccFie, lus, voces, et Interesse h'entes, aut babere pretendentes p^emptorie citari feci, Q^d com- parerent et eorum Quilibet compareret coram vobis, die, hor. et Loco in Mandato v'ro Eeuerendo predicto specifi- catis vnacum Continuatione et prorogatione dierum et horaru. (Si oporteat) extunc sequen., vobiscum tunc et ib'm in b'mo'i electione et electionis negocio iuxta luris exigentiam et d'ce eccFie catb'is consuetudines processur. et procedi visur. vsq; ad finalem expeditionem eiusd. in- clusiue, Ylteriusq; factur. in ea parte quod Tenor et tff'cus d'ci v'ri ]\Iandati de se exignnt et rcquirunt, Inti*

APPENDIX 345

mando insuper, et intimari feci, eisdem sic citatis, Q'd siue ip^i dictis die, her. et loco vobiscum comparuerint sine non, Vos niMlominus eisdem die, hor. et loco cum Con- tinuatione, et prorogatione dierum et horaru. Vmo^i, extunc sequen., iuxta luris Exigentiam et preteriti Tem- poris Obseruantia. in b'mo'i electionis negocio procedere intenditis, ip'orum Citatorum Contumacia ab'iaq; siue Negligentia in aliquo non obstan. Et sic Mandatu. v^rum pred'cum in forma mibi demandata, debite exequi feci et causani. No'i'a vero et cogno^i'a pred'corum Canonicorum (vt premittitur) citatorum inferius describuntur, In cuius Eei Testimonium Sigillum venerabilis viri Officialis d'ni Arcb'ni Cant, p'ntibus apponi procuraui. Et nos Officialis antedictus ad Sp^ialem Rogatum d'ci Certificantis Sigillu. n'rum t^mo^i p'ntibus apposuimus : dat. quoad Sigilli Appensionem primo die mensis Augusti Anno d'ni Mill^imo Quingen'', Quinquagesimo, Nono. Mr. loVes Milles, Mr. Artburus Sentleger, Mr. Hugo TurnebuU, Mr. Eicbardus ffawcet, Mr. Radius Jackson, Mr. Robertus Collins, Mr. loh'es Knigbt, Mr. WilFmus Darrell, Mr. Tbomas Wood, Mr. Mcbolaus Harpesfeld, Mr. lob^es Butler. QVIBTJS omnibus et Singulis premissis sic gestis et expe- ditis, omnibusq; et Singulis pred'ce eccFie Canonicis, lus et voces in h^mo'i electione et electionis negocio babentibus sen habere pretendentibus I'time et peremptorie ad eosdem diem, bor. et Locum citatis ad foras d^ce Domus Cap^t^laris pu'=® preconizatis Comparentibus p'sonaPr vna nobiscum d'co decano, mag^ris lob'e Milles, Artburo Sentleger, Will^mo Darrell, et lob'e Butler, prefate eccFie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. Canonicis et Prebendarijs, Nos decanus et Cap't'lm antedict. sic cap't^lariter con- gregat. preno^i'atum lob' em Incent Notarium publicum in Actorum Scribam electionis pred'ce assumpsimus, Nec- non mag'rum loVem Armerar cFicum et Gilbertum Hide gener. in Testes eiusdem electionis negocij et agendorum in eodem p'sonaFr tunc p'ntes elegimus, et eos rogauimus nobiscum ib'm remanere. Et mox Nos Nicbolaus Wotton

346 APPENDIX

decanus an' diet de Consensu d'corum Canonicoru. et Pre- bendariorum predict, tunc p'ntium in h'mo'i electionis negocio procedentes^ omnes et sing'los alios Canonicos et Prebendaries, ad eosdem Diem, tor. et locu. citatos, pu** alta voce ut supra preconizatos, diu expectatos, et nullo modo comparentes pronunciauimus Contumaces, et in pena. Contumaciaru. suarum li'mo'i, ad vlteriora in d'co electionis negocio procedend. fore decreuimus, eorum ab'ia sine Contumacia in aliquo non obstante — in Scriptis per nos sub li'mo'i verborum tenore lectis. IN DEI NOTE AMEN Nos Nicbolaus Wotton vtriusq; luris Doctor, decanus eccPie catli'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. de vnanimi Assensu et Consensu Cap't'li eiusdem eccl'ie omnes et sing'los Canonicos et Prebendaries eccPie memo- rate ad bos diem et locum ad procedend. in negocio elec- tionis futuri Arcbie'pi et pastoris eccl'ie cath. predicte iuxta morem preteriti Temporis in eadem eccFia vsitat. et obsei'vat. Ttime et peremptorie citatos, pu*'^ preconizatos diu viz. in lior. locum et Tempus rite assignat. expec- tatos, et nullo modo comparentes pronunciamus Contu- maces, et in pena. Contumaciarum suarum li'mo'i et eorum cuiuslibet decernimus Jus et p'atem procedend. in h'mo'i electionis negocio ad alios Canonicos comparentes spectare et pertinere, et ad vlteriora in eodem electionis negocio procedend. fore ip'orum citatorum et non compa- fentium ab'ia sine Contumacia in aliquo non obstante. HIJS EXPEDITIS Nos Nicliolaus Wotton decanus ante- dictus de consimilibus consensu, assensu, et voluntate eorundem Canonicorum et Prebendariorum tunc p'ntium, quasdam Monitionem et protestationem in Scriptis simul redact, et concept, fecimus et pu"^ legebamus tunc et ib'm sub b'mo'i sequitur verborum tenore.

IN DEI NOTE AMEN Nos Nicbolaus Wotton vtriusq; luris doctor, decanus eccFie cath. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. vice n'ra ac vice et no'i'e omniu. et Sing'lorum Canonicorum et Confratrum n'rorum tie jam p'ntium monemus omnes et Sing'los Suspenses, exco'icatos, et

APPENDIX 347

interdictos (Si qui forsan inter nos hie iam sint) qui de lure seu Consuetudine aut quauis alia occasione^ seu causa^ in p^nti electionis negocio interesse non debent, Q^d de hac dome Cap't'lari statim iam recedant, ac nos et alios de p'nti Cap^t'lo, ad quos lus et p'tas eligendi pertinet libere eligere permittant, protestando o'ibus via modo et luris forma melioribus et efficacioribus quibus melius et ejffica- tius possumus et debemus no'i'e n^ro ac vice et no'i'e o'ium et sing^lorum Canonicorum^ Prebendariorum, et confratrum n^rorum predict, bic iam p'ntium, Q^d non est n^ra nee eorum voluntas admittere tanq; lus^ voces, et Interesse in b'mo'i electione babentes, aut procedere vel eligere cum eisdem, Immo volumus et volunt qM voces Taliu. (Si que postmodu, reperiantur) quod absit, in h^mo^i electione interuenisse, nulli prestent auxiliu. nee afferant alicui nocumentum, Sed prorsus pro non receptis_, et non habitis nullisq; et inualidis penitus et omnino babeantur et censeantur, Canonicos vero omnes pontes pro pleno Cap^t^lo eccFie pred'ce babendos et censendos fore debere pronu'ciamus et declaramus in hiis Scriptis. CONSEQUENTER vero declarat. pu« per nos Nicbolau. Wotton anted'cum decanu. Cap't^lo ® (Quia propter diuer- sas &c.) Expositisq; per nos Tribus modis electionis, Ounctisq; Canonicis tunc p^ntibus pu^ce percontatis, secundu. quem modu. siue quam viam illarum trium in d^co Cap't^lo (Quia propter diuersas &c.) comprebensarum in b'mo'i electionis negocio procedere voluerint, Nos decanus et Cap't'lm. an' diet, de et super forma electionis b'mo'i, ac per quam viam siue forma, fuerit nobis proce- dend. ad electionem futuri Arcbie'pi eccFie catb'is et Metro- politice Xpi. Cantuarien. predict, diligenter tractauimus, et tandem nobis decano et Canonicis antedict. (vt pre- fertur) tunc ib'm p'ntibus, et Cap't'lm in ea parte facien. visum est et placuit nobis decano, ac omnibus et singulis Buprad'ciSj nullo n'rum discrepante seu contradicente per

6 Sc. Decretal. Greg. IX. lib. I. tit. vi. De Elect, et Elpoti Potestato, cap. 42.

348 APPENDIX

viam seu formam Compromissi in li'mo^i electionis negocio procedere^ ac tunc et ib'm in Yenerabilem virum mag'rum Nicliolau. Wotton decanu. anted^cum sub certis expres- satis Legibus et Conditionibus, Ita q'd d'cus Compromis- sarins priusq; e domo Cap't'lari predict, recederet, et antequam Cap^t'lm b'mo'i solneretur, vnum virum ido- neum in Arcbie^pum et pastorem eccFie memorate eligeret compromisimus_, Promittentes nos bona fide ilium accep- tatur. in n'rum et d'ce eccFie Arcbie'pum, quern ip'e Compromissarius sub modo et forma prenotatis duxerit eligend. et prouidend. HIISQ; in tunc modum dispositis, prefatus mag'r Nicbolaus Wotton Compromissarius ante- d^cuSj Onus Compromissi b'mo'i in se acceptans, Vota sua in Yenerabilem virum mag'rum Mattbeum Parker sacre Tbeologie Professorem iuxta et secundu. p'tatem sibi in bac parte factam et concessam ac Compromissionem pred'cam direxit, Ip'umque in Arcbie'pum et pastorem eiusdem eccl'ie elegit^ et eccFie pred'ce de eodem prouidebat, prout in Scbedula Tenorem et forma. Compromissi electionis et prouisionis predict. Continen., per eundem mag'rum Nicbolau. Wotton pu** lect. (cujus tenor de verbo in verbum sequitur) dilucidius continetur. IN DEI NOTE AMEN. Cum vacante nuper Sede Arcbie'pali Cantuar. per obitum bone memorie Reuerendissimi in Xpo. p'ris D^ni Eeginaldi Pole Cardinalis vltimi Arcbie'pi et pasto- ris eiusdem vocatis et Ptime premonitis ad electionem futuri Arcbiepresulis d^ce Sedis omnibus et Sing'Hs, qui de lure vel Consuetudine d'ce eccFie ad electionem h'mo^i fuerint euocandi ac omnibus qui debuerint aut potuerint h'mo'i electionis negocio commode interesse, in Domo Cap't^lari antefate eccPie^ Termino ad d'cam electionem celebrand. prefixo et assignato, p'ntibus et cap't'lariter congregatis, placuerit Decano, omnibusq; et Singulis eiiisdem eccFie Cap't'li nemine contradicente vel dis- crepante, per via. seu formam Compromissi, de future Sedis predict. Arcbie'po prouidcre, ac mihi Nicholao Wotton eccFie catb'is et MetropoUtice Xpi. Cantuar, pre-

APPENDIX 349

dicte decano, lus et vocem in h^mo'i electionis negocio habenti, Compromissario in hac parte speciaFr et Ftime electo plenam et liberam dederint et concesserint^ p^tatem, auc^tem, et mandatu. Speciale die isto antequam ab bac domo Cap't^lari recederem^ ac recederent, et Cap't'lo durante, p^sona. babilem et idoneam in Arcbie^pum et pastorem d'ce eccFie' et eidem prouidendi prout ex Tenore dicti Compromissi manifeste Hquet et apparet : Ego JSTicbolaus Wotton Decanus an^d'cus. Onus Compro- missi b^mo^i acceptans in venerabilem virum mag'rum Mattbeum Parker, Sacre Tbeologie professorem vota mea dirigens, virum vtique prouidum et discretum, I'rarum Scientia, vita, et moribus merito commendatu., Hberu. et de Ftimo m'rimonio procreatum, atq: in etate Ftima et ordine Sacerdotali constitutu., in Sp'uabbus et Temporab- bus plm-imu. circmnspectum, scientem, volentem et valen- tem, lura et Libertates d^ce eccFie tueri, et defendere, vdce mei, viceq; Loco, et no^i^e, totius Cap't'b eiusdem eccFie, pred'cum venerabilem virum, mag'rum Mattbeu. Parker premissorum meritorum suorum intuitu in Arcbie'- pum et pastorem eiusdem eccFie catb'is et Metropobtice Xpi. Cantuar., infra Tempus mibi ad boc datu. et assigna- tum ebgo in communi, et eidem eccFie prouideo de eodem in biis scriptis : DEINDE Nos Decanus, et Cap't^bn, antedict. prefatam electionem et p'sonam electam, vtpote rite factam, et celebratam obuijs vlnis amplexantes, ac eam, ratam, gratam, et fii-ma. babentes, eundem mag'rum Mattbeu. Parker, electum in Arcbie'pum et pastorem prefate eccFie, quatenus in nobis fuit, aut est acceptauimus, et electionem b'mo'i approbauimus. CONSEQUENTER vero, Nos decanus et Cap't'lm antedict., prefato mag'ro WilFmo Darrell p'tatem dedimus et concessimus, elec- tionem n'ram b'mo'i et p'sona. electam, Clero et populo pala. publicand. declarand. et manifestand. prout moris est, atq; in Simibbus de vsu laudabib fieri assolet. POS-

^ " Eligendi " has obviously been omitted by inadvertence. In the folio edition of Bramhall's Works the word is inserted, but it is not in the Register.

