Forbes on Article XXXVI: Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers

The last clause in the Article, ” we judge them to be read in the Church diligently and distinctly,” was to meet the case of the lower clergy who disliked the changed tone of thought in the Homilies, or many of their statements, some of whom neglected to read the Homilies at all, while others read them in such a way that they were utterly unintelligible to the people, as has been mentioned in discussing the body of this Article.

LIBELLUS de consecratione Archiepiscoporum et Epi- scoporum, et de ordinatione Presbyter or um et Diacono- rum, editus nuper temporibus Edwardi VI. et autho- ritate Parliamenti illis ipsis temporibus confirmatus, omnia ad ejusmodi consecrationem et ordinationem ne- cessaria continet, et nihil habet quod ex se sit aut super- stitiosum, aut impium : itaque quicunque juxta ritiu* ittius libri consecrati, aut ordinati sunt, ab anno se- cundo pr&dicti regis Edwardi, usque ad hoc tempus, aut in posterum juxta eosdem ritus consecrabuntur, aut ordinabuntur, rite, atque ordine, atque legitime statuimus esse, et fore consecrates et ordinatos.

” Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.

” THE book of consecration of Archbishops and Bi shops, and ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering, neither hath it any thing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the rites of that book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward, unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same rites, we

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 701

decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.”

Our Lord is the immediate founder of the hierarchy, because it was He who ordained the Apostles Bishops, when He said to them : ” As My Father sent Me, so send I you ; receive the Holy Ghost ; go ye into all the world and make disciples of every creature ; what soever ye shall bind or loose on earth shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” These words denote a power without limit, its measure is the wants of humanit}^ its field of action the world. At the beginning of the Church there was one general Episcopate.

Of this oneness His promise to St. Peter had been the type and earnest. In St. Cyprian’s well-known words, “The Lord saith unto Peter, ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ To him again, after His resurrection, He says, ’ Feed My sheep.’ Upon him, being one, He builds His Church ; and though He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, ’ As My Father sent Me, even so send I you ; receive ye the Holy Ghost ; whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be re mitted to him, and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained/ yet, in order to manifest unity,

‘02 ARTICLE XXXVI.

He lias by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one. Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power, but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one.”

St. Peter, then, and the rest of the Apostles left Bishops in their stead, deriving their authority im mediately from themselves, and through them from Christ. St. Clement says, in the well-known pas sage of his Epistle, written to allay the dissen sions in the Church of Corinth, ” Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there will be contention about the name of the Episcopate. For this cause, then, having received perfect foreknow ledge, they settled the aforesaid [Bishops and Dea cons], and meanwhile gave a rule of succession, that when they should fall asleep, others, approved men, should succeed to their ministry a.” And St. Irenacus speaks of the Apostolic succession of the Bishops, as a proof of their Apostolic doctrine ; as in the celebrated passage, ” The tradition of the Apostles, manifested in the whole world, all who wish to see the truth may behold in every Church, and we can enumerate those who were instituted Bishops in the Churches? and their successors down to us, who neither thought nor knew aught of the phrenzies of these men. For had the Apostles known hidden mysteries, which they taught the perfect, apart and unknown to the rest,

a Up. i. n. 44

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 703

they would even specially deliver them to those, to whom they committed the Churches themselves also. For very perfect and blameless in all things, they wished them to be, whom they left also as their suc cessors, delivering to them their own office of instruc tion, since, if these acted well, great good would result ; if they fell, extremest calamity b.”

It is probable that the Apostles chose cities and towns for their chief ministry, since these were the heart of each country, whence the Gospel would reach most easily to the smaller places. It is in cities, where we hear of Apostles abiding ; they are cities which, in the main, they address. The metropolis of the country or province became naturally the ecclesiastical metropolis, the see of the first Bishop of that province. Such grouping of sees occurs even in the Apostolic Canons. ” The Bishops of each nation must own him who is first among them, and regard him as head, and do nothing extraordinary without his mindc.” The Council of Antioch, making the terms of this more definite, speaks of it as “the Canon of our fathers/* and assign the reason. ” The Bishops in each Eparchy must own the Bishop presiding in the metropolis, and submit to his thought for the whole Eparchy, because in the metropolis all from all sides who have matters meet together ; whence it seemed good that he should be first in honour, and that the other Bishops d,” &c. The Council of Laodicea requires that “the Bishops should be set in their ecclesiastical rule by the judg-

b iii. 3, 1. c Can. xxxiii. d Can. ix.

