chapel or at a tavern; in Cheapside, or at Lambeth. For, if either the form of Ordination was invalid, or the Ordainers themselves were disqualified for that function, Parker's consecration is still a losing card, notwithstanding its being registered. And the Catholics insist upon it, that the validity of the English Episcopal Ordinations can never be demonstratively proved from the lame authority of a suspected Chronicle, wherein is recorded a disputed fact.

9. The Catholics seem to be convinced, that Parker's Ordination was not only invalid, but illegal too. And this they prove, from the circumstance of his being ordained contrary to the lan's in full force and vigour at the time of his supposed Ordination, wheresoever or by whomsoever it was attempted. For Queen Mary's laws were not repealed till six years after Parker's turn was served, i. e. not till the 8th of Eliz. whereas he is said to have been ordained anno 2 Elizab.-See Heylin's Hist. Ref. p. 121.

And here we think proper to put an end to our Preliminary Observations. What we have to add to them, shall be comprised under the following heads. And we propose, 1. To give the reader a brief Historical Account of this important affair. 2. To inquire into the Qualifications of Parker's Consecrators. 3. To consider the Form by which the said Parker was consecrated. 4. To discover by what Authority the Deficiencies in this Consecration were supplied. 5. To answer the most material Objections.

5. A brief Historical Account of this important

Affair.

UPON the defection of this island from the See Apostolic, in the reign of King Henry VIII. when the Supreme Ecclesiastical Power over this National Church was translated from the Pope of Rome to the King of Great Britain; and when no English Prelate was allowed to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience to his Holiness, all Ordinations conferred at that juncture, and in such circumstances, were by the Catholics accounted uncanonical and schismatical; and consequently, with regard to Jurisdiction, entirely void: yet few, I believe, ever questioned their validity. It is certain that King Henry VIII. made no great alterations in the public Service of the Church for if we except some few deletions (such as expunging S. Thomas of Canterbu

ry's office, and the offices of some other saints, which, by the King's injunctions, were forbid to be recited, and his blotting the Pope's name out of those collects wherein he was usually prayed for) the rest of the Missal remained in statu quo. So likewise did the Roman Pontifical and the Ritual continue unaltered and unreformed; and consequently, the old Form of Ordination maintain'd its ground till the death of this Monarch. But,

Upon King Edward's accession, the face of the Church was entirely changed. His ministry immediately exterminated and extinguished the Catholic Ordinal, to make room for a new one. Of which, however, the Catholics had so mean an opinion, that such as were ordained according to the form devised and prescribed by K. Edward VI. were then, and have ever since been, looked upon by them as persons advanced to H. Orders not only uncanonically, but invalidly; and for these reasons:

First, because Holy Orders were not esteemed or regarded by the Zuinglio-Calvinists of this reign as a sacrament, but only as a mere extrinsical denomination, form, or formality, (call it which you will) of appointing ministers to officiate publicly. And Cranmer himself was clearly of opinion, that election or appointment to the ministry was quite sufficient to make a Bishop or a Priest, without the formality of Ordination. See the App. No. XIX.

Secondly, because all power, both spiritual and temporal, was held to be derived from the civil magistrate, and particularly from the King.

Thirdly, because all the Bishops of this reign were obliged to take out commissions from his Majesty, to ordain and perform the rest of their Episcopal Functions; and all this only durante beneplacito Regis.

Fourthly, because those that were advanced to the Priesthood, according to the New Form of Ordination, were not invested with any power to consecrate the Holy Eucharist, which even Bramhall himself, (p. 226), acknowledges to be a power which Priests ought to have. Add to this, that the word Priest is not so much as mentioned in King Edward's Form of Ordination.

And thus was the Priesthood completely degraded by the secular power, and the Reformed Church of England by consequence unchurched from the beginning. For a church that cannot be, as S. Jerome observes, which has no Priests in it, Ecclesia non est quæ non habet Sacerdotes. S. Hier. ad Lucif.-And, That cannot be call'd a Church,

says the holy Martyr Ignatius, where these are wanting, Χωρὶς τ' των εκκλησία 8 καλέιται. S. Ign. Εp. ad Tral.

In the reign of Queen Mary, the whole legislative power of this realm, in Parliament assembled, solemnly declared King Edward's Bishops to have been and to be invalidly ordained. This is confessed by D. Heylin. "+Hooper, of Gloucester, was commanded to attend the Lords of the Council on the 22d of August, and committed prisoner not long after, was outed of his Bishoprick immediately on the ending of the Parliament, in which all consecrations were declared to be void and null which had been made according to the Ordinal of King Edward the Sixth.”

In the reign of Q. Elizabeth, the Catholics looked upon Parker's ordination (and look upon it at this day) to be, and to have been, both illegal and invalid. Illegal, because contrary to the laws, actually unrepealed and in full force at the time of his supposed consecration and invalid, from the want of abilities in the consecrators, and from a defective form pronounced by them on this occasion. Both which particulars shall be more distinctly considered hereafter.