850 APPENDIX

TREMO vero Nos decanus et Cap't'lm antedict. domu n'ram Cap^t'larem antedict. egredientes, et Cliorimi eccrie memorate intrantes, hymnu., Te deum laudamus, in Sermone Anglico per ministros Chori solemniter decantari fecimus. Quo p'acto, prefatus mag'r Will'mus Darrell iuxta p'tatem sibi elargitam ministris eiusdem eccl'ie ac plebi tunc coadunate^ electionem n'ram h'mo'i et p'sona. electam verbo tenus publicauit^ et denunciauit^ ac decla- rauit. QUE O'lA et singula Nos decanus et Cap't'hn an' diet, pro officij n'ri debito v're Serenissime maiestati sub Serie in boc processu inserta_, duximus significand., Eidem ma" v're bumiPr et obnixe supplicantes, Quatenus electioni n're b'mo'i sic (ut premittitur) facte, et celebrate. Consensu, et assensu. v'ros regios adhibere, et eandem confirmari facere et mandare dignetur v'ra excellentissima maiestas. Vt (deo optimo maximo Bonorum o'ium Largi- tore fauente et opitulante) d'cus electus et confirmatus nobis preesse valeat, vtiliter pariter et prodesse. Ac nos sub eo et eius Regimine bono possumus deo in d'ca eccl'ia militare. ET VT de premissoru. veritate, v're Clementis- sime Maiestati abunde constare possit, Nos decanus et Cap't'bn an'dict. p'ntem Electionis n're processum, Signo, Nomine, et Cognomine ac Subscriptione Notarij pu" sub- scripti signari et subscribi, n'riq; Sigilli co'is appensione, iussimus et fecimus communiri. Act. in Domo n'ra Cap't'lari predict, primo die mensis Augusti, Anno dn'i MilFimo, Quingen*', Quinquagesimo, Nono.

ET EGO lOH'ES INCENT Cantuarien. Dioc. pub- licus Suprema auc'te regia Notarius in p'nti Electionis negocio in Actorum Scribam assumptus et deputatus, Quia omnibus et Singulis actis eiusdem electionis dum sic (ut premittitur) sub anno D'ni, mense, die, bor. et Loco pred'cis agebantur et fiebant, vnacum Testibus de quibus in p'nti processu fit mentio, p'ns p'sonaPr interfui, eaq; omnia et Sing'la sic fieri, vidi, sciui, et audiui, atq; in notas sumpsi, Ideo boc p'ns publicum electionis dccretum, siue processum, manu mea propria fidel'r Scriptu. exinde

APPENDIX 351

confeci^ Atq; in lianc publicam et auctenticam forma, redegi, Ac no'is et Cogno^is meormn adiectione sub- scripsi^ necnon Signo meo solito et consueto signaui, vnacum appensione Sigilli communis d ^corum decani et Cap't^li, in fidem et Testimonium omniu. et Sing'lorum premissorum Eogatus speciaPr et requisitus.

IN DEI NOTE AMEN pn'tis pu" instru- Instrumenti Serie, Cunctis evidenter appareat Consensu!^^'^ et sit notu., Q'd anno d'ni MilFimo^ Quingen", D'ni electi. Quinquagesimo Nono, Mensis vero Augusti die sexto in quodam inferiori Coenaculo infra Manerium Arcliie'pi Cantuarien. apud Lambehitli winton. Dioc. notorie sit. et situat. in meiq; Notarij pu'^^ subscripti, ac Testium inferius no^i'atorum p^ntijs venerabiles et eximij myc\, mag^'i WilPmus darreU, CFcus, Canonicus et Prebendarius eccl'ie catVis et Metropolitice Xpi. Can- tuarien,, et Antlionius Huse Armiger, reaFr exbibuerunt quoddam Procuratorium Sigillo communi et Cap^t^lari (vt apparuit) venerabiliu. viroru. d'norum decani et Cap't'li eccl'ie catVis et Metropolitice Xpi. Cant, predict, sigillat. eisdem mag^ris Will'mo et Antbonio, ac mibi lobanni Incent Notario pu'^" subscripto co™ et di"^ fact, et se partem pro eisdem decano et Cap't'lo fecerunt, ac no^i^e Procu^rio eorundem p'ntarunt venerabili et eximio viro mag'ro Mattbeo Parker sacre Tbeologie professori tunc et ib'm p^sonal'r p'nti processum electionis de ip'o et eius p^sona in Arcbie^pum et pastorem eccFie cath'is et Metropolitice XjDi. Cantur. predict, fact, et celebrat., in et sub formis Originalibus eiusdem, Eundemq; mag'rum Mattbeum Parker instanter rogarunt et requiserunt, Quatenus eidem electioni de ip'o et eius p'sona (vt premittitur) facte et celebrate consentire dignaretur: d'co electo asserente, QM licet se tanto manere indignu. iudicaret, Tamen ne ip^e diuine voluntati resistere ac Serenissime d'ne n're Regine Beneplacite (que ip^um licet indignu. prefatis Decano et Cap't'lo commendare dignata est) minime obtemperare videretur, electioni h'mo'i consentiebat, ac Consensu, et

352 APPENDIX

Assensu. suos eidem prebuit in Scriptis per eum lectis Tenorem qui sequitur de verbo in verbum in se complecten. — m DEI NOTE AMEN. Ego Mattheus Parker Sacre Theologie Professor, in ordine Sacerdotali, atq; in state I'tima constitutuSj ac in et de Ftimo m'rimonio pi-ocreatus, in Arcliie'pum et pastorem eccFie catli^is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantur. rite et Ftime no'i^atus et electus. Ad con- sentiend. h^mo'i electioni de me et persona mea in hao parte facte et celebrate ex parte et per partem venerabilium virorum Decani et Cap't'li eiusdem eccFie cath^is et Metro- politice instanter rogatus et requisitus, dei O'ipotentis Clementia fretus, electioni b'mo'i de me et p'sona mea sic (vt premittitur) facte et celebrate, ad honorem Dei omni- potentis p'ris, filij, et Spiritus Sancti consentio, eidemq; Consensu, et Assensu. meos semel atq; iterum Rogatus et interpellatus prebeo in hijs Scriptis. SUPER quibus omnibus et Singulis premissis tarn ip^e electus quam preno^i'ati mag'ri WilFmus Darrell et Anthonius Huse Procu'res an'd'ci me eundem Notarium pu*=". Subscriptum sibi vnum vel plura pu'^". seu pu'=* Instrumentu. siue In- strumenta conficere, ac Testes inferius no'i'atos Testimo- nium exinde perhibere instanter, respectiue rogarunt et requiserunt. Acta fuerunt bee omnia et Sing'la premissa prout supra scribuntur et recitantur Sub anno D^ni, Mense, Die, et Loco pred'cis P'ntibus tunc et ib'm Ricbardo Taverner Armigero, loh'e Baker gener., Radulpbo Jackson et Andrea Peerson cl'icis Testibus ad premissa vidend., audiend., et testificand. rogatis et Special'r requisitis.

ET EGO loh'es Incent Cantuarien. Dioc. publicus sacra et Suprema auc'te regia notarius. Quia premissis omnibus et Singulis dum sic (vt premittitur) sub anno d'ni, mense, die, et loco pred^cis agebantur et fiebant vnacum pre- no'i'atis Testibus p*ns personal'r interfui, eaq; omnia ct Sing'la sic fieri, vidi, sciui et audiui, atq; in notam sumpsi, Ideo boc p'ns publicum Instrumentu. manu mea propria fiderr Scriptu. exinde confeci, Subscripsi, et pubbcaui, A.tq; in banc pa'=*. et auctentica. forma redcgi, Signoq

APPENDIX 353

No'i^e^ Cogno'i^ej et Subscriptione meis solitis et oonsuetis signauij in fidem et Testimonium omniu. et Sing'lormn premissorum Eogatus speciaFr et requisitus.

SUPER LIBELLO sine Summaria jpetitione dat. jper partem venerahiliu. virorum B'nor. decani et Oajp'ifli eccVie cath'is et Metropolitice Xj)i. Cantuarien.

Deposi- JOffES BAKEE gener. mora, traliens

tiones Testiu. i^ p'nti cmn venerabUi et eximio viro mag^ro Mattheo Parker electo Cantur. xxxix annorum etatis, oriundus ia p^ocliia Sancti Clementis in Ciuitate Norwici, libere ut dicit Conditionis et Testis de et super libello pred'co productus^ iuratus^ et exa'i'atus, dicit ut sequitur.

AD PRIMU., S'c'dm., Tertium, Quartum, Quintu., Sextu.^ et Septimu. refert se ad processum in li'mo^i causa habitum et factum.

AD OCTAYU. dicit^ in vim luramenti sui deponit q'd idem R.™"^ p^r Mattteus Parker fuit et est vir prouiduSj ac Sacrarum l^rarum Scientia^ vita et moribus commendatus, ac homo liber et ex l^timo m^rimonio procreatus^ atq; in etate Ftima et in ordine Sacerdotali constitutus et dicte d^ne n're Regiae fidelis Subditus^ reddendo ca'am sci'e sue in bac parte dicit_, Q'd est frater naturalis dicti d^ni electi, suntq; ex vnis parentibus procreati et geniti,

AJ) NONU., decimu.j et vndecimu. refert se ad pro- cessu. b'mo'i.

AD ULTIMU. dicit q'd predeposita per eum sunt vera &c.

WILL'MUS TOLWTN Artium mag'r ac Ro'r eccFie sancti Antonini in Ciuitate London Ixx annoru. etatiSj ut dicit libere conditionis &c., Testis &c.

AD PRIMU.j secundu., Tertium^ Quartum, Quintu., Sextum_, et Septimu. refert se ad processu. b'mo^i.

AD OCTAVU. dicit et deponit Contenta in h'mo'i Articulo esse vera, de eius certa Scientia, quia dicit q^d bene eum nouit per bos xxx annos, ac per idem Tempus secu. admodu. famiHaris fuitj et in p'nti est, Et etiam dicit q'd nouit eius matrem.

A a

354 APPENDIX

AD NONU., decimu., vndecimu. et duodecimu. refert. ^, ,, « ^ IN DEI NOTE AMEN. Nos WiU'mus

S c da Sche- dula contra quondam Bathon. et Wellen. e'pus, nunc oppositores. gigctus Cicestren. loli'es Scorye quondam Cicestren. e'pus, nunc Hereforden. electus^ Milo Cover- dale quondam Exon. e'pus, et loli'es Bedforden. e'pus. Serenisslme in Xpo. Principis et d'ne n're^ d'ne EKza- betlie Dei gr'a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie Eegiue fidei defens. etc. median. I'ris suis regijs commissionalibus paten., ad infrascripta Commissarij cum hac clausula viz. vnacu. D'nis loVe Thetforden. Suffraganeo, et loVe Bale Osseren. e'po_, et etiam bac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor v^rum &c. Necnon et hac adiec- tione, Supplentes nihilominus &c. Special'r et I'time deputati In negocio Confirmationis electionis de p'sona venerabilis et eximij viri mag^ri Mattbei Parker sacre Tbeologie Professoris in Archie'pum Cantuarien. elect) facte et celebrate rite et I'time procedentes, omnes et sing'los Oppositores, qui contra d'cam electionem, sen forma, eiusdem, aut personam electam dicere, excipere, vel opponere voluerint, ad comparend. coram nobis istis die bor. et Loco (Si sua putauerint interesse) contra d'cam electionem, forma, eiusdem, aut p'sona. electam in debita luris forma dictm\, exceptur. et propositur. Ftime et per- emptorie citat. sepius pu'^® preconizatos, diuq; et sufficien- ter expectatos, et nuUo modo comparentes, nee contra d'cam electionem, formam eiusdem aut p'sonam electam, aliquid dicentes, excipientes, vel opponentes, ad petic'o'em Procuratoris decani et Cap't'li Cantuar., pronunciamus contumaces, et in pena. Contumaciarimi suarum h'mo^i decernimus procedend. fore ad prolac^o'em S'nie sine de- creti finalis in hao causa ferendi, ip'orum sic citatorum et non comparentium Contumac. in aliquo non obstan.

Juramentu. I MATTHEWE PARKER elected Arch- de agnosccnd. bussbopp of Canto"^ do uttcrlie testifie & p^toteuT* declare in my Conscyence, That the Quenys

Ue^a. highnes ys thonlie supreme Gouernor of thys

APPENDIX 355

Realme, and of all other her highnes Do'ions & Con- treys^ as well in Spirituall or eccl^iasticall thinges or causes^ as Temporall. And that no forreine prince, p'son, prelate. State, or Potentate, hath or ought to haue any Jurisdiction, power, Superioritie, preeminence, or Authoritie eccl'iasticall or sp'ual within thys realme. And therfore I do utterlie renounce and forsake all forreine Jurisdictions, powers. Superiorities, and authorities. And do promise, that from hensforth I shall bear faith and true Allegyaunce to the Quenys highnes, her heires and lawfull Successours and to my power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, privilege, preeminence, and authorities graunted or Belonginge to the Quenys highnes her heires and Succ^., or united and annexed to th'emperiall Crowne of thys Realme. So helpe me God, and by the Contentis of thys Booke.