704 AllTTCLE XXXVI.

merit of the metropolitans, and the Bishops around6.” The Council of Eliberis speaks of ” the place in which the first see of the Episcopate is established f.” The Council of Nice lays down that ” a Bishop should be appointed by all the Bishops in the Eparchy ; but ir this should be difficult on account of a pressing neces sity or length of way, that three should meet together, the absent Bishops concurring, and agreeing by letter ; but that the validity of what took place should in each Eparchy be assigned to the metropolitan g.” It has alike no other title for the highest sees than ” the Bishop in Rome,” ” the Bishop in Alexandria h.” The substance existed without the name.

This subdivision, which was made, in no way in terfered with the oneness of the Episcopate, which is expressed in St. Cyprian’s characteristic words, Episco- patus unus est, cujm a swgulis in solidum pars tenetur \ And so Pope Symmachus : ” After the pattern of the Trinity, whose power is one and undivided, there is one Priesthood among the many Bishops.”

“It is a fact recognised universally in the Church, and as certain as its existence, that Jesus Christ has established in the person of His Apostles, a power in vested with a holy and legitimate authority, and that this authority, conferred on the Apostles to govern the Church, has passed to Bishops instituted by them, and is preserved in all the successions of those who have followed them. The most ancient monuments attest that nothing can be done without the Bishop; that

e Can. xii. f Can. xxxviii. f Can. iv. h Can. vi.

1 St. Cypr., de Unitate Eccl.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 705

without them is neither Baptism, Eucharist, or absolu tion ; that they are in God’s stead, and on this ground claim authority in things divine ; that it is by tradi tion, of which they are the living links, that the Canon of Scripture is ascertained ; that it is by them that controversies of faith are to be determined ; that it is by them that we are in the Church, that the Church itself subsists and can with certainty be recognised k.”

This Article has not to do with the present Ordinal as given in the Prayer-book, but with one in tempo rary use from the second year of Edward VI. till the time of Charles II. ; it is, however, of primary import ance, that its sufficiency and canonicity should be as serted and proved, inasmuch as the strength of every chain being exactly the strength of the weakest link and no more, if orders conferred under this rite had been invalid, no supplementing in after times would have availed. Unless the ordainers and consecrators were true Bishops themselves, they could not by a more perfect rite confer grace which they had not, or in any way improve the ecclesiastical position of the com munity to which they belonged. On the other hand, if the rite was sufficient, they were free to make that rite more edifying, orderly, and impressive ; and this is just what the later revision has done.

The act of King Edward ordained that such form and manner of making and consecrating of Arch bishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other minis ters of the Church shall be used, (observe the recog- k Klee, Hist. Dorj., i. 116. z z

‘06 ARTICLE XXXVI.

nition of the minor orders,) as by six prelates and six other men of this realm, learned in God’s law, by the King’s Majesty appointed, shall be devised for that purpose. The act passed the Lords: — Tonstal, Bishop of Durham; Oglethorp, of Carlisle; Heath, of Worcester ; Thirlby, of Westminster ; and Day, of Chichester, protesting.

From the earliest periods of the Church, ordination has been invested with the greatest solemnity. It has been entrusted to the Bishops only, ordination by Presbyters being a thing unknown, or if known, only known to be declared absolutely null, till Luther and Calvin.

In the Apostolic Constitutions1, when a Priest is to be ordained, the Bishop lays his hand on his head, the Priests and Deacons standing by, while the Bi shop says a prayer, invocating grace on him who has been elected by the suffrage and consent of all the Clergy. By the Canons of the Tenth Council of Carthage, when a Bishop is to be consecrated, two Bishops are to hold the New Testament over his head, and while one Bishop pronounces the prayer of consecration, the rest of that order present lay their hands upon his head. At the ordination of a Priest the Bishop makes the prayer, and all the Priests in church with him lay their hands on the head of him thus ordained. In the case of a Deacon, the Bishop only does so.

In the Pseudo-Dionysius it is said: “The Bishop

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 707

elect who comes for consecration is to kneel before the Altar, the Gospels are held over his head, he receives imposition of hands from the consecrating Bishop.” There is likewise a solemn form of prayer used on this occasion. A Priest at his ordination, kneels likewise before the Altar, the Bishop laying his right hand on his head, and completing the ordination with solemn prayers. When a Deacon is made, he kneels before the Altar on only one knee, and then the Bishop, lay ing his hand upon his head, pronounces a prayer proper for those of that order. All these respective orders are signed with the sign of the cross, the names and degrees of the persons published, and lastly, they are saluted by the Bishop and the rest of the Clergy m. In the Greek Church, the Archbishop, standing be fore the Holy Table, prays for the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the elect, and holding his hands upon his head, reads the instrument of his election ; then after some prayers, opening the Gospels, he lays them on the head of the person consecrated, the other Bishops also touching him. He likewise makes three crosses on his head, and pronounces the prayers of conse cration. Then one of the Bishops assisting reads part of the Litany, the Archbishop with his hand on the head of the elect makes another prayer, takes the Gospels from off his head, invests him with the omophorion. Then he is saluted by all and conducted to the Bishop’s seat n.

m Pseudo-Dion., i. 363, 364, ed. 1634; vide Morinus, De Sac. Ord., ii. p. 51. n Vide Euchologion, p. 160, ed. Venice, 1854.

