Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

"all

that “the requisite conditions were, in all probability, complied with both by Barlow and Scory in their public official acts." How he can reconcile this assertion with what follows, viz., "that they may have held erroneous opinions regarding the sacraments in general, and ordination in particular; they may have imperfectly comprehended, or inadequately accepted, the judgment of the teaching Church;" all this we do not profess to understand any more than we can understand how, as Dr. Lee maintains, Barlow could intend to do what Christ himself enjoined, and not intend to do what the Church enjoined, since the Church speaks as the mouthpiece of her Divine Master, and under the guidance of His Spirit. Yet, in spite of his own admissions, in spite of Barlow's known opinions on the subject of orders, and the absence of all proof that he ever recanted or recalled them, Dr. Lee can coolly sum up his chapter thus," It is concluded that an inadequate or imperfect belief on the part of one of God's ministers for ordaining, more especially if that inadequate belief (inadequate, by the way, means insufficient for the purpose) is the result of an intellectual misconception, or other unfortunate defect, does not invalidate the act of ordination, which in good faith and with a virtual intention is officially performed." We have pointed out that both good faith and virtual intention were, presumably, wanting in Barlow's case; and that his argument, besides being false, is baseless in its foundation; but it would be a nice case, in these days of appeal and judgment, for the Privy Council to decide what amount of "imperfect belief," or what "intellectual misconception" or other "unfortunate defect," would render Dr. Tait incapable of conferring orders. We sadly fear that some "intellectual misconception or other unfortunate defect" was clouding Dr. Lee's mind when he penned this chapter on Intention, and that he is already sorrowing over the trite truth that "litera scripta manet."

And now, with one parting remark, we will draw this portion of our notice to an end. In the "Comedy of Convocation," Dean Primitive expresses the evangelical method of interpreting Scripture by a series of absurdly contradictory propositions-propositions which are almost too absurd to be considered possible. But if the "Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England" had been published before the Comedy, the Dean might have added Dr. Lee's testimony, when dealing with the Articles, as an instance not less absurd from the opposite side. For whereas Article XXV. declares in express terms, "Those five, commonly called Sacraments -that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction-are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God," Dr. Lee, with all gravity, assures us that "Holy Orders, as the Church of England maintains, is

[ocr errors]

commonly called, and, it may be added, is rightly and properly called, a Sacrament." Risum teneatis, amici! Certainly, Dr. Lee is not happy in his logic or theology; let us see how he fares on the high road of history.

Our first investigation must regard the consecration of Barlow, since the foundation of the new hierarchy depends chiefly on the fact of his consecration. We have carefully examined and tested, as far as possible, all the evidence adduced in his favour; but it seems, to our mind, of no weight at all, since it depends on an assumption which Dr. Lee has not attempted to prove, viz., that Barlow was consecrated between April 21st and April 25th, 1535-36. His argument runs thus:-Barlow, being Bishop-elect of St. Asaph's, was elected Bishop of St. David's (he being at the time engaged on a political mission in Scotland) on April 10th, 1535-36; the royal assent was given April 20th, and Barlow was confirmed in person at Bow Church April 21st. He must have been consecrated between April 21st and 25th, for he obtained possession of the temporalities on April 25th. This evidence by itself deserves examination. In the first place, to accept it as true requires us to believe that the moment the election was declared, a messenger started with the news to Scotland, and that Barlow journeyed from Stirling Castle (not Edinburgh, as Dr. Lee says) to London, and that both journeys were accomplished in ten days! Such a travel (about 900 miles for the double journey) would be no wonder in our times of the iron horse; but considering the means and appliances of that age, it is well nigh impossible. It supposes a journey of ninety miles per day for ten successive days to render it even possible. When we consider the other circumstances, that Barlow was an ambassador, who would journey with his suite, and in great state; that there was no need for any great expedition on his part; that though the mandate for his confirmation exists, there is no word to hint even at consecration ;—when all this is considered, the probabilities against the consecration become well nigh certainty. Haddon, the editor of Bramhall, saw this, and therefore admits that Barlow was not consecrated before June, and conjectures, indeed he says it is "almost certain," that the consecration took place on the same day as that of Repps to the see of Norwich, June 11th. Moreover, if the consecration occurred in April, how does it happen that Courayer, who was no lukewarm supporter of the cause, refers to a "mandate directed to Cranmer to consecrate him, dated the 24th June, 1536," and of which he offers no explanation? Finally, who is T. Meneven, mentioned in the two writs to Parliament during the time when Barlow is said to have held the see? Courayer had the wit to see how this, in an authentic document, told against his friends, and therefore wisely, we cannot say honestly, omitted all the initials. Dr. Lee, with

his usual ill-fortune, originates a theory of his own, and suggests that the scribe was deceived by the great resemblance which existed in that age between the letters T and G; and he even takes the trouble to quote in the appendix three examples from a MS. of the sixteenth century, in order to show the similarity. But, unfortunately for the theory, we find the bishops of that time called in the official documents not Gulielmus but Willielmus. For instance, Dr. Lee himself quotes the following testimonies to our assertion :— (1) in the commission dated 3rd February, 1548, for the translation of Barlow from St. David's to Bath and Wells, he is styled several times Will. Menev. Epis.; (2) the commission for the consecration of Robert Ferrar, Barlow's successor at St. David's, is "Per translationem Willielmi"; (3) the commission for the restoration of temporalities to Ferrar is "Per translationem Willielmi"; (4) in all the records quoted by Dr. Lee regarding the consecrations in question, there is only one instance of Gulielmi. This one is found in the record of Parker's consecration, kept at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; and its unique position almost tempts us to exclaim, that the exception does but serve to prove the rule.