IN DEI NOTE AMEN Auditis, visis, et s'nia Diffi- intellectis, ac plenarie et mature discussis ^itiua. per nos WilFum quondam Bathon. et Wellen. e'pum, nunc Cicestren. electum, loh^em Scorye quonda. Cicestren. e'pum, nunc electum Hereforden., Milonem Coverdale quondam Exon. e'pum, et Ioh*em Bedforden. e'pum, Serenissime in Xpo. Principis, et d*ne n*re, d*ne Eliza- bethe, Dei gr'a Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie Regine flSdei Defens. etc. median. I'ris suis regijs Commissionalibus paten, ad infrascripta Commissaries, cum hac clausula, viz, vnacu. d^nis loh'e Thetforden. Sufiraganeo, et loh'e Bale Osseren. e'po, et etiam hac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor v'rum &c. Necnon et hac adiectione. Supplentes nihilominus &c. sp'iaPr et Ftime deputatos, Meritis et Circumstantijs cuiusdam cause sine Negocii Confirmationis electionis de p'sona venerabilis et eximij viri mag'ri Matthei Parker Sacre Theologie Professoris in Archie'pum et pastorem eccl'ie catVis et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. per obitum bone memorie d'ni Reginaldi Pole vltrmi Archie'pi ib'm vacan., electi, facte et cele- brate, quod coram nobis aliquandiu vertebatur, et in

A a 2

356 APPENDIX

p'nti vertitur et pendit indeciss., Eimato primitus per noa Toto et integro processu coram nobis in d^co negocio habit, et facto, atq; diligenter recensit. Seruatisq; per nos de lure et Statutis liuius Eegni Anglie Seruandis, ad n^ri decreti finalis siue S'nie diffinitiue confirmationis in li'mo'i negocio ferende prolac^o'em sic duximus procedend., et procedimus in liunc qui sequitur modu.

QUIA per Acta, exhibita, producta, et probata, coram nobis in b'mo'i Confirmationis negocio, comperimus, et luculenter invenimus, electionem ip'am per decanu. et Cap^t^lm. eccPie catli'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. predict, de prefato venerabili et eximio viro mag'ro Mattbeo Parker electo h^mo^i viro vtiq; prouido et dis- creto, vita et moribus merito commendato, libero, et de rtimo m^rimonio procreate, atq; in etate Ftima et ordine Sacerdotali constitute rite et Ftime fuisse et esse factam et celebrata., nibilq; eidem venerabili viro mag^ro Mattlie(i Parker electo li^mo'i, de eccFiasticis Institutis obuiasse seu obuiare quo minus in Arclue'pum Cantuar. auc^te d'ce illustrissime d'ne n^re Regine merito debeat confirmari. IDOIRCO nos WilPmus nuper Bathon. et Wellen. e'pus, nunc Cicestren. electus, lob'es Scory quondam Cicestren. e'pus, nunc electus Hereforden., Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. e^pus, et loVes Bedforden. e'pus, Commissarij regij an'dicti, attentis premissis et alijs virtutum meritis. Super quibus prefatus electus Cantuarien. fidedigno com- mendatur Testimonio, Xpi. No'i'e primitus inuocato, ac ip'um solum deum oculis n'ris preponentes, de et cum Consilio lurisperitoru., cmn quibus in bac parte communi- cauimus, pred'cam electionem de eodem venerabili viro mag'ro Mattbeo Parker (vt prefertur) factam et celebrata. Suprema auc'te d'ce Serenissime d'ne n're Regine nobis in hac parte commissa confirmamus, Supplentes ex Suprema auc'te Regia ex mero principis motu, ac certa Scientia nobis delegata quicquid in hac Electione fuerit defectum. Tum in hijs que iuxta mandatu. nobis credi- tum, a nobis factum et processu. est, aut in nobis aut

APPENDIX 357

aliquorum n'rormn^ Conditione_, statu, facultate, ad hec perficiend. deest aut deerit. Turn etiam eornm que per Statuta Huius Eegni Anglie_, aut per Leges eccPiasticas in hac parte requisita suiit_, vel n'cc'ria_, prout Temporis Eatio et rerum p^ntium Necessitas id postulant, per lianc n'ram S'niam Diffinitiua. sine hoc n'rum finale decretu., Quam sine quod ad petic'o^em partium ita peten. ferimus et promulgamus in liijs Scrip tis.

EITUUM ET CEEEMONIAEUM OEDO IN CON- SEOEA^ione Reuerendissimi D'ni Matthei Farl<er, Archie'pi Gantur. in Gajpella infra Manerium sun. de LamhehUh die d'ntco viz. decimo Septimo Die mensis decemhris, Anno D'ni MilVimo, Quingen", Quinquagesimo, Nono.

PEINOIPIO Sacellu. Tapetibus ad ori- Ordo Ceie- entem adornabatur, solu. vero panno rubro moniaru. in

. Consccratione

insternebatur, Mensa quoq; sacris peragendis d'ni Matthei n'cc'ria, Tapeto puluinariq; ornata, ad Ori- Parker, entem sita erat.

QTJATUOE preterea Catbedre, quatuor e'pis quibus Munus Consecrandi Arebie^pi delegabatur ad Austrum Orientalis Sacelli partis erant posite.

SCAMNU. preterea Tapeto, pulvinaribusq; instratum, Cui e'pi genibus flexis inniterentur, ante catbedras pone- batur.

PAEI quoq; mode Catbedra, Scamnu^q; Tapeto, pul- vinariq; ornatu. Arcbie^po, ad Borealem Orientalis eiusdem Sacelli partis plagam posita erant ^.

HIJS EEBUS ita ordine suo instructis. Mane circiter quintam aut Sextam, per Occidentalem portam ingreditur Sacellu. Arcbie'pus, toga Talari Coccinea, Caputioq; in- dutus, quatuor precedentibus funalibus, et quatuor comi- tatus e'pis, qui eius Consecrationi inservirent. viz, Wiirmo Barloe quondam Batbon. et Wellen. e'po, nunc electo

* The details here given are not repeated in the records of subsequent consecrations in the volume, except in that of Bishop Curtys in 1571 (fol. 125 b, 126 a). But subsequent records refer to them, as entered (so to say) unce for all.

358 APPENDIX

Cicestren., loK'e Scorj quonda. Cicestren. e'po^ nunc Hereforden. electo, Milone Coverdale quondam Exon. e'po, et lohanne Bedforden. Suffraganeo^ Qui omnes postq; Sedes sibi paratas ordine singuli suo occupassent, preces continuo Matutine per Andrea. Peerson Ai'chie'pi Capellanum clara voce recitabantur, Quibus peractis lollies Scory de quo supradiximus, Suggestum conscendit, atq; inde assumpto sibi in Thema 8eniores ergo qui in vohis sunt ohsecro consenior etc. non ineleganter conciona- batur.

FINITA Concione, egrediuntur simul Arcliie'pus, reliquiq; quatuor e'pi Sacellu., se ad Sacram Conimunione. paraturi; neq; Mora confestim per Borealem portam ad tunc modum vestiti redeunt, Arcliie'pus nimirum Linteo superpelliceo (quod vocant) induebatur, Cicestren. electus Capa Serica ad Sacra peragenda paratus vtebatur, Cui ministrabant^ operamq; suam prebebant, duo Arcliie^pi Capellani viz. Nicbolaus Bullingh^m Lincoln, et Edmundus Gest Cantuarien. respectiue Arclii'ni, capis Sericis similar vestiti, Hereforden. electus et Bedforden. Suffraganeus Linteis superpelliceis induebantur.

MILO vero Coverdallus non nisi Toga Lanea Talari vtebatur.

ATQ; liunc in modum vestiti et instructi ad CoMonem celebrandam perrexerunt, Arcbie^po genibus flexis ad infimu. Sacclli gradu. sedente.

FFINITO tandem Evangelio, Hereforden. electus, Bedforden. Suffraganeus, et Milo Coverdale (de quibus supra) Arcliie*pum coram Cicestren. electo, apud Mensam in Cathedra sedente, bijs verbis adduxerunt, Rcuerende in deo pater, bunc vii'um piu. pariter atq; doctum, Tibi offerimus atq; p'ntamus, ut Arcliic^pus consecrctur, postq; bee dixissent, proferebatur illico Regium diploma sine Mandatum pro Consecratione Archie'pi, Quo per D. Thomam Yale Legum doctorem perlecto, Sacramentu. de regio primatu sine Suprema eius auc'te tuenda, iuxta Statuta prime Anno Regni Serenissime Rcgine n're

APPENDIX 859

Elizabethe edita et promulgata, ab eodem Ai'cliie'po exige- batur, quod cum ille solemniter Tactis corporarr sacris Evangelijs conceptis verbis prestitisset, Cicestren. electus populu. ad orationem bortatus, ad Letanias decantandas cbox'o r^ondente se accinxit, Quibus finitis post Questiones aliquot Archie'po pei' Cicestren. electum propositas, et post Orationes et Suffragia quedam iuxta formam libri auc*te parliamenti editi apud deum babita, Cicestren., Hereforden., Suffraganeus Bedforden. et Milo Coverdallus ® Manibus ArcMe'po impositis dixerunt Anglice viz. " Take tbe boUie gost, & remember tbat tbou stirre upp tbe grace of God_, wbicb ys in tbe by Imposicon of bandes, for God batb not giuen us tbe spirite of feare. But of Power, & Loue, & Sobemes." Hijs dictis, Biblia sacra ilU in Manibus tradiderunt, b'mo'i apud eum verba Vntes, " Gyve bede unto tby readinge, exbortacon, & Doctrine, tbinke uppon tbes tbinges, conteyned in tbys Booke, be diligent in tbem tbat tbe increase comminge tberbye may be manifest unto all men ; Take bede unto tby self, & unto tby Teacbinge, & be diligent in Doinge tbem for by doinge tbys, tbou sbalt saue tby self, & tbem tbat bear tbee tbrougb Jesus Xpe. our Lord." Postq; bee dixissent, ad reliqua Communionis solemnia pergit Cicestren., nullu. Arcbie'po tradens pastorale bacculum, cum quo co'icabant Arcbie'pus, et quatuor iUi e*pi supra no'i^ati, cum alijs etiam nonnullis.

FFINITIS tandem peractisq; Sacris egreditur per Borealem Orientalis Sacelli partis porta. Arcbie'pus, quatuor illis comitatus e'pis qui eum consecrauerant, et confestim eisdem ip^is stipatus e^pis per eandem reuertitur portam, albo e^pab SuperpelHceo, Crimeraq;^ (ut vocant) ex nigro Serico indutus, cii'ca collu. vero Collare quoddam ex preciosis peUibus Sabellinis (vulgo Sables vocant) consutu. gestabat. Pari quoq; modo Cicestren. et Here-

' It will be observed tbat no distinction is made between the presiding Pishop and tbe assistant Bishops in this particular case. > ? Chimera.

360 APPENDIX

forden. suis E'palibus amictibus^ Superpelliceo et Crimero, vterq; induebatur. Coverdallus vero et Bedforden. Suffra- ganeus togis solum modo talaribus vtebantur. Pergens deinde Occidentalem portam versus, Archie'pus, Thome Doyle Iconimo, Joanni Baker, Thesaurario, et Joh'i Marcli Compute, rotulario, Singulis sing'los albos dedit Bacculos, hoc scz. modo eos muneribus et Officijs suis ornans.

HIJS itaq; hunc ad modum ordine suo (yt iam ante- d'eum est) peractis, per Occidentalem portam Sacellu. egreditur Ajchie^pus generosioribus quibusq; Sanguine ex eius familia eum preceden. reliquis vero eum a Tergo Sequentibus.

ACTA, gestaq; hec erant omnia et Singula in p'ntia Eeuerendoru. in Xpo. patrum, Edmundi Grindall London e'pi electi, Ricliardi Cockes Elien. electi, Edwini Sandes, Wigorn. electi, Antkonii Huse Armigeri principalis et primarii Reg'rarii d'ci Arckie'pi, Thome Argall armigeri Reg'rarii Curie Prerogatiue Cantur., Thome Willett et loh'is Incent notariorum publicoru., et aliorum non- nullorum.