708 A11T1CLE XXXVI.

At the Ordination of Priests, the beginning of the Office is like the former ; the three crosses are made, hands are imposed, and prayer made specifying the order to which the elect is advanced. The Litany is said by a Priest, the proper habit put on, and the kiss of peace given. Then the elements being unveiled, the Bishop puts a piece of bread into the hand of the person ordained, and laying his hand on his head bows his body over the Holy Table. Then the ordained person returns the bread to the Bishop, and receives the Sacrament before the rest of the Priests.

The Missale Francomm, given by Mabillon, follows exactly the form of the Council of Carthage °.

In the ninth century supplementary rites come in ; the ring and pastoral-staff were given to Bishops, and the sacred vessels to Priests. In the Sacramentary joined to the end of the Ordo Romanus, the last is done with the words, ” Heceive thou authority to offer sacri fice to God, and to celebrate mass both for the quick and the dead.” The Sacramentary of Gelasius speaks of offering sacrifices, but there is nothing of the de livering the vessels.

Neither is this enjoined in the Pontifical of Corbey of the ninth century, though there the hands of the Priest are to be anointed, and his offering sacrifices for the sins and offences of the people is made mention of.

So in the English Saxon Ordinal, called Egbert’s Pontifical, the Priest’s hands are anointed with oil and chrism, his head anointed, and an officiating habit 0 Collyer’s ” Church History,” vol. v. p. 368.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 709

placed upon him. The ordination prayers mention his offering sacrifice for the sins of the people, but not ” for the quick and the dead.” No rule is given for the delivery of the vessels.

The Schoolmen lay great stress on this delivery, and even go so far as to doubt the validity of ordination conferred without it ; on the other hand, they have always granted the canonical character of the Eastern orders.

The modern teaching of the Church of Rome on the essentials of ordination is to be found in the Homo Apostolicus of St. Alfonso p. In his 17th Tractate on the Sacrament of Order, No. 15, we find the following words : — ” The second question is whether the matter and forms of the Sacraments, especially of order, are all specifically determined by Jesus Christ. The first opinion denies this, along with St.Bonaventura, Bellar- mine, Valentini, Morinus, Lugo, Salmeron, &c. Their only reason is, that otherwise there could not be dif ferent matter and forms in the Greek and Latin Churches, especially in the case of the Sacrament of Order, seeing that in the Greek Church both the priest hood and the diaconate are conferred by the imposition of hands only ; while in the Latin the handing over the instruments is required, according to the decree of Eugenius IY., as has been already mentioned. Where upon they assert that as regards Baptism and the Eu charist our Lord ordained specifically both the matter and the form ; but regarding the other Sacraments, P Tol. vii. p. 466 sqq., ed. Turin, 1848.

He instituted them in kind only, leaving to the Church the power of determining them specifically, by giving them the words and things that should express the effect of the Sacrament. This opinion is prohable, but there is a more probable opposed to it, which holds that the matter and form of all the Sacraments were specifically determined by our Lord ; so Merbes, Ha- bert, Juvenin, Tournely, Petrocor., Concina, and many others, with St. Thomas, who cannot be denied to be of this opinion, when he says : * For that the sanctifi- cation of man is in the hands of God Who sanctifieth him, it belongs not to man by his own judgment to as sume the things whereby he is sanctified, for this must needs be determined by the institution of God. And therefore in the Sacraments of the new law, by which men are sanctified, it is needful to use things deter mined by the Divine institution 1.’ To this opinion Benedict XIY. adheres, who says there is no foundation to prove that this power was conceded to the Church by Jesus Christ, nay, that it is opposed to the Council of Trent r, where it is said that the Church can do nothing touching the substance, but only touching the administration of the Sacraments. But as regards the diversity of the Greek and Latin Churches, it is an swered that the giving of the instruments is not held as essential matter, only accidental though integral. And to the decree of Eugenius, we answer with Merbes, Tournely, and Concina, that the Pope then did not determine the matters essential to order, but only

i 3rd. p. qu. 60, a. 5. p Sess. 21, cap. 2.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 711

wished to instruct the Armenians in the rites of the Roman Church to which they wished to be united.”

“The third question is, what is the matter of the Priesthood, whether only the imposition of hands, or the giving the instruments, and what is the form?

