/. 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. 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 
 
 
 
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, 
 
 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 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. 
 
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 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