Mandatu. WILL'MUS BAELOWE, e^s Cices-

directu. Arch- trens ^, loh'es Scory e'pus Hereforden '.,

I'no Cantua- t i >

rien. ad in- Milo Coverdale nuper Exon. e pus, et ioh es Su'T'num. e'pus Suffraganeus Bedforden., illustrissime Archie'pum. in Xpo. Principis et d'ne n*re, d'ne EHza> bethe Dei gr'a, Anglie, ffrancie, et Hibernie Regine, fidei defens. &c. ad infrascripta median. Tris Commissionalibus paten, d'ce Illustrissime d^ne n're Regine nobis in hac parte direct. Commissarij inter alios cum hac clausula, Quatenus vos aut ad minus quatuor Vrum &c. et etiam cum hac adiectione, Supplentes nihilominus &c. SpeciaPr et rtime deputati et constituti, Yenerabili viro mag'ro Edmundo Gest Archi'no Cantuar. Sal't'm in D'no sem- piterna, QUU. vacante nuper Sede Archie'pali Cantua- tien. per mortem naturalem d'ni Reginaldi Pole Cardi- ' They had now (Dec. 20) been confirmed in their new sees,

APPENDIX 361

nalis vltimi et itmnediati Archie^pi eiusdem^ Decanus et Cap't^'lm. ecc?ie cath'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. (L'nia regia primitus in ea parte petita et obtenta) Reue- rendissimum in Xpo. p'rem, d^nm. Mattheu. Parker sacre Theologie professorem in eorum et d'ce eccFie catli'is e^pum et pastorem elegerint^ et eccFie catli'i pre- dict, prouiderint de eodem; Quam quide. Electione. et p'sona. sic electam (Seruatis de lure et Statutis liujus incliti Eegni Anglie in ea parte Seruandis) Nos auc^te Frarum Commissionaliu. paten, d^ce illustrissime d'ne n're Regine nobis (vt premittitur) direct, rite et Ftime con- firmauimus eidemq; Curam^ Regimen, et Administratione. d^ci Arcliie'patus Cantuarien. commisimus, Necnon Munus Consecrationis eidem (adhibitis de ritu et more eccFie Anglicane Suffragijs et Insignijs adhibendis) impendimus, iuxta Statuta huius incliti Eegni Anglie in bac parte pie et sancte edita et sancsita, Ip'umq; Reuerendissimu. p'rem sic confirmatu. et consecratu. in realem, actuale., et corpo- ralem possessionem d^ci Arcbie^patus Cantuar. luriumq; et pertinen. suorum vninersorum inducend. inuestiend. installand. et intronizand. fore decreuimus et man- dauimus ^, Tibi ig'r barum Serie luris ordine id exi- gente, firmiter precipiendo mandamus, Quatenus prefatu. Reuerendissimu. p^rem sen procu'rem suu. Ftimum (eius no'i^e) in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessione. d^ci Arcliie'patus Cantuarien., luriumq; Honorum, Dignitatu., et pertinen. suorum vniuersorum inducas, inuestias, installes, et intronizes, seu sic induci, inuestiri, installari, et intronizari facias cum effectu, Catbedramq; siue Sedem Arcbie^palem in eadem eccFia ei (vti moris est) assignes, et eum in eade. Catbedra siue Sede Arcbie'pali imponas, cum omni bonore debit., Adbibitis de more adbibendis, aut ita fieri et imponi cures prout decet. In cuius Rei Testimonium, Sigillu. Ofiicialitatis alme Curie Cantuarien. p'ntibus apponi fecimus et procurauimus. Dat. Londini

* " Mandamus " overlined into " Mandavimus."

362 APPENDIX

ultimo Die mensis decembris Anno d'ni Mill'imo, Quingeu"

Quinquagesimo, nono.

Aiiudman- EDMUNDUS GEST Arclii*nus Cantua,

dlctii. Archi- rien.. Ad quem Inductio, installatio, et in-

diacouu. ad tronizatio o'ium et Singulorum E'porum

efiectu. p die- ^ _ _ ° _ _ ^

tu. [Cominis- Cantuarien. Provincie, de laudabili, longeuaq;

Arch'na!^ad ®* Ftime prescripta Consuetudine no- Inthronizand. torie dinoscuntur pertinere, Venerabilibus

&c. facta &c. .

inab'nia ViriS * * *

sua ^.]

Sal't'm in D'no sempiterna. Quum vacante nuper Sede Arcbie'pali Cantuarien. per mortem naturalem d'ni Reginaldi Pole vltimi Arcbie'pi ib'm, decanus et Cap't'lm. eccl'ie catli'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. (L'nia regia primitus in ea parte petita et obtenta), Reueren- dissimu. in Xpo. p'rem, d'nm. Mattbeu. Parker sacre Theologie professorum in eorum et d*ce eccFie Archie'pum et pastorem elegerint, Cumq; preterea Reuerendi in Xpo. p'res d'ni WiU'mus Barloe Cicestren. e'pus, lob'es Scorye e'pus Hereforden., Milo Coverdale quondam Exon. e'pus et lob'es e'pus Suffraganeus Bedforden., auc^te Trarum Commissionaliu. paten, illustrissime in Xpo. Principis et d'ne n're, d'ne Elizabetbe Dei gr'a Anglie, flfrancie, et Hibernie Regine, lidei defens. &c. eis in hac parte direct, sufficienter et I'time fulciti, Electionem pred'cam de p'sona prefati Reuerendissimi p'ris (vt premittitm*) factam et celebratam, et * personam sic electam (Seruatis de Jui-e et Statutis huius incliti Regni Anglie in hac parte ser- uandis) confirmauerint, eidemq; Reuerendissimo in Xpo. p'ri., Curam, Regimen, et Administrationem d*ci Ai'chie*- patus Cantur. commiserint, Nccnon Munus Consecrationia eidem R" p'ri (adbibitis de ritu et more eccl'ie Anglicane Suflfragijs et Insignijs adhibendis) impenderint iuxta Statuta buius incliti Regni Anglie in bac parte pie et

* The words between brackets are added in another hand.

* A bhink left for the names, which has not been filled up.

* " Et " is interlined in a difiercnt hand.

APPENDIX 363

sancte edita et sancsita^ Nobisq; dederint in mandatis, Quatenus Nos prefatum Eeuerendissimu. p'rem sic con- firmatu. et consecratum seu procu'rem suum Ftimum (eius no^i'e) in realem, actualem, et corporale. posses- sionem d'ci Arcliie'patus Cantur.^ luriumq; et pertinen. suorum. vniuersorum induceremus_, installaremus et intro- nizaremus^ prout per eorum Tras nobis in ea parte factas et inscriptas plenius liquet et apparet^ Quia nos imp'ntia- rum quibusdam arduis et vrgentibus negocijs adeo sumus impliciti et remorati, QM executioni officij n'ri h^mo^i vacate non valemus vti optamus, Vobis ig'r et v'rum cuilibet co™ et di™ de quorum Circumspectione et Indus- tria Sp'ialem in d'no fiduciam obtinemus, ad inducend. prelibatu. Eeuerendissimu. p'rem seu procu'rem suu. Ftimum (eius no'i'e) in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessione. antedicte eccl'ie catb'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien., luriumq; et pertinen. suorum universorum, eundemq; Eeuerendissimum p'rem seu eius Procu^rem Ftimum cum plenitudine luris Archie'palis installand. et intronizand. Ceteraq; omnia et singula faciend. exercend. et expediend. que in hac parte n'cc'ria fuerint seu q'm'oFt requisita, vices n*ras committimus, et plena. Tenore p'ntium concedimus p'tatem. Eogantes ut totum id quod in premissis feceritis^ aut v'rum aliquis fecerit dicto Inductionis Negocio expedito nobis pro Loco et Tempore congruis et oportunis debite significare velitis, seu sic significet ille v'rum qui b'm'oi negocium fuerit executus. In cuius Eei Testimonium sigillu. n'rum p'ntibus apponi fecitnus. Dat. primo die mensis Januarij Anno d'ni iuxta Computationem eccFie Anglicane MilFimo., Quingen", Quinquagesimo, Nono.

YNIUEESIS basce Procurationis et Procura- mandati Fras inspecturis^ visuris, audituris^ Archie'pi ad vel lecturis innotescat et palam sit, Q'd nos petend. etob-

. -T-.. . /-, AT- tmend. mtro-

Mattneus^ p missione Divma Cantuar. Arcni- nizatione.

e'pus, totius Anglie Primas et Metropolitanus electus,

confirmatus, et consecratus, Dilectos nobis in Xpo. filios

364 APPENDIX

mag'ros Edwardum Leades et ' * * *

Sacellanos familiares et domesticos n'ros co™ et di™ n^ros veroSj certos, I'timos, ac indubitatos procu^res, actores, factores^ negociorumq; n^rorum gestores, et nuncios sp'iales ad infrascripta, rite_, vice, no^i'e, et Loco n'ris obeund. no^i'amus, ordinamus, facimus, et con- stituimus per pontes, damusq; et concedimus eisdem procu'ribus n'ris co™ et eorum vtriq; (vt prefertur) per se di™ et insolid., p'tatem generalem et Mandatum speciale, pro nobis, ac vice et no^i^e n'ris, coram Dilectis nobis in Xpo. filijs d'no decano et Cap't'lo eccl'ie n're catli'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. eorumue in bac parte vices- geren. quibuscunq; comparendi, et iustas causas ab'ie n're coram eis proponend. dicend. et proiitend., Nosq; eo obtentu a p'sonali comparitione excusand., ac super veritate earundem, fidem de lure requisitam faciend. ac Nos et p^sonam n'ram in realem, actualem, et corporalem possessionem n^ri Arcbie^patus Cantuarien. cum omnibus et singulis suis lionoribus, privilegijs, prerogatiuis, pre- eminentijs luribus et p^tinen. suis vniuersis sp'ualibus et temporalibus iuxta et secundum ip*ius eccl'ie catb'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. Statuta, Ordinac'o'es, et con- suetudines (Legibus, Statutis, et prouisionibus buius E-egni Anglie imp'ntiarum non repugnan.) induci, inues- tirij installari et intronizari, cum plenitudine luris Ai'chie'- palis, Catbedramq; sine Sedem Ai'cbie'palem in Choro eccl'ie memorate Arcbie'po ib'm ab antique assignari solit. et consuet. nobis quatenus videbitur expediens assig- nari et limitari petend., requirend. et obtinend., Necnon realem, actualem et corporalem possessionem, Installac*- o'em et Intronizac'o'em d'ci Archie'patus Cantuarien. vice et no'i'e n'ris nanciscend. et adipiscend. ac illas sic nactas et adeptas ad vsum et commodum n'rum custo- diend. et conseruand., ac per I'tima luris remedia tucud. et defendend.; Quodcunq; insuper luramentu. licitu. et approbatum, ac de lure, Oonsuetudinibus et Statutis d'ce

^ A blank left (as before) for the other name.

APPENDIX 365

eccFie cath'is et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuar. in hac parte quomodolibet requisit. (Quatenus Consuetudines, Ordi- nac^o'es et Statuta li'mo'i luri diuino, ac Legibus et Statutis Imius Eegni Anglie non sint contraria vel re- pugnan.), in a^i'am meam et pro me prestand. subeund. et iurand. Necnon luramentu. ob'ie_, et quodcunq; aliud Sacramentu. licitum et lionestuin de Ordinationibus et Statutis eccrie catb. et Metropolitice Xpi. Cantuarien. predict, modo premisso qualificatis a decano et Cap't^lo, Canonicisq; et ceteris Miaistris eiusdem eccFie Arcbie^po ib^m exliiberi et prestari solit. et consuet. ab eisdem et eorum quolibet, ac vice et no'ibus n^ris recipiend. et admittend., Et generaliter o^ia et singula alia faciend. exercend. et expediend.^ que in premissis et cu^ca ea de lure seu consuetudine bactenus usitatis n'cc'ria fuerint sen q'moTt oportuna, etiamsi Mandatu. de se magis exi- gant speciale quam Superius est expressu., promittimusq; nos, ratum, gratum, et firmu. perpetuo babitur. totum et quicquid d^ci procu'res n^ri seu eorum alter fecerint seu fecerit in premissis vel aliquo premissorum sub ypotbeca et obligatione o^ium et sing'lorum Bonorum n^rorum tarn Pentium q; futurorum^ et in ea parte Cautionem exponimus per p'ntes^ In cuius rei Testimonium Sigillum n^rum p^ntibus apponi fecimus. Dat. ia Manerio n^ro de Lambe- hitli Winton. Dioc. secundo die Mensis Januarij Anno d'ni secundu. Computatione. eccFie Anglicane MiU^imo. Quingen°, Quinquagesimo_, nono_, Et n're Cons. Anno primo.

Bishop Bonner s Testimony to the actual Ordination of the Elizabethan Bishops, and specially of Archbishop Parker, by the English Ordinal.