” There are three opinions : 1. that of Fagnani, Soto and a few others, who hold that the only matter is the tradition of the instruments which the Bishop gives the candidate, and the form ’ Take thou authority of offer ing sacrifice/ &c., and by this matter and form is be stowed the power not only of sacrifice but absolution. The sole motive of this opinion is taken from the decree of Eugenius IV., where it is said, ’ The order of Priest hood is given by presenting with a cup with wine, and a paten with bread.’ But this opinion is commonly not received by the doctors. 2. The second is that of Bellarmine, Estius, Scotti, Layman, Salmeron, Conine, Holzm., Vasquez, who maintain that in the ordering of Priests there is a double essential matter, so that by the tradition of the instruments power is given over the real Body of Christ, viz. that of sacrificing, with the words, ’ Take authority/ &c., and by the imposition of hands power is given over the mystical body of Christ, viz. that of absolving, with the words, ‘Take the Holy Ghost, whose sins thou remittest they are re mitted.’ 3. The third opinion, that of Martene, Becanus, Tournely, Juvenin, Petrocor., Concina, and others with St. Bonaventura, with which Benedict XIY. also agrees, holds that both powers are given to the Priest by the sacred imposition of hands, namely, when the Bishop ex-

12 AllTICLE XXXVI.

tends his hands over the candidate with the Presbyters attending, as the Council of Trent says, ’ that the minis ters of extreme unction are Bishops, or Priests rightly ordained by them by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.’ This opinion is confirmed by the Council of Trent s, ’ that we are taught sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures what things are chiefly to be attended to in the ordination of Priests and Deacons, but that we have nothing else assigned as the matter of the Sacrament of Order than the imposition of hands : it must be said, that beside the imposition, nothing else in ordination is of essential necessity.’ It is also proved by the Greek rite, whereby, as has been said, men are or dained solely by the laying on of hands, seeing that the validity of Sacraments depends essentially on the forms and matter instituted by Jesus Christ. To this must be added what Benedict XIY. with Martene mentions, ’ that the giving of the instruments was not introduced into the Church before the eighth or ninth centuries’… . As to what the form according to this third opinion is, some say, ’ Take thou authority,’ but more probably Morinus and Tournely say it is the prayer which the Bishop says in the imposition afore said, and the words which he says at the end in the third laying on of hands, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost,’ are only declarative of the Spirit being already given. The third opinion is the more probable, but because the second is probable, at least exlrinsically, that in practice is to be followed.”

• Sess. 23, c. 2.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 713

The question of the validity of Anglican Orders used to turn on three hinges ; 1. Was Barlow, through whom alone the succession was supposed to come, himself con secrated ? 2. Is there sufficient documentary evidence for the Consecration of Matthew Parker ? 3. Were the form, matter, and intention sufficient to confer valid ordination ?

As to the first, using the words of Dr. Lingard *, ” For ten years Barlow performed all the sacred duties and exercised all the civil rights of a consecrated Bishop. He took his seat in Parliament as Lord Bishop of St. David’s. He was styled by Gardiner ‘his brother of St. David’s.’ He ordained Priests : he was one of the officiating Bishops at the Consecration of Bulkley, [and likewise of Skip,] yet we are now called upon to be lieve that he was no Bishop, and consequently that nobody objected to his orders, though they were known to be illegal : or to his ordinations, though they were known to be irregular ; nor to his performance of Epi scopal Functions, though it was well known that each such function was a sacrilege !”

As to the second, 1. The Public Records shew that Parker was elected by the Dean of Canterbury and four canons on Sept. 6, 1559 : on the 9th the Queen issued her Commission to the Bishops to consecrate, and punished them on their refusal. On Cecil consulting Parker, he replies that, in conformity with the statute 25 Henry VIII., the King must direct letters patent to an Archbishop or to four Bishops to confirm and

1 Catholic Magazine, 1834.

consecrate the Archbishop elect : that the consecration must take place on a Sunday, in a certain place, and the Book of Edward VI. used. The difficulty remain ing, six doctors of Canon Law were consulted, who, by an instrument still extant, gave opinion that the Queen could dispense with the rigour of the law, and empower the deposed Bishops to execute the functions required by the statute ; wherefore, on Dec. 6, just three months after the election, (shewing how carefully everything was gone about,) a second commission was issued to six Bishops, any four of whom were to consecrate the Bishop Elect. This took place on the 17th. The event was boldly patent to the world. It was mentioned in letters of the extreme party to their friends at Zurich. Matthew Parker’s own diary, with the touching ad dress, “Heu Heu Domine Deus, in quse tempora ser- vasti me,” is extant u. The narrative of the Conse cration, with a duplicate at Cambridge, still exists, and gives the minutest account of what actually took place Y, describing the very dresses and ceremonies em ployed, noting specially as the fact that all four conse crating Bishops said, ” Take the Holy Ghost/’ &c.