In the reign of King James the First, the reformed Prelates of England began to make a mighty pother and noise about the validity of their ordinations forsooth; pretending, that the celebrated Matthew Parker had been consecrated with great solemnity at Lambeth: and to make good this pretension, Mr. Mason, by direction of Archbp. Abbott, obtruded upon the public his Lambeth Record, as he calls it. But, from the numerous inconsistencies, anachronisms, &c. &c. that appear upon the face of it, the Catholies are induced to pronounce it a spurious instru

ment.

$6.Some Account of Parker's Consecrators.

W ITH regard to the persons mentioned in Q. Elizabeth's second commission, D. Heylin observes, that "The first and two last [i. e. Antony Kitchin, the Suffragan of Thetford, and Bale] either hindered by sickness, or some other lawful impediment, were not in a condition to attend the service, which, notwithstanding, was performed by the

other four, [viz. Barlone, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskins. But whether these men were duly qualified to perform the important service of consecrating an Archbishop, is a point which we are now about to consider. We shall examine them all four distinctly and separately, beginning with the principal consecrator.

William Barlow.

1. "It is a wonderful thing," says my Author, "by what chance or providence it happen'd, that Barlow's consecration, who was the principal actor in this [of Parker's] should no where appear, nor any positive proof of it be found, in more than fourscore years since it was first questioned, by all the search that could be made by so many eurions, learned, and industrious persons, as Mr. Mason, employed by the Archbishop, and all the assistants he had in his time, whose book was printed in 1613, and again, with additions, in 1625 and 1638; Bp. Bramhall, and all the assistance he could procure in his time, about the year 1657; D. Burnet, encouraged by the Parliament, in 1679, and all the helps and many assistants he had; and the indefatigable Mr. Wharton, who had corrected and discovered so many faults, oversights and mistakes in others, besides many others," [it is, I say, a wonderful thing, that notwithstanding all this prodigious search, it should no where appear] "that he [Barlow] was ever consecrated

at all.

"Mason and Bramhall take much pains to prove it by circumstances and probabilities, for that all things were done for him, and to him, and by him, that belong to a true and compleat Bishop, except only that of consecration;-especially from the restitution of his temporalities, which they would have us believe is always after consecration. But whatever it ought to be, either by law or custom, it was not then always so observed; as before in the case of Stokesley, Bp. of London, who had his temporalities July 14, 1430, and was not consecrated till November 27th after. And since twice in the case of Bonner, who, elected Bp. of Hereford, had restitution of his temporalities to his proctor, while he himself was yet beyond sea; and afterwards elected Bp. of London, had his temporalities Nov. 18, 1539, and yet was not consecrated till April 4, 1540.

“ Nor is it more strange, that of all the acts necessary for that purpose, the Consecration should be omitted, espe

cially at a time when it was set so light by, than that of all the records and entries of those acts, that only of the Consecration, if there had been any, should be wanting, when all the other acts do appear in their proper courts, as Bramhall tells us."---Great Quest. p. 4.

To evade these difficulties, which cannot easily be answered, Bramhall is forced to have recourse to casualties. He wisely supposes, p. 184, that fire, or thieves, or some such casualty, might destroy or purloin the record. But pray, Sir, where, when, and how, did that destructive conflagration happen? And, if it happened at all, how came that single act to perish in the flames, when all the rest appear in their proper courts? As to the thief, all we can say of him is, that he must have been uncommonly clever and adroit, to purloin a testimonial, or nim a ConsecrationAct, which, in all probability, never existed in rerum

natura!

Add to this the authority of Mr. Strype, who, in the Pre face to his Memorials of the Life of Archbishop Cranmer. assures us, that he has taken particular care to set down, under every year, what Bishops, diocesan and suffragan, were consecrated in the province of Canterbury. And from his extract of the Canterbury-Register, we have seemingly a tolerable account of Episcopal Ordinations, from Cranmer down to Harley, the last of the Edwardian Prelates: To give some instances : Hodgskins," he tells us, "was consecrated December the 9th, 1537. But to what See is not mentioned.---Scory and Coverdale were both consecrated [the first for Rochester, the latter for Exeter] on the same day, viz. Aug. 30, 1551, according to King Edward's Ordinal."---This is pretty clear. But concerning Barlow, he only drops this obscure hint: "Barlow, Sept. 15, 1535, elect of S. Asaph.---Memorandum. The Consecration not inserted in the Register." And if so, where must we seek for it? For though Bramhall had strictly examined the records of Lambeth, and Strype, with equal diligence, had conned over those of Canterbury, yet neither the one nor the other has been able, after all, to discover the least vestige of Barlow's Consecration.

2. "The short space between his [Barlow's] election to S. Asaph and translation to S. David's, and his absence in Scotland, might well prevent his Consecration for that time, and the Translation, especially if he continued any considerable time in Scotland, might make his Consecration, when he came home, never question'd or thought of; especially having

Gg 2
ig