Note to Bramball's Works, Vol. iii. p. 79:— "Bishop

366 APPENDIX

Home in 1563 (by authority of 5 Eliz. c. 1. § 6 ; and, as it would seem, under the immediate directions of the Primate and the Government — see Strype's Parker, Bk. II. c. 12) tendered Bonner the oath of supremacy, he being at the time in the Marshalsea, and consequently in Home's diocese of Winchester ; and upon his refusal to take the oath, 'certified him into the King's Bench/ Bonner upon this pleaded in exception to the certificate (besides other points, overruled), that Home was not Bishop of Winton when he tendered him the oath ; and this excep- tion, as being sufficient if proved, was allowed by the Judges (after debate) to go before a jury. In support of this exception, Bonner urged (or intended to urge, for the cause was not tried) that Home was 'not elected, consecrated, or provided, according to the laws of the Catholick Church and the Statutes and ordinances of this realm :' and the statutes specified were, 1 Mary, Sess. 2. c. 2, abrogating Edward VI.'s Ordinal (an objection which necessarily implies an acknowledgment of the fact of Home's ordination, and by consequence of that of Parker and the other Bishops, by that Ordinal) ; and 25 Hen. YIII. c. 20, requiring as consecrators either an Archbishop and two Bishops, or four Bishops, ' which the said Doctor Home had not,' i. e. (as it was explained, — see Coke, Instit. Pt. IV. c. 74. pp. 321, 322), whereas Home was consecrated by Parker and two other Bishops, Parker was not an Archbishop ; because, of Parker's own consecrators, three had been deprived, and the fourth (Hodgkin) deposed (1 & 2. Phil. & Mary c. 8. § 13) as a suffragan. Both objections appear to have been suggested by Bonner himself. The former, which was common amongst Eomanists at the time and afterwards — see e.g. Stapleton, Keplic. ad Horni Flatum c. 1., in 1567; and Knott, Char. Maint. Pt. i. c. vi. § 22, in 1634) was that upon which the case ultimately turned. See Dyer's Eeports, Mich. Term. an. 6 et 7 Eeginge (Eliz.), p. 234;— Coke's Instit. Pt. III. c. 2. p. 34. ed. 1648;—

APPENDIX 367

' Objections of Edm. Boner against tlie Process * &c. &c. 'made eyther before Dr. Rob. Home' &c., from Foxe's MSS. ap. Strype, Annals, I. ii. 2— 8;— MS. Bibl. Cotton, ap. Strype, Parter, Bk. II. c. i.'*

The case was suppressed, apparently because tbe lawyers thought the objections either legally valid, or at the least sufficiently so to cause trouble. And the summary remedy was applied of curing those legal objections by an Act of Parliament, 8 Eliz. c. 1.

Another Act (39 Eliz. c. 8) was passed against another legal cavil, which also takes for granted (as a thing indeed which no one had thought of disputing) the fact of the consecrations ; viz. that the Commission for depriving the Bishops in 1559 had not been enrolled, and therefore that their deprivation, and by consequence the appoint- ment of their successors, was not legal : see Coke, Instit. Pt. IV. c. 74. pp. 321, 322.

Diary of Henry Mackyn, Citizen and Merchant Taylor of London. From A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1563. ed, Nichols, 1848.

"The xsim day of June [1559] were elected vi nuw Byshopes com from beyond the see, master Parker Bysshope of Canturbere, master Gryndalle Bysshope of London, docthur Score Bysshope of Harfford, Barlow [of] Chechastur. doctur Bylle of Salysbere, doctor Cokes [of] Norwyche."

« * * * [Park]er electyd Byshop of Canturbere. The XVII day of Desember was the nuw Byshope of [Can- terbury] Doctor Parker, was mad[e] ther at Lambeth.^'

" The XX day of Desember a-fornon was Sant Thomas Evyn, my Lord of Canturbere whent to Bow Chyrche and ther were V nuw Byshopes mad [e] ."

3G8 APPENDIX

[After the conclusive statements in Notes and Queries as quoted above p. 190, nothing need be said to defend the genuineness of Machyn^s diary. It is necessary only to notice here, that Machyn, obviously and naturally, knew the facts only as a bystander who was in no public position would know them, at a time when newspapers were not. He mentions accordingly the elections of six Bishops under June 24: but of the six named, while three, Grindal, Scory, and Barlow, actually had their Conges d'Eslire to the sees which Machyn names, upon June 22, and a fourth. Cox, who was transferred to Ely in July, had his Gonge d'Eslire for Norwich on June 5, the Conge d'Eslire for Parker was not issued until July 18, and Jewel (not BiU) was appointed to the see of Salisbury. Curiously enough, a letter of Jewel's, in the Zurich letters, dated probably July 20, 1559, mentions precisely the same five Bishops, and as ^^designati" to the same sees, omitting Bill, as Machyn does.

Also, on Dec. 20, Grindal of London, Cox of Ely, Sandys of Worcester, and Meyrick of Bangor, i. e. four (not five) Bishops, were confii-med at Bow Chm-ch, but not by Parker in person, although he consecrated all four the next day at Lambeth.

It is obvious to remark that such inaccuracies are natm-al enough in such a diary, but that no forger would have dared to make them.]

APPENDIX 369

A MS. Note of John Parker, son of the Arch- bishop, in a copy of Parker s book " De Antiquitat. Brit. Eccl." which once belonged to the Earl of Sunderland, and is now in Lambeth Library ^

"Iste Matthew nat^ fuit 6 August! 1604 [sic].— Con- secratur Axclliep^ 17 Decemb. 1559. — Ultima Yolu'tas facta 5 Aprilis 1575. — Moritur Lamlieti (q° sepilif^:) 17 Maij 1575. — funeralia i. Lamli: EccFia — Testament: probatio p.' ex: W Oct. 1575."

H

Order of Precedence in the Hotise of Lords and Upper House of Convocation.

The order of precedence in tbe House of Lords (and in Convocation) is of course not adduced as proof of the fact of Bishop BarloVs consecration — of which indeed it is really worse than ridiculous to make any doubt^ — but as creating some sHght presumption in favour of one particular day rather than another as the probable day of that consecra- tion. Any one who looks at the printed Journals of the House of Lords will see, that at the period in question, 1, the clerk followed commonly an unvaried Hst ; 2_, the rule which commonly governs his list agrees with the order of consecration, save the necessary exceptions of the two Archbishoprics, and of the sees of London, Dm"ham, and Winchester; and 3, the exceedingly few variations which do occur may be, for the most part, readily accounted for.

* That it is in John Parker's writing appears by another entry (among many) in the same hand, — "hoc anno nat^. fui Joh'es Parker fills, p'ca'cell." The well-known entry in Parker's own diary need not be repeated here. It will be found in Strype.

B b

370 APPENDIX

1536. June 30. Barlow took his seat as Bishop of St. David's. He had been absent in Scotland in May, and probably, therefore, had but recently come to London in June. But for some reason or other he did not take his seat earlier in the month. There were thirteen more days of that Session, and on each of these the order is in- variable, viz. of Chichester, Norwich, St. David's, and (after July 14, when that Bishop took his seat) St. Asaph, and then Llandaff. In the whole Session, and entii'e list, it appears that the clerk for three days put the Bishop of Bath and Wells before the Bishop of Lincoln; that obviously he then noticed his blunder; and that he put them accordingly in correct order of precedence thence- forth. He has likewise interchanged Chichester and Norwich (consecrated almost certainly the same day) upon two days, thenceforth correcting their order.

Li 1539 and the following Sessions, Chichester, Norwich, St. David's, St. Asaph, occur regularly in that order; until, in 1543, Chichester becomes Coventry and Lichfield, and in 1549 St. David's becomes Bath and Wells, but in neither case does the translated Bishop change his place in the order. In 1542-3, however, the names generally are written with less regularity than before. Also, on July 4, 1536, Fox Bishop of Hereford took his seat, and is placed between Sarum and Worcester, and before some half dozen Bishops, in his right order of consecration.

On March 15, 154-?-, Carlisle is put out of his proper place, but on that day only. And in 1542, there seems to be some uncertainty about the Bishop of Salisbury. Also in 1539, May 30, the Bishop of Hereford's name occurs once, by some blunder, the see being at the time vacant by the resignation and death of Fox. On April 12 of the ensuing year, 1540, the new Bishop of Hereford appears, and in his right place.

These seem to be all the irregularities during these Sessions ; although I may have inadvertently overlooked one or two. On the whole, a presumption certainly arises

APPENDIX 371

tliat Barlow was consecrated^ either with or after the Bishops of Chichester and Norwich^ viz. upon or after June 11, but before June 30.

The order of the Upper House of Convocation rests upon much scantier evidence than that of the House of Lords ; viz. upon two lists as compared with some two hundred or more. The signatures to the King's Articles in 1536 (which include BarloVs) agree with the order of Consecration, with one remarkable exception, viz. that three Bishops (viz. Worcester, Rochester, Chichester) are by some error transposed before three others (viz. Ely, Coventry and Lichfield, Bangor), instead of following them, as they ought to do. St. David's is in his right place, between Norwich and St. Asaph. Those to the " Institution of a Christian Man," the year after, viz. 1537, agree also in the main with the order of Consecration, but with the two exceptions, that the Bishop of Carlisle (who was just con- secrated) is for some reason placed first (he was the only Bishop of the northern Province there, except the Arch- bishop of York and the Bishop of Durham, who occur, of course, at the top), and that Sarum is placed before, instead of after, Bangor. Here also Barlow's name is, as it ought to be, between Norwich and St. Asaph.

I

Gradual Enlargement of the Form of Ordination ^.

The additions to the form of ordination of presbyters may be briefly exhibited as follows : —

I. "VVesteen Forms. 1. The Sacramentary of Pope Leo contains simply three

* Sec Walcott in Blunt's Annotated Edition of the Prayer Book, ii. 532, seq. B b 2

372 APPENDIX

prayers, following and accompanpng tlie laying on of hands': —

a. OremuSj dilectissimi, Deum Patrem omnipotentem ut super hos famulos Suos, quos ad presbyterii munus elegit, coelestia dona multiplicet; quibus, quod Ejus dignatione suscipiunt, Ejus exsequantur auxilio : per, &c.

/S. Exaudi nos, Deus salutaris noster, et super hos famulos Tuos benedictionem Sancti Spiritus et gratiae sacerdotalis effunde virtutem; ut quos Tug9 pietatis aspectibus oflferimus consecrandos, perpetua muneris Tui largitate prosequaris : per, &c.

7. Domine Sancte, &c. [as in tlie Vere dignum &c. of the Sarum Ordinal.]

2. The 8acramentary of Gelasius adds to these (pre- facing also the service with the Litany), S. a prayer, beginning, '^ Sit nobis, fratres, communis oratio," and e. a blessing, beginning, " Sanctificationum omnium Auctor/^

3. The 8acTamentary of Pope Gregory adds to that of Leo [viz. to the Litany, with a. ^. 7.] ^. investiture with the chasuble; 7}. unction of priest^s hands.

4. The Fontifical of Egbert, prefixing an investiture with the Stole, adds to a. /3. 7., both the additions of the Sacra- mentary of Gelasius, and both the additions of that of Gregory ; the head, however, being anointed as well as the hands.

5. The Sarum, which is almosb identical with the Roman Pontifical, adds still further, after the prayer "Deus Sanctificationum," 6. the Veni Creator, t. the blessing of the priest^s hands, k. the delivery of paten and chalice, with the words — Accipe potestatem ofierre sacrificium Deo missamque celcbrare tarn pro vivis quam pro defunctis. X. then (after the Mass) a further imposi- tion of hands with the words* — Accipe Spiritum Sanctum :

3 Opp. S. Leon. M. II. 113, 114; ed. FF. Ballerin.— Rubrics are not given, but it is apparent from all following ordinals that laying on of bands accompanied the first two of these prayers.

* Which had previously, since about A.D. 1000, been added to the Vere Diffmim as a prayer.

APPENDIX 373

quorum remiseris peccata, remittuntur eis ; et quorum retinueris^ retenta erunt. Lastly^ arrangement of tlie chasuble^ and Benediction.

6. Our own Ordinal, 1549, 1552, 1662, keeping in substance tlie Oremus, tlie Domine Sancte, and tbe Deus Sanctificationum, lias transferred tbe actual ordination so as to follow and not precede or accompany tbem, has ap- pointed one instead of two (or tliree) impositions of bands, and bas given, as tbe words to be used in the actual ordi- nation, tbe Accijye Sjpiritum Sanctum, &c. of tbe Sarum and Roman Ordinals, together witb authority to preach and to administer Sacraments in lieu of that to minister Sacrifice : while it omits the investiture and the unction, and after 1 552, the delivery of paten and chalice, but adds the delivery of the Bible : and also after 1662, adds to the words, Receive the Holy Ghost, — ^'for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." It has there- fore the whole of that which S. Leo had, and the whole of the essentials of every Pontifical down to Egbert's inclusive, the additions up to that date (additional prayers excepted) being merely of such externals as chasuble and unction.

II. Eastern Form.

The Greek form of ordination of priests runs thus : —

'H Oeia %a/ot9 i? iravTore ra aaOevrj Oepairevova-a koI to. eXkeirrovra dvaTrXrjpovaa, Trpo-^^eipi^erat, rov Selva rbv evka- ^ea-TUTOv SiaKOvov et9 irpea^vrepov. With laying on of hands of Bishop, but neither Bible, nor paten and chalice.