Therefore, the study of the document shews that the question does not turn on the validity of Barlow’s consecration; for in order to make the consecration absolutely secure, every one of the four officiating

u The consecration is mentioned by Machyn in his Diary, under the same date ; and in the reign of James I., when the Fable of the ” Xag’s Head” was first propounded, an aged nobleman bore solemn witness that he had been present on the occasion.

v See Appendix to Courayer, p. 332.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 715

Bishops was ordered to use the sacramental words. Of these four Bishops, two were consecrated by the old Pontifical, and two by the reformed ritual of Edward VI., and the three had their descent quite in dependent of Barlow.

As to the third point, — the form, matter, and inten tion — it is said that the form of Anglican Orders is imperfect, inasmuch as the office of a Bishop was not specified when hands were laid on Matthew Parker. The four consecrating Bishops used the following words : — ” Accipe, inquiunt, Spiritum Sanctum, et gratiam Dei, quse jam per impositionem manuum in te est, excitare memento : non enim timoris sed virtutis, dilectionis et sobrietatis Spiritum dedit no- bis DeusV

It has been said that these do not determine the office, and would suit the case of a parish-clerk as well as a Bishop. To this it must be answered ; 1. That the use of the words of St. Paul, in which he gives the charge to St. Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, shews that it was in the minds of these consecrators to confer on the candidate the authority of a primitive Bishop. Next, that there were other prayers in the service which distinctly determined the meaning of the ac tion ; and 3rdly, that the reformed Bishops were in no worse case than their predecessors ; for in none of the English Pontificals, except that of Exeter, (which never was used, there being no record of any Bishop of Exeter having taken the principal part in conse-

x Cardwell, ” Doc. Annals,” i. 278.

crating a Bishop,) is there any determining word at the time of the imposition of hands. In the Sarum Pon tifical it runs thus : — ” Finita letania surgant omnes prseter electum. Et duo Episcopi ponant et teneant evangeliorum codicem super cervicem ejus et inter scapulas clausum, et, ordinatore super eum fundente benedictionem, reliqui episcopi qui adsunt manibus suis caput ejus tangant et dicat ordinator Yeni Creator, ut supra in ordinibus. Sequatur : Oremus. Oratio. Pro- pitiare Domine supplicationibus nostris et inclinato super hunc famulum tuum cornu gratise sacerdotalis, benedictionis tuse in eum infunde virtutern ; per Domi- num Nostrum Jesum Christum Filium Tuum, qui Te- cum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus.”

The formula, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” belongs to the time of the schoolmen. Martene acknowledges that they were unknown to antiquity, so that they are scarcely found in any Pontifical older than his date by four hundred years. Of all that he had seen, those of Aries, Angers, and that of William Durandus, were the only Pontificals that had them. It was only then, that not content with praying for the descent of the Holy Ghost, they thought it right to add His bestowal in the imperative mood. Bearing this in mind, all that the Council of Trent has said is that it is not to no purpose that the Bishop says, ” Receive the Holy Ghost/’

The next collateral proof of the validity of Anglican ordinations is to be found in the Brief of Julius III., under date March 8, 1554; the Pope, without any

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 717

distinction of the ordinations conferred in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., or allusions to the difference of their respective ordinals, left it to the judgment of Cardinal Pole to rehabilitate those whom he should judge worthy, to allow them to use the con secration they had received, and to consecrate those who were not yet consecrated. The passage in the ori ginal runs as follows : — ” Necnon de personis quorum- cunque Episcoporum vel Archiepiscoporum, qui Me- tropolitanam aut alias Cathedrales Ecclesias de manu laicorum etiam schismaticorum, et prsesertim qui de Henrici Regis et Edouardi nati ejus receperunt, et ea- rum regimini et administration! se injecerunt, et earum fructus, reditus et proventus etiam longissimo tempore tanquam veri Archiepiscopi aut Episcopi, temere et de facto usurpando, etiam in hoeresin ut praefertur inci- derint, seu an tea hseretici fuerint ; postquam per te uni- tati sanctae matris Ecclesise restituti exstiterint, tuque eos re-haUlitandos esse censueris, si tibi alias digni et idonei videbuntur, iisdem metropolitans et aliis Cathe- dralibus Ecclesiis denuo, necnon quibusvis aliis Cathe- dralibus etiam metropolitanis Ecclesiis per obitum vel privationem illorum prsosulum, seu alias quovis modo pro tempore vacantibus, de personis idoneis pro quibus ipsa Maria regina juxta consuetudines ipsius regni tibi supplicaverit authoritate nostra providere, ipsasque personas iisdem Ecclesiis in Episcopos aut Archiepi- scopos prseficere : ac cum iis qui Ecclesias Cathedrales et Metropolitanas de manu laicorum etiarn schismati- corum ut praefertur receperunt, quod iisdem seu aliis,

ad quas eas alias rite transferri contigerit, Cathedra- libus etiam Metropolitanis Ecclesiis in Episcopos vel Archiepiscopos pracesse, ipsasque Ecclesias in spiritu- alibus et temporalibus regere et gubernare, ac munere consecrationis eis hactenus impenso uti, vel si illud eis nondum impensum extiterit, ab Episcopis vel Archi- episcopis Catholicis per te nominandis suscipere libere et licite possint.”

But this is not all. The Bull goes on to provide for the possible consecration of priests ordained irregu larly, i.e. by the ritual of Edward VI., if such be ad vanced to the Episcopate : — ” Necnon cum quibusvis per te ut prsemittitur pro tempore absolutis et rehabili- tatis, ut eorum erroribus et excessibus pneteritis non obstantibus, quibusvis Cathedralibus etiam Metropoli tanis Ecclesiis in Episcopos et Archiepiscopos prsefici et prscesse, illasque in eisdem spiritualibus et tempo ralibus regere et gubernare ; ac ad quoscunque etiam sacros et presbyteratus ordines promovere, et in illis aut per eos jam licet minus rite susceptis ordinibus etiam in altaris ministerio ministrare necnon munus consecrationis suscipere, et illo uti libere et licite vale- ant, dispensare etiam libere et licite possis, plenam et liberam apostolicam auctoritatem per prsesentes con- cedimus facultatem et potestatem V

At the Council of Trent, a discussion took place,

r See further a learned note in the Rev. Arthur Haddan’s edition of Archbishop Bramhall’s Works, vol. iii. p. 114, note g ; also p. 70, note s, in which reference is made to the rehabilitation of Bishop Scory by Bonner after he had put away his wife.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 719

which tended to shew that Anglican orders were ad- litted on every ground except that of their non-confir mation by the Pope z. The question arose incidentally out of the controversy as to the origin of jurisdiction, whether directly from God or from the Pope. After some discussion, O’Hairt, Bishop of Achonry in Ireland, shewed that for these reasons it could not be maintained that jurisdiction was immediately from God : 1. That in the hierarchy there would be many heads, so that it would rather bring anarchy, and all would be upset. 2. That thereby the opinion of the heretics would be strengthened ; for that in England the King calls him self Head of the Church, and creates Bishops who are consecrated by three Bishops, and say that they are true Bishops, who are from God; but we deny that, because they are not adsciti by the Roman Pontiff, and we say so rightly; and l>y this reason alone, and by

z Vid. Le Plat, Collect. Trid., vol. v. p. 578, ed. Lovan : ” Acadensis Theonus, ostendit tribus rationibus non posse subsistere, quod ajunt jurisdictionem immediate esse a Deo. Primo, quia in hierarchia essent multa capita, potumque reddentur anarcliia ac totum everteretur. Secundo, quia ex eo magis confirmaretur opinio hsereticorum. Nam et in Anglia rex vocat se caput Ecclesiae Anglicae et creat episcopos qui consecrantur a tribus ejascopis, ajuntque se veros episcopos, qui sunt a Deo, nos vero id negamus, quia non sunt a Pontifice Romano asciti, et recte dicimus, hac que tantum ratione illas convocemus, non alia, non elapsi ostendent, se fuisse vocatos, electos, consecutos, messos : igitur si in canon dicatur tantum a Christo institutes, hinc iiiferrent electionem fieri ex modo instrument©, quod quale sit omnibus tarn rege quam Papse. Tertio, quia si jurisdictio esset tota a Deo Papa non posset illam tollere et transferre in alium, Sunt non potest prohibere consecratione quia ordinct et conficiat eucliaristiarn. Qnia senteritia omnibus placere maxime visa est.”

no other, do we convince them, for they themselves shew that they have been called, elected, consecrated, granted mission. Therefore, if it be said in the Canon that they are only instituted by Christ, they might infer from this that election might take place by a mere instrument, which might be the same in all, Pope or King. 3. That if jurisdiction be all from God, then the Pope cannot take it away and transfer it to another, just as he cannot prohibit a consecrated person from ordaining, or consecrating the Eucharist. This senti ment seemed greatly to please all.

It is plain from this that the Anglican Bishops, ordained by the Pontifical of the reign of King Ed ward VI., were acknowledged to have every element of the Episcopal character, except recognition by the Pope.