The changes in the form of Episcopal Consecration are of a like kind. In the Sacramentary of Leo, are simply prayers, with no doubt laying on of hands, and imposition of the Gospels : in that of Gelasius the last named is expressly added, and unction : in that of Egbert, hands

374 APPENDIX

and head both are anointed, and the pastoral staff and ring are delivered, installation also and a benediction closing the rite : in the Sarum Pontifical the delivery of the mitre and of the Gospels are added, besides the Veni Creator, and additional prayers and benedictions. But the words Accijpe Sj^iritum Sanctum, which are the formal words in the Roman Pontifical, and which occur in one (viz. the Exeter) Pontifical in England, do not occur at all in the Sarum form; nor indeed in any Pontifical at all before the 12th century. In our present rite, we have dropped unction and investiture, and since 1552 delivery of the pastoral staff, but retain in substance two out of the prayers in the Sacramentaries of Leo, Gela- sius, and Gregory, and the words Receive the Holy Ghost from the Roman Pontifical, to which in 1662 was added, " 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 ;^^ and then continuing, as in 1549, 1552: "And remember that thou stir up the gift of God which is given thee by this imposition of our hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and love and soberness.^' We have also retained delivery of (not indeed the Gospels only, but) the Bible.

The Greek form is the same mutatis mutandis with that for Priests, the Patriarch also laying the Gospels on the candidate's head and neck.

K

Le^^er of King Heyiry VIII. to the Clergy oj the province of York, anno M.D.XXXIII. touching his title of Supreme Head of the Church of England.

Right reverend fathers in God, right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well, and have received your letters

APPENDIX 875

dated at York, the 6tli of May, containing a long dis- course of your mind and opinion concerning sucli worda as have passed tlie clergy of the province of Canterbury, in the proeme of their grant made unto us, the like whereof should now pass in that province. Albeit ye interlace such words of submission of your judgment and discharge of your duty towards us, with humble fashion and behaviour, as we cannot conceive displeasure nor be miscontent with you, considering what you have said to us in times past in other matters, and what ye confess in your letters yourselves to have heard and known, noting also the effect of the same; we cannot but marvel at sundry points and articles, which we shall open unto you as hereafter foUoweth.

First, ye have heard (as ye say ye have) the said words to have passed in the Convocation of Canterbury, where were present so many learned in divinity and law, as the Bishops of Rochester, London, St. Asaph, Abbots of Hyde, S. Bennet's, and many other; and in the law, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Bath ; and in the lower house of the clergy so many notable and great clerks, whose persons and learning you know well enough. Why do ye not, in this case, with your self as you willed us in our great matter, conform your con- science to the conscience and opinion of a great number ? Such was your advice to us in the same (our groat matter), which now we perceive ye take for no sure counsel ; for ye search the grounds, not regarding their sayings. Nevertheless, forasmuch as ye examine their grounds, causes, and reasons ; in doing whereof ye seem rather to seek and examine that thing which might dis- prove their doings, then that which might maintain the same : we shall answer you briefly, without long dis- course, to the chief points of your said letters. Wherein taking for a ground, that words were ordained to signifie things, and cannot therefore by sinister interpretation alter the truth of them, but onely in the wits of perversa

376 APPENDIX

persons tliat would blinde or color the same ; by reason whereof, to good men, they signifie that they mean, onely doing their office ; and to men of worse sort, they serve for maintenance of such meaning as they would imagine : so in using words, we ought onely to regard and consider the expression of the truth in convenient speech and sentences, without overmuch scruple of superperverse interpretations, as the malice of men may excogitate; wherein both overmuch negligence is not to be com- mended, and too much diligence is not onely by daily experience in men^s writings and laws shewed frustrate and void; insomuch as nothing can be so cleerly and plainly written, spoken, and ordered, but that subtile wit hath been able to subvert the same ; but also the Spirit of God, which in His Scripture taught us the contrary, as in the places which ye bring in and rehearse : — if the Holy Ghost had had regard to that which might have been perversly construed of these words, " Pater major Me est," and the other, '^Ego et Pater unum sumus," there should have been added to the first, " Humanitas," to the second, " Substantia/^ And wherefore doth the Scripture call Christ "Primogenitum"? Whereupon, and the adverb " donee," was maintained the errour " contra perpetuam Yirginitatem Marias." Why have we in the Church S. Paul's Epistle, which S. Peter wi'iteth to have been the occasion of errours ? Why did Christ speak many words which the Jews drew "ad calumniam," and yet reformed them not ? As when He said, " Destruite templum hoc," &c., meaning of His body ; where " tem- plum " with them had another signification : and such other like ? There is none other cause but this : " Om- nia quge scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt." And by that learning we ought to apply and draw words to the truth, and so to understand them, as they may signifie truth, and not so to wi'est them, as they should maintain a lie. For otherwise, as hereticks have done with the Holy Scripture, so shall all men do with familiar

APPENDIX 377

speech ; and if all things shall be brought into familiar disputation, he that shall call us ^' supremum et unicum Dominum/' by that nieans_, and as goeth your argument, might be reproved. For Christ is indeed " Unicus Do- minus et Supremus," as we confess Him in the Church daily. And now it is in opinion, that " Sancti " be not mediators, the contrary whereof ye aflSrm in your letters, because of the text of S. Paul, " Unus est mediator inter Deum et hominem." And after that manner of reason which ye use in the entry, if any man should say. This land is mine own, and none hath right in it but I, he might be reproved by the Psalm, " Domini est terra.-" For why should a man call "terram aliquam'^ onely his, whereof God is the chief Lord and Owner ? Why is it admitted in familiar speech to call a man dead, of whom the soul, which is the chief and best part, yet liveth? How is it that we say, this man or that man to be founder of this church, seeing that in one respect God is only founder ? We say likewise, that he is a good man to this church, a special benefactor of the church, and that the church is fallen down, when the stones be fallen down, the people preserved and liveing : and in all this manner of speech, when we hear them, it is not accus- tomed nor used to do as ye do, that is to say, to draw the word ^' chm'ch " to that sense, wherein the speech may be a lie, but to take it in that wherein it signifieth truth. Which accustomed manner if ye had followed, you should not have needed to have laboured so much in the declaration of the word " Ecclesia," in that signification, wherein it is most rarely taken, and cannot, without maintenance of too manifest a lie, be appHed to any man. For, taking "Ecclesia" in that sense ye take it, S. Paul wrote amiss, writing to the Corinthians, saying, " Ecclesia Dei quae est Corinthi j" for by yom* definition, " non circumscribitur loco Ecclesia.^' In the Gospel, where Christ said, " Die Ecclesise," must needs have another interpretation and definition then ye make " de Ecclesia '*

378 APPENDIX

in your said letters ; or else it were hard to make com- plaint to all Chi-istendom, as the case in the Gospel requireth. " Sed est candidi pectoris verba veritati ac- commodare, ut ipsam referre (quod eorum officium est), non corrumpere videantur." Furthermore the lawyers, that write how "Ecclesia fallit et fallitur," what blas- phemy do they affirm, if that definition should be given to " Ecclesia " which you write in your letters ? Wherein albeit ye write the truth for so far, yet forasmuch as ye draw that to the words spoken of us to the reprobation of them, yet ye shew your selves contrary to the teaching of Scripture, [and] rather inclined, by applying a divers definition, to make that a lie which is truly spoken, then '' genuine sensu, addita et Candida interpretatione," to veri- fie the same. It were " nimis absurdum " for us to be called " Caput Ecclesias representans Corpus Christi mysticum, et Ecclesiae qua© sine ruga est et macula, quam Christus Sibi sponsam elegit, illius partem vel oblatam accipere vel arrogare." And therefore albeit " Ecclesia " is spoken of in these words touched in the proeme, yet there is added, " et Cleri Anglicani," which words conjoined restrain, by way of interpretation, the word "Ecclesiam," and is as much as to say, the Church, that is to say, the Clergy of England. Which manner of speaking, in the law ye have professed, ye many times find, and likewise in many other places.

But proceeding in your said letter, [after] ye have shewed Christ to be " Caput Ecclesias," ye go about to show how He divided His power in earth after the distinction *' temporalium et spiritualium -,' whereof the one, ye say, He committed to princes, the other "Sacerdotibus:" for princes ye alledge texts which shew and prove obedience due to princes of all men without distinction, be ho Priest, clerk, Bishop, or layman, who make together the Church : and albeit your own words make mention of temporal things, wherein ye say they should be obeyed, yet the texts of Scripture which ye alledge having the general

APPENDIX 379

words, " Obedite et subditi estote," contain no such words whereby spiritual tilings should be excluded ; but what- soever appertaineth to the tranquillity of man's life, is oi necessity included, as the words plainly import ; as you also confess; wherefore '^gladium portat princeps/' not only against them that break his commandments and laws, but against In'm also that in any wise breaketh God's laws ; for we may not more regard our law then God's, nor punish the breach of our laws, and leave the transgression of God's laws unreformed; so as all spiritual things, by reason whereof may arise bodily trouble and inquietation, be necessarily included in princes power ; and so proveth the text of Scripture by you alledged; and also the doctors by you brought in, confirm the same.

After that ye intend to prove, which no man will deny, the ministration of spiritual things to have been by Christ committed to priests, to preach and minister the sacra- ments, [and] to be as physicians to mens souls ; but in these Scriptures, neither by \leg. be] spiritual things so far extended, as under colour of that vocabule [they] be now- a-days ; nor it proveth not, that their office being never so excellent, yet their persons, acts, and deeds should not be under the power of their prince by God assigned, whom they should acknowledge as their head. The excellency of the matter of the office doth not always in all points extoll the dignity of the minister. Christ, Who did most perfectly use the office of a priest, " et nihil aliud quam vere curavit animas," gainsaid not the authority of Pilate upon that ground ; and S. Paul executing the office of a priest, said, ''Ad tribunal Caesaris sto, ubi me judicari oportet;" and commanded likewise, indistinctly, all others to obey princes; and yet unto those priests, being as members executing that office, princes do honour, for so is God's pleasure and commandment : wherefore, howso- ever ye take the words in the proeme, we indeed do shew and declare, that priests and bishops preaching the word of God, ministering the sacraments according to Christ's

380 APPENDIX

laws, and refresliing our people with gliostly and spii-itual food, [we] not only succour and defend them for tranquil- lity of their life, but also with our presence ; and otherwise do honour them, as the case requireth, for so is God's pleasure ; like as the husband, though he be the head of the wife, yet, saith S. Paul, "Non habet vir potestatem sui corporis, sed mulier," and so is, in that respect, under her. And having our mother in our realm, by the com- mandment of God we shall honour her ; and yet they, for respect of our dignity, shall honour us by God's command- ment likewise. And the minister is not always the better man, " sed cui ministratur ;" the physician is not better than the prince, because he can do that the prince cannot, viz. " curare morbum." In consecration of archbishops, do not bishops give more dignity by their ministration then they have themselves ? The doctors ye bring in, takeing for their theme to extol priesthood, prefer it to the dignity of a prince ; after which manner of reasoning it may be called, "Dignius imperare ajffectibus, quam populis ;" and so every good man in consideration of every dignity to excel a King not living so perfectly as he doth. And why is a bishop better than a priest, seeing and considering, in the matter of their office, "Episcopus, etiamsi administret plura, non tamen administrat majora." Empcrours and princes obey bishops and priests, as doers of the message of Christ, and His ambassadours for that purpose ; which done, " statim fiunt privati," and in order and quietness of living, acknowledge princes as head. For what meant Justinian the Emperour to make laws " de Episcopis et clericis," and such other spiritual matters, if he had not been perswaded, " Illi esse curam EcclesisB a Deo mandatam ? " This is true, that princes be " Filii Ecclesiae," that is to say, "illius Ecclesise," which ye define ; wherewith it may agree, that they bo nevertheless " Suprema capita " of the congregations of Christian men in their countries ; like as in smaller number of Christian men, "non est absurdam vocare superiores capita," as

APPENDIX 381

they be called indeed, and may be called, " primi et supremi/' in respect of those countries. And why else doth the Pope suffer any other besides himself to be called archbishop, seeing that he himself iadeed challengeth to be "Princeps Apostolorum et Episcoporum" in Peter's stead, which the name of an archbishop utterly denieth; but by addition of the country they save the sense : whereunto in us to be called " Ecclesiee Anglicanae," yet \leg. ye] at the last agree, so that there were added " in temporalibus ;" which addition were superfluous, con- sidering that men being here themselves earthly and tem- poral, [we] cannot be head and governour to things eternal, nor yet spiritual ; takeiag that word spiritual, not as the common speech abuseth it, but as it signifieth indeed : for, "Qua9 spiritu aguntur, nulla lege astriaguntur ;" as the Scripture saith, "Quee Spiritu Dei aguntur, libera sunt/' And if you take ^^ spirituahbus " for spiritual men, that is to say, priests, clerks, their good acts and deeds worldly ; in all this both we and all other princes be at this day chief and heads, after whose ordinance, either in general or in particular, they be ordered and governed. For leaving old stories, and considering the state of the world in our time, is there any convocation where laws be made for the order of our clergy, but such as by our authority is assembled ? And why should we not say, as Justinian said, "Omnia nostra facimus, quibus a nobis impertitur auctoritas " ? Is any bishop made but he submitteth himself to us, and acknowledgeth himself as bishop to be our subject? Do not we give our license and assent to the election of abbots ? And this is con- cerning the persons and laws spiritual. As touching their goods, it is all mens opinions learned in the laws, '^ extra controversiam,'' that debate and controversie of them appertaineth to our occasion and order. But as for the living of the clergy, some notable offences we reserve to our correction, some we remit by our sufferance to the judges of the clergy ; as murther, felony, and treason.