Given, therefore, the historical truths of the facts of Parker’s consecration as attested by a regular notary — admitting the doctrine laid down by St. Alfonso — taking into consideration, in the way of corroboration, what passed upon the subject at the Council of Trent, it is absolutely certain that Anglican Orders are valid and regular, unless the Pope’s recognition be essential. And that that recognition is not essential, is proved by the fact that the validity and regularity of the orders of the Eastern Church have always and by all persons been admitted. While on the one hand one must respect the jealousy with which so important a matter as the validity of orders ought to be watched, on the other hand it must be borne in mind what

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 721

a strong temptation there is for opponents to deny them for polemical purposes. In the controversy between England and Rome, the question has been complicated by the tradition of re-ordination, founded on a very im perfect examination of the case in the instance of that uncomfortable Scotsman Bishop John Clement Gordon, and still more by the unscholarly deliverances of Euge- mus IV. on the matter and form of the Sacrament.

But we may retort irregularity on the impugners of Anglican orders. While four Bishops were carefully warned each to use the consecrating words in the case of Parker, it had been in the occasional practice both of East and West to admit as valid Consecration by one Bishop. There is a case of a single consecration in the history of St. Athanasius, another in that of St. Heliodorus ; and in the ancient Scoto-Irish Church, in spite of the great multitudes of Bishops that were in Ireland, the practice was constant.

Nay, even in the case of the Papal See, there were tremendous irregularities. If we may believe Luit- prandus a, John XII. ordained a deacon in a stable, and another of the Popes, Pelagius I., was himself con secrated by two Bishops and a Presbyter, as Anastasius bears witness b.

To charges, moreover, of laxity, as to the enforce-

a Lib. vi. chap. 7.

b ” Dura non essent Episcopi qui eum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo Episcopi, Joannes de Perusio et Bonus de Ferentino, et Andreas presbyter de Ostia, et ordinaverunt eum pontificem.” — Vide Baronius ad Ann. 555.

3A

ment of Episcopal ordination after the Reformation, as in the well-known case of Whittington, Dean of Durham, and the others who in Elizabeth’s time were instituted into benefices; all one can say is, that it was wrong, exceptional, and speedily remedied. But more than that, it was distinctly an inheritance of pre- Reformation times. Benefices and Bishoprics had been held by non-ordained persons, even by children c.

c Among the documents preserved in the archives of Magdalen College, Oxford, we find a Bull of Pope Nicholas mediating in a dis pute between the Founder and the Bishop of Salisbury, touching the benefice of Bryghtwell, in which a layman, a medical man, by nation reputed to be a Greek, held the living for ten years, alleging a papal exemption from holy orders. He had had a curate (procurator), but that curate was now dead, and the Rector could not be found. Upon this the Bishop of Winchester, the patron, presented William Darsset. The Bishop of Salisbury refused to institute him, and he appealed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He then received institution, whereon the Bishop proceeds to sequestrate the living, intending, as was sup posed, to interfere with the Bishop of Winton’s patronage, but alleging tfcat it still belonged to Thomas French. The Bull enjoins the Com- imss:onersto put an end to all debate between the parties, and if the re cited premises are true, to put William Darsset in full and peaceable possession of the benefice, invoking, if necessary, the interference of the secular arm. — (Communicated by the Rev. H. R. Bramley, Fellow of St. Mary Magdalen College.) ” At no time during the 300 years which preceded the Reformation does it appear that the Scottish Bishops succeeded in making orders an indispensable qualification for a benefice. Synodal Statutes in the thirteenth, Provincial Statutes in the sixteenth, alike confess that rectories and other offices of the Church were filled by men who had not even received the clerical character.” (Robertson’s Statuta, p. ccvi.) In the old Irish Church similar abuses prevailed. St. Bernard in Vita S. Malachiffi speaking of the Church of Armagh, says : ” Denique jam octo extiterant ante Celsum (St. Malachi’s predecessor) viri uxorati, et absque ordinibus, litterati tanaen.”

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 723

Since the reign of Queen Elizabeth the Episcopal succession of the English Church has received two in fusions of what may be termed foreign blood. The first of these is the introduction of that of the Irish succession by the part which Primate Hampton took in the consecration of Bishop Morton, and by the trans lation of Bishop Murray, of Kilfenora, to Llandaff.