382 APPENDIX

and sucL like enormities we reserve to our examination; other crimes we leave to be ordered by tbe clergy, not because we may not intermeddle with them, for there ia no doubt but as well might we punish adultery and inso- lence in priests, as emperors have done, and other princes at this day do, as ye know well enough : so as in all these articles concerning the persons of priests, their laws, their acts, and order of living, forasmuch as they be indeed all temporal, and concerning this present life only, in those we (as we be called) be indeed in this realm " Caput f and because there is no man above us here, be indeed " Supre- mum Caput." As to spiritual things, meaning by them the sacraments, being by God ordained as instruments of efficacy and strength, whereby grace is of His infinite goodness conferred upon His people ; forasmuch as they be no worldly nor temporal things, they have no worldly nor temporal head, but only Christ That did institute them, by Whose ordinance they be ministred here by mortal men, elect, chosen, and ordered as God hath willed for that purpose, who be the clergy; who for the time they do that, and in that respect, " tanquam ministri versantur in his, quae hominum potestati non subjiciuntur ; in quibus si male versantur sine scandalo, Deum ultorem habent, si cum scandalo, hominum cognitio et vindicta est." Wherein, as before said, either the prince is chief doer, this authority proceedeth to the execution of the same; as when by sufferance or priviledge the prelates intromit themselves therein; wherefore in that which is derived from the prince at the beginning, why should any obstacle or scruple be to call him head from whom that is derived ? Such things as although they be amongst men, yet they be indeed " Divina, quoniam quae supra nos sunt nihil ad nos." And being called head of all, we be not in deed, nor in name, to him that would sincerely understand it, head of such things, being not spiritual, as they be not temporal. And yet to those words bpoken of us, " ad evitandam illam calumniam," there is

APPENDIX 383

added, " quantum per Christi legem licet ;" for interpreta- tion of wHch parenthesis your similitude added of " homo immortalis est, quantum per natursB legem licet," is nothing like ; for " naturae lex '^ is not immortality, as is " lex Christi " to superiority : for " lex naturae " nor speaketh, nor can mean, of any immortality at all, con- sidering that the law of nature ordaineth mortality in all things : but Christ's law speaketh of superiority, admit- teth superiority, sheweth also and declareth, " obediendum esse principibus," as ye do alledge. Wherefore if the law of God permitteth superiority, and commandeth obedience ; to examine and measure '' modum obedientiae et superioritatis," there can to no other thing so good a relation be made. For as ye understand the Scripture, though it say nay to part, it saith not nay to the whole ; whereas nature denieth utterly all immortality; and so, though in speaking of immortality of man it were super- fluous to say, " quantum per nature legem licet," yet is not so speaking "de superioritate et modo principatus," referring the certain limits to the law of Christ, " ad cu- jus normam quicquid quadrat, planum et rectum est, quicquid non quadrat, pravum et iniquum." And as touching the doubt and difficulty you make to give a single answer, yea or no, for that the question propounded containeth two things, whereof the one is true, the other false, as ye say, meaning, as ye write, that in '^tem- poralibus " we be " caput," and in " spiritualibus " we be not; it seemeth that neither your example agreeth in similitude with that ye bring it in for, nor is there in learning or common speech used the scrupulosity in answers ye write of. Truth it is, that [if] the question in plain words containeth two parts expressly, whereof the one is true, the other false; one yea or nay cannot be answered : for there should appear a manifest lye, which God's law detesteth, and naturally is abhorred : as if it should be asked us, if we were King of England and of Denmark, one yea or nay should not suffice. But it ia

384 APPENDIX

far otherwise, both, in matters of learning and commou speech, where the words in the question may in divers interpretations or relations contain two things, and yet in expression contain but one : as if a man should ask us, '^ An Filius et Pater unum sunt V we would not doubt to answer and say, yea, as the Scripture saith ; for it is truly answered, and to make a lye is but sophistication, drawing the word '' unum " to person, wherein it is a lye. If one were asked the question. Whether the man and wife were one, he might boldly and truly say, yea; and yet it is *^ distinctione corporum naturalium" a lye; and to the question, " Utrum Ecclesia constet ex bonis et malis V yea; and yet, as ye define ^' Ecclesiam," it is a lye. The reason of diversity is this, for that it is not supposed men would abuse words, but apply them to signifie truth, and not to signifie a lye ; wherein the Arrians ofi'ending, took occasion of heresies. For that which is in Scripture written, is a most certain truth ; and as it is there written, so, and no otherwise, would Christ have answered. If the question had been asked, "An Pater esset major Illo ?" He would have said, yea, as it is wi'itten. And if the Arrians would have taken for a truth that of Him, That is truth, and speaketh truth, and from Whom pro- ceedeth but truth, they would have brought a distinction with them to set forth truly, and not disprove that it was truly written by sophistication of the word. When St. James wrote, "Fides sine operibus mortua est," he wrote truth ; and so did St. Paul, " Quod fides justificat absque operibus legis ;" which it could not do if it were " mortua.'" Either of these made a single asseveration of a sentence, by interpretation containing two; trusting that the reader would " pio animo " so understand them, as their sayings might, as they do indeed, agree with truth. It is never to be thought men will willingly and without shame lye ; and therefore the sense, if any may be gathered true, or like to be true, is to be taken, and not that which is a lye. And when we write to the Pope,

APPENDIX 385

" Sanctissimo/' we mean not holier than St. Peter^ though it sound so ; and he that in our letter should object that^ should be thought ridiculous. He that [should] say he rode beyond the sea^ were not conveniently interrupted in his tale by him that would object say ling upon the sea, where he could not ride at all ; and rather then men would note a lye, when they know what is meant, they would sooner by allegory or metaphor draw the word to the truth, then by cavillation of the word note a lye. Hath not the Pope been called " Caput EcclesiaB " ? And who hath put any addition to it ? Have not men said that the Pope may dispence " cum jure Divino " ? And yet in a part '^ juris Divini," viz. '' morahs et naturalis/^ the same men would say he might not dispence. Wherefore if in all other matters it was never thought inconvenient to speak abso- lutely the truth, without distinction, why should there be more scruple in our case ? The truth cannot be changed by words. That we be, as God's law suffereth us to be, whereunto we do and must conform ourselves. And if ye understand, as ye ought to understand, " temporalibus," for the passing over this life in quietness, ye at last descend to agree to that, which in the former part of your letter you intend to impugne ; and sticking to that, it were most improperly spoken to say, we be "illius EcclesiaB caput in temporalibus,'' which hath not " temporalia." {WilklnSi iii. 762 — 765 : ex Cabala, pp. 244, seq.]

24 Hen. VII L c. 12. — An Act that the Appeals in such cases as have been ttsed to be pursued to the See of Rome shall not be from hence- forth had ne tised bid within this Realm : A.D. 1532, 3.

Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been

C c

386 APPENDIX

accepted in tlie worlds governed by one Supreme head and Eang having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a Body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spiritualty and Temporalty be bounden and owen to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience; he being also institute and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God with plenary, whole, and entire power, preeminence, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to aU manner of folk, reseauntes, or subjects, within this his realm, in all causes, matters, debates, and contentions, happening to occur, insurge, or begin, within the limits thereof, without restraint or pro- vocation to any foreign princes, or potentates of the world : the Body Spiritual whereof having power, when any cause of the law Divine happened to come in question or of spiritual learning, then it was declared, interpreted, and shewed by that part of the said Body poUtic called the Spiritualty, now being usually called the EngUsh Church, which always hath been reputed and also found of that sort, that both for knowledge, integrity, and sufiiciency of number, it hath been always thought and is also at this hour sufficient and meet of itself without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and detci-muie all such doubts and to administer aU such offices and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth apper- tain: for the due administration whereof and to keep them from corruption and sinister affection the King's most noble progenitors and the antecessors of the nobles of this realm, have sufficiently endowed the said Church both with honour and possessions : and the law Temporal, &c. &c. was and yet is administered, adjudged, and exe- cuted by sundry Judges and Administers of the other part of the said Body politic called the Temporalty, &c. &c. &c. [proceeding to prohibit appeals to the see of Rome or to any other foreign Court or Potentate and to enact that

APPENDIX 387

appeals shall lie from ArcMeacon to Bishop, and from Bishop to Archbishop] .

And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every matter, cause, and contention, &c. shall be before the said Archbishop, where the said matter, cause, or process shall be so commenced, definitively de- termined, decreed, or adjudged, without any other appeal, provocation, or any other foreign process out of this Realm, &c. Saving always the prerogative of the Arch- bishop and Church of Canterbury. [The Act further provides, that appeals in cases touching the King shall be made to the Upper House of Convocation.]

25 Hen. VIII. c. 19. — Act for Submission of the Clergy to the Kings Majesty ^ A.D. 1533, 4,

Besides prohibiting the making of Canons without the King's license, adds to the Act last quoted a right of appeal from the Archbishop's Court to the King in his Court of Chancery, to be determined by Commissioners to be appointed by the King : for whom is now substituted a Committee of the Privy Council.

25 Hen. VIII. c. i\. § 13. — Act for the Exone- ration from Exactions paid to the See of Rome, A.D. 1533, 4.

Provided always that this Act, nor any thing or things therein contained, shall be hereafter interpreted or ex- pounded, that your Grace, your nobles and subjects, intend by the same to decline or vary from the congrega- tion of Christ's Church in any things concerning the very articles of the Catholick Paith of Christendom, or in any other things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary for your and their salvations, but only to

c c 2

388 APPENDIX

make au ordinance by policies necessary and convenient to repress vice, and for good conservation of this realm in peace, unity, and tranquillity, from ravine and spoil, ensuing much the old ancient customs of this realm in that behalf; not minding to seek for any rehefs, succours, or remedies for any worldly things and human laws, in any cause of necessity, but within this realm at the hand of your highness, your heirs and successors. Kings of this realm, which have and ought to have an imperial power and authority in the same, and not obliged in any worldly causes to any other superior.

26 Hen. VIII. c. i. — An Act concerning the Kings Highness to be Supreme Head of the Church of England, and to have authority to reform and redress all errors^ heresies^ and abuses in the same, A.D. 1534,

Defines the power so given to be visitatorial, viz. "to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend, all such errors, heresies," &c.

A Declaration of the Queenes Proceedi7tgs since her Reig7ie: [Anfio Dom. 1569, 11 ElizP[

Whan we consider with ourselves how it hath pleased Almighty God of His abundant Goodness to bless His good Creatures our Subjects in all our Dominions with such a generall Quietnes and Peace, as the like hath not been seene in theis our Kyngdoms in Many Ages, untill this last Yere (which was after the Tyme of eleven full yeres of ^ur Reigne,) that an unnaturall commotion of certen of

APPENDIX 389

our Subjects in a Part of our Eealme in the Norths was by certen lewde Practises of some few secretly stirred upp; and yet by Goddes Goodnes^ with the Faythfullncss of our trew Subjects shortly suppressed and quieted: We find it necessary that^ as we are most bound to render unto the same our good God the whole Prayse and Honour for these His Blessings uppon us and our Dominions^ and for the same to continew thankfull; so ought we also in respect of our princely Charg, to consider both how this Interruption of the Course of so universally loiig^ and con- tinuall inward Peace hath hapened; and how also by Godds Favor and Assistance it may be provided,, that the like Occasions hereafter be not ministred by seditious Persons, whose Nature cannot, nor as yet doth not cess to imagyn and contryve secret Meanes to make Alteration of the Quietnes, wherunto of His Goodnes our Eealme is now ageyn restored.

And therfore, whereas it hath appeared unto us, that although in some part there wanted not externall Incyte- ments and Provocations to animate and stirr our People to withdrawe their naturall Dutyes from us and our Laws, and to enter into Rebellions ; yet could not the same so have prevayled, if there had not been also therwith joyned secret Practises of other malicious Persons, partly being our Subjects born and partly residing within our Realme ; who had conningly [inveagled twoo of our Nobihty, &c.&c.] . . . and next, that abused another Sort and gretar Number with false Perswasions of some generall Severity, intended by us and our Ministers against them, only in Respect of Opinions in Relligion, whan no such Thing did appeare or was any wise by us ment or thought of; and lastly, intyced the Yulgar and comen sorte to fansy some Novelltyes and Changees of Lawes and Rulers, as the ordinary High Waye to all sensuall and unruly Liberty, which commenly the Ignorant covett, though it ever hath ben and wiU be most of all to their own Destruction.