The usually received fact that the present Irish suc cession is purely Irish, based on the supposition that all the Bishops save two conformed at the Reformation, is now denied. It is quite true that several Irish Bishops were present at the Council of Trent; Thomas O’Herlihy, Bishop of Ross; Donatus Mac Congail, Bishop of Raphoe; and Eugene O’Hairt, Bishop of Achonry, took part in the discussions. And Wauchope, Archbishop of Armagh, ” the blind Bishop/’ who was forced by the Pope into the place of Dowdall during his lifetime, was present at some of the latter sittings ; but these three Bishops are in the Council described as Pius lY/s Bishops, and they, therefore, must have been appointed between 1560 and 1568. The two Bishops, who, in 1560, refused to sanction the removal of the Pope’s jurisdiction, were Walsh, of Meath, and Leverous, of Kildare. With the exception of these, all the Irish Bishops remained in their respective Sees, and from them, in conjunction with Abp. Curwen, the present Bishops have derived their orders. Dr. Stud- dert has shewn how carefully the Irish consecrations were attended to. The Irish Act, 2 Eliz., c. 4, abolishes

conge d’ elire d and substitutes collation by letters patent ; enacts that the collation be signified to one Archbishop and two Bishops, or else to four Bishops; that every Archbishop and Bishop shall with all speed invest and consecrate ; that if they refuse they shall incur the penalties of prsemunire and provisors. Though the records of the actual consecrations are lost, there are directions about temporalities of Alexander Craike, Bishop of Kildare, and evidence of a ritus papalis (Cotton’s Fasti) used in the case of Roger Skiddie, Bishop of Cork and Cloyne in 1562. Then came Loftus, Archbishop of Armagh, and Robert Day, of Kildare; and in the case of Christopher Gafney, Bi shop of Ossory, the Queen orders all things requisite and meet for electing, consecrating, and installing, to be done, as in like cases is used. The same orders are given in Latin in the case of James McCaghwell, Bishop of Cashel e.

But even if it be said that all these facts are only probabilities, it is certain that the Irish Orders are valid through Hugh Curwen. He was consecrated by Bonner and other recognised Bishops, according to the Roman Ritual in Queen Mary’s reign ; and even if his consecrations were performed without assistant Bishops

d See a curious letter on the difficulty of working the conge d’ elire in the case of Archbishop Loftus in consequence of the chapter there, ” whereof the greatest part be temporal men. Shane O’Neil’s horse, men be so sparkeled and out of order, that they cannot be assembled.” (Shirley’s Original Letters, p. 120.)

e See Lee’s Letter to Abp. of Dublin, 4to., 1866, p. 36.

OF CONSECRATION OF BISHOPS, &C. 725

)f which, however, all the proof lies the other way), that can be said is that they were irregular, not ivalid.

The other intervention of a foreign Bishop in the line of English Bishops was by Marc Antonio de Do- minis. This prelate, who was Archbishop of Spalato, in Dalmatia, for a time conformed to the Anglican Church in the reign of James I., and was by him made Dean of Windsor. During his residence in England he assisted at the consecrations of Bishops Felton and Monteigne.

The only remaining point to be noticed is the argu ment against the validity of the Anglican Orders from the want of intention. Bishop Barlow’s opinions on Holy Orders were very loose, but still we must believe that he intended bond fide to do and to say, what he actually did and said in the matter of the consecration. He was required to perpetuate the succession of Eng lish Bishops. Oglethorp refused to have anything to do with it. Kitchen, though mentioned in the commission, failed the Queen at the last. Meanwhile, the Bishops of the Old Succession were dispossessed, and a new com mission issued. Thus, there only remained beside the suffragan of Hull, the Bishops to whom the commission was sent, with Bale, who took no part in the consecra tion. Whatever view Barlow had of Orders, he evidently intended to obey Elizabeth, and the questions put to the Canonists by the Queen, and the strict rule laid down ad majorem cautelam of all pronouncing the sacramental words, shew that the whole matter had been seriously

‘26 ARTICLE XXXVI.

considered. The prayers also of the Service indicate sufficiently what was meant by it, and this must satisfy the real doctrine of intention; for if the doctrine of intention be supposed to be influenced by the private opinions of the minister, no one can be certain of any single baptism or ordination. Intention is satisfied, if a person really intend to do what he has to do seri ously, not in jest. Barlow intended to make a Bishop, and did so. What opinion he had on the grace and indelibility of Holy Orders has nothing to do with the question.

The reason for the concluding clause of the Article is the same as that which prompted the Act of Par liament, 8 Eliz., c. 1 : “An Act declaring the making and consecrating of the Archbishops and Bishops of this realm to be good, lawful, and perfect.” The doubts which it recites in the preamble are on the point whether the same were duly and orderly done according to the law or not; the remedy is partly to shew that it has been duly and orderly done accord ing to the laws of the realm, and partly to provide for the more surety thereof. Bonner had alleged that the Ordinal, repealed along with the Prayer-book in the time of Queen Mary, had not been separately named in the revising Statute, 1 Eliz. c. 2. Both the Act and the Article are passed ex major i cautela, a valid consecration being the corner-stone of the whole ecclesiastical edifice.

Notes

• Lib. viii. c. 16.