For these Causes thus manifestly appearyng to us,

390 APPENDIX

notwithstanding that the whoU course of our Actions in our Government, from the begynning of our Reign, if they were observed and reduced into Memory might serve to teach and certify all sorts of our Subjects to under- stand, and to beware hereafter of such blynd inveaglings, &c. &c. . . Yet our abundant Goodnes toward the quiett State of our good Subjects, and for the Desire we have by some Publick Admonitions to stay all Sorts from the Danger to be herafter seduced and abused with such lyke untruthes, we will that it be briefly understood both what our former Intentions have ben in our Government, platt contrary to the untrew Reports invented and secretly scattered by malicious, seditious, and trayterous Persons ; and what Course we intend by Godds Grace to hold towards all Persons, except by contrary Behavor and Contempt of any of our Subjects, we shall be induced to make alteration therin.

First we doo all Persons to understand, that of our owne naturall Disposition (through Godds Goodnes) we have ben always desirous to have the obedience of all our subjects of all Sorts, both hygh and low, by Love and [not] by Compulsion; by their owne yelding and not by our exacting, &c. &c. &c. [going on to speak of the general and civil management of the country].

It remayneth furder to be considred (which is by diverss most frequently impugned) what we have don to give Occasion of Offence and slanderooss Reports in the ordring of our Realme and People, to cause them to lyve in the Peace and Service of God, and in the Profession of Christian Rellegion ; of which Matter because in some Thingcs the Bcclesiasticall externall PoUicy of our Realme by Lawes deffereth from some other Countreys (as allways there hath ben in such Things a Difference) occasion is sought, specially from forrayn Parts, to deprave this Part of our Government, and consequently by secret troobliug the weake Consciences of our People with Untruths, to withdraw them from obedience of U3

APPENDIX 391

and our lawes ; yea from all divine service of God, contrary to their naturall Birth, and Duty towards God and tlier natyve Contrey. And in this part we wold it were indifferently understand, that what so ever is untruly reported, by Words or Wrytyngs of mahcooss and seditious Persons, we know no other Authority, either given or used by us, as Queue and Governour of this Kealm, than hath ben by the Lawe of God and this Realme, alwayes due to our Progenitors, Soverayns and Kinges of the same ; although true it is that this Authority hath ben in the Tyme of certen of our Progenitors, some hundred years past, as by Lawes, Records, and Storyes doth appere (and specially in the Eeign of our noble Father King Henry VIII. and our deare Brother King Edw. YI.)^ more clerely recognised by all the Estats of the Realme, as the like hath ben in our Tyme j without that therby we do ether challeng or take to us (as malicious Parsons do untruly surmise) any Superiority to our self to defyne, desyde, or determyn any Article or Poynt of the Christian Fayth and Relligion, or to chang any ancient Ceremony of the Church from the Forme before received and observed by the Catholick and ApostoUck Church, or the use of any Function belongyng to any ecclesiasticall Person being a Minister of the Word and Sacraments in the Chii'ch. But that Authority which is yelded unto us and our Crown consisteth in this ; that, considering we are by Goddes Grace the Sovereign Prince and Queue, next under God, and all the People in our Realme are immediatly borne Subjects to us and our Crown and to none ells, and that our Realme hath of long Tyme past receaved the Christian Fayth, we are by this Authorite bound to direct all Estates, being subject to us, to lyve in the Fayth and the Obedience of Christian Relhgion, and to see the Lawes of God and Man, which are ordeyned to that End, to be duly observed, and the offenders against the same duly punished, and consequently to provyde, that the Chirch may be governed and taught by Arch-Bishops, Bishopa

392 APPENDIX

and Ministers accordyng to the ecclesiasticall auncient Pollycy of the Realme, whom we do assist with our Soverayn Power, &c. An Office and Charge, as we think, properly due to all Christian Monarches, and Princees Soverayns, wherby they only differ from Pagan Princes, that only take care of their Subjects Bodyes, without respect to the Salvation of their Soules, or of the Liff heraffcer to come : So as certenly no just Occasion can herby be taken to deprave our Government in any Causes ecclesiasticall. And yet to answer furder all malitious Untruths dispersed abrode to induce a grudging of our Government in this behalf, we know not, nor have any Meaning to allowe, that any our subjects should be molested either by Examination or Inquesition, in any Matter, either of Fayth, as long as they shall profess the Christyan Fayth, not gaynsayeng the Authority of the holly Scriptures, and of the Articles of our Fayth, con- tened in the Credos Apostolik and Catholik ; or for Matter of Ceremonyes, or any other externall Matters apperteyn- ing to Christian Eeligion, as long as they shall in their outward Conversation shew themselves quiet and con- formable, and not manifestly repugnant and obstynat to the Lawes of the Eealme which ar established for Fre- quentation of devyne Service in the ordynary Chirches, in like manner as all other Lawes are, wherunto Subjects are of Duty and by Allegiance bound.

And if any Potentate in Christendom, challenging any universall and sole Superiority over the wholl Chirch of Christ, as it is pretended, shall condemn or reprehend this our office, appertening and by Justice annexed to our Crown, because it is not derived from his Authority, we shalbe redy in Place and Tyme convenient, where such Person as shall so reprehend us may not be the Judg of his owne Cause (an Order against Nature) and where other Christian Monarches, Potentats and Princees shalbe suffred generally to assemble with good Fredome, Securite find Liberty, as in former better Tymes hath ben chris-

APPENDIX 393

fcianly and to the gret Benefit of the Chirch of God, to cause such playne Accompt to be made for our Defence by the Rules of Christian Eelligion, as we trust shall in Reason satisfye the University of the Good and FaithfuU : or if not^ we shalbe redy as an humble Servant and Hand- mayde of Christ, to reforme our selves and our Pollicy in any manner, as Truth shall guyde and lead us j which Truth is to be by us understand, knowen, and receaved, as Almighty God shall please to revele it by His ordynary Means, and not to be in a disguised manner obtruded and forced by outward Warres, or Threatnings of Bloodshed or such like Cursees, Fulminacions, or other Worldly Violences and Practisees ; things unfitt to be used for es- tablishing or reforming of Christian Relligion, and to be rather contemned by soverayn Princees, having their Seates and Thrones stablished by Almighty God, and not subject to the Willis of forrayn and Strang usurped Po- tentats. Thus, for things Past, it may appeare in what sort our mild, mercifull, and reasonable Government hath ben falsly and malicioosly depraved by seditious and ob- stinatly ignorant Persons; wherupon all others, not yet incurably or depely infected with their fals Perswasions, may discerne, into what gross and lamentable errors all such our People have ben induced, as being herwith de- ceyved, have ben ledd from their obedience due to us by the Lawes of God and man, to commite Treasons or Rebellions, and to adheer to externall and Strang Power, having no Interest in their Persons by Laws divine or humayn. And now, that the Craftynes of these seditious and per- nitioos Persons may not herafter ageyne newly abuse the rest of our Good Subjects, as with new Devisings untruly of Things to foUowe, we do all Manner of Parsons to understand, that, considering we well now at Length per- ceave that some Sorts of our People of their Nature are grown the worse and more disobedient or wanton by a generall opinion conceaved of our Lenity, we must, and will, for redress therof, against such, being manifestly

D D

394 APPENDIX

disobedient against us and our Lawes, procede with the Sword of Justice whicli God has given us, and which we are charged not to beare in vayne; Assuring all others being obedient to our Lawes (and that in the word of a Prince and the Presence of God), that they shall certenly and quietly have and enioye the Fruits of our former ac- customed Favor, Lenite, and Grace in all our Causes requisite, without any molestation to them by any Person, by waye of Examinacion or Inquisition of ther secret Opinions in ther Consciencees, for Matters of Fayth. And further we do admonish all such obedient Subjects to be- ware, that they be not brought in Dowte of this our Grace by any Imagination of lewde and seditious Reports and Tales, at any Tyme herafter, whensoever they shall behold or heare Report of the Execution of Justice against Traytors and Seditiooss Persons, or manifest Contemners and Offenders ageynst our Lawes; whereunto we have lately, to our Grief, ben so provoked in sondry Places by oppen trayterooss Acts and Attempts, as without the notable Diminution of our Honor, Perill of our State, and many- fest Danger of our good Subjects, we cannot forbeare but repress such trayterooss Attempts, and devyde them ac- cording to ther Deserts from the rest of the sound Body of our Realme, by the order of Justice.

Finally, Consideryng the Multitude of our good People ar unlerned, and therby not hable by redyng herof to conceave our Mynd and favorable Disposition towards the Good and Obedient, nor our Determination and Displeasure by Waye of Justice ageynst the Obstinate and Disobe- dient ; we will, that, beside the ord3niary Publication her- of in all the accustomed Places of our Realme, all Curats in ther Parish Chirchees, shall at sondry Tymes, as the Bishopps and Ordynarys shall appoynt, rede this our Admonicion to their Parishonai's. [Ilaynes^s Collection oj State Papers, &c. &c. pp. 589 — 593, Lond. 1740, from the Papers at Hatfield House.]

fRIKTED BY T. AND A. CONSTABLE, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY, AT THE KDINBFROH UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE TRUE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE

As seen in the Original Constitution of the Church of Alexandria. Episcopal in Gov- ernment, Succession Through Presbytery.

Author of "True Christianity Vindicated," "Duty and Necessity," "Revision," etc., etc.

Introduction by REV. JOHN ITIcDOlVUIil. LEAVITT. D.D., L<L.I>.

12mo, CLOTH, 343 pp. PRICE, $1.00, POST FREE.

JDr. Howard Crosby said: "You have rendered most essential service to the cause of truth in your scholarly and exhaustive treatise on the true historic Episcopate." Blsliop Jolin H. Vincent : " I am glad you have resolved to republish your work on the Church of Alexandria. , . . Your own wise arguments re-stated will find later and vigorous endorsement from strong authority on the other side of the controversy." Prof. Jobn OT. Leavitt, D.D.: "With ad- mirable industry and ability, the author illustrates the testimony of Jerome and gathers round it the learning of ages. This book should be in the library of every clergyman asd intelligent laj-- tnan." MoSMUnan History of tlie Early Christian Cliurcli: " The original Constitution of the Church of Alexandria, it is scarcely too much to say, is the most important question of Ante- Nicene Christianity." Prof. J. Howard Smith, D.D.: "Mr. Gallagher has made a book that must needs be a classic in ecclesiastical controversy, and to which we are ready to point as going far towards the settlement of this debated question." Watcliman, Boston: "As against the ritualists and the High Church party generally in the Episcopal Church, the book is a very strong one, and does valuable service for the Reformed Episcopal Church, to which the au- thor belongs." Western Recorder, LouIsTllle : "It is a good book to lend to your High Church Episcopalian friend. The author was once just that himself." Central Christian Ad> vocate, St. Louis : " We advise Methodists who have any doubts as to the validity of our Epis- copate, to read it." Northwestern Congregatlonallst ; " An amount of material which gives the book a value for reference that is out of all proportion to its size." Independent, Newr York: "We hold the argument of this writer to be invaluable." Canadian ITIethodlst Quarterly: "Avast accumulation of evidence." Congregatlonalist, Boston: "All stu- dents of its topic will do well to consult it." Zlon's Advocate, Portland: "It possesses a general interest to those of other denominations." Presbyterian, Philadelphia :" A man abundantly able to give a reason for the faith which is in him."

j To the Monthly Ticasury, the organ of the Welsh Presbyterians, Principal Ed- wards contributes an important article on "Loyalty to One's own Church." On the subject of re- ordination Dr. Edwards says : " We believe, with the Reformers and against Archbishop Laud, that our or- dination is valid ; and this is a principle the denial of which by Churchmen ex- poses us to the obloquy of having intruded into the sacred office without the warrant of a Divine call. But over against us we meet with men in every district who claim that they are the only true ministers of Christ. The two doctrines are radically antagonistic, and it is natural, nay, it is right, that we should be indignant with those who would thus unfrock us, and deprive the members of our churches of the blessings of the Covenant of Grace. Howe replied to the Bishop of Exeter, who offered to give him episcopal ordina- tion, that he had been ordained, and therefore it would be nothing less than a logical absurdity for him to allow himself to be reordained. It would be a public admission that he had never received the right to administer the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and that liis ministry was erected upon a lie. - We are not prepared thus to stultify ourselves ; thus to proclaim ithat our ministers, in- cluding Ebenezer Morris, Henry Rees, Dr. Saunders, and Dr. Hughes have acted the liar, or played the fool. And I warn you all, if you have a mind to have a bishop's hands on your head, to make haste before you are committed for ever to the simple ordination of brother presbyters. I must confess that I fail to enter into the state of mind of that man, whoever he may be, who condescends to be a second time ordained. The point I have now men- tioned seems to me to go down to the

root of the whole matter. If I become a Congregationalist, my former ordination as a Calvinistic Methodist is still valid. But if I become a cleigyman of the Church of England, I must belie my past life, and confess that I have hitherto lived a false- hood."

Date Due |
	aa^if
	Si"! 1
	0^'
	,'■-
	V
f

Ini'm'i"'" ^tminary-Spefr Library

1 1012 01021 7125

il'l'ji