The cumulative evidence which Dr. Lee heaps up is after all mere sound. The summons to Parliament, if urged at all, must tell against Barlow; for in the writs, both in 1536 and 1541, quoted by Rymer (vol. xiv.), the initial is T. Menev. The possession of temporalities, too, so far from proving Dr. Lee's position, tells in this instance terribly against him. For whereas in other cases consecration was required as a preliminary to possession, the grant to Barlow is an exceptional one, and runs as follows:"Cumque Præcentor et Capitulum prædictæ Cathedralis Ecclesiæ (Menevensis), post mortem prædicti Episcopi, licentiâ nostrâ prius obtentâ, dilectum et fidelem nostrum Willielmum Barlow, nunc dictæ Ecclesiæ Cathedralis Menevensis per nos nominatum Episcopum, in suum elegerunt Episcopum et pastorem, Reverendissimus in Christo Pater Thomas Cantuar. Archiep. electionem illam acceptaverit et confirmaverit; ipsumque sic electum Episcopum prædictæ Ecclesiæ Menev. præfecerit et Pastorem sicut per litteras patentes ipsius Archiep. inde directas nobis constat; nos nunc certis de causis et considerationibus nos specialiter moventibus, et ob sinceram dilectionem quam penes præfatum nunc Episcopum gerimus et habemus de gratiâ nostrâ speciali et ex certâ scientiâ et mero motu nostris dedimus et concessimus," &c. Here, contrary to usage and precedent, the king, for causes specially moving him thereto, grants the temporalities of St. David's to Barlow when the Archbishop of Canterbury had accepted and confirmed his election by the Præcentor and Chapter. There is no mention of consecration, and no sign by which we might gather that such a thing was either done or contemplated.

And with this knowledge of how he obtained the temporalities of his see, the difficulty of his taking his seat as a spiritual peer vanishes. It is true that, as Dr. Lee argues, consecration was requisite before a bishop could take his place among the peers; yet this arose, not from the necessity of consecration, but from the fact that the temporalities, or the barony, were only given after consecration; and the bishops sat, not because they were bishops, but because they were barons of the kingdom, and the barony followed consecration. In Barlow's case, unfortunately for the Anglican hierarchy, it followed election. In order to prove this, we must quote a protest issued by William Courteney, Archbishop of Canterbury, on behalf of himself and suffragans, in 1382, when, in a Parliament held at London, the peers condemned to death certain rebel nobles. It runs as follows:-" In Dei nomine, Amen. Cum de jure et consuetudine regni Angliæ ad Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem, qui pro tempore fuerit, nec non cæteros suos suffraganeos, confratres et coepiscopos, abbatesque et priores, aliosque Prælatos quoscunque, per baroniam nostro rege tenentes, pertineat in parliamentis regiis quibuscunque, ut pares regni prædicti personaliter interesse," &c. Here the Archbishop explains the right on which the spiritual peerage is based, viz., "per baroniam de nostro rege tenentes"; and hence it is evident that any one possessing the temporalities of a see would be entitled to take his place as a peer. Whether he had been consecrated or not made no difference: consecration was usually a necessary antecedent; but if the king chose to grant the temporalities after election and before consecration (as seems to have been done with Barlow), the lack of consecration would not prevent him from taking rank among the peers. From this, then, we can see why Barlow sat in Parliament, and how he became acknowledged as a legal bishop; but, pace Dr. Lee, we cannot conclude that he was therefore consecrated. And so the secret is as impenetrable as ever. We may pass Barlow by, confident that few would be found to endorse Dr. Lee's opinion, "that ordinary judges of evidence would at once allow the existence of a moral certainty that William Barlow was duly consecrated a bishop."

As for Parker himself, Dr. Lee gives us no new information regarding him; he simply tells what evidence there is in favour of his consecration, and omits to notice whatever has been adduced in opposition to it. How, for instance, does he reconcile with the Lambeth Register the commission in Rymer, dated Oct. 20, 1559, and signed "Per ipsam Reginam," empowering Matthew, Archbishop of Canterbury, Edmund, Bishop of London, and Richard, Bishop of Ely, to administer the oath of supremacy? They could not have administered the oath unless they had been at that date

* Parker, "Lives of the Archbishops," p. 401.

recognized as bishops, since Dr. Lee, attempting to prove Barlow's consecration, says "until he had been solemnly consecrated he was not a bishop in the eye of the law." But if the three named

66

[ocr errors]

in the commission were not bishops in the eye of the law, then they were not the persons designated in the commission, and therefore could not have executed it. It is not possible to suppose that the Government were so ignorant of the law as to nominate in a commission persons who had no power to execute it; to say nothing of Parker being styled "Archbishop of Canterbury two months before his alleged consecration. Even Dr. Lingard could only explain it away by saying that it belongs to the second, not to the first year of Elizabeth's reign. We might overturn all history if we dealt with facts in this rude way; but fortunately for our purpose the commission itself bears internal evidence that it belongs to 1559 for one of the commissioners named in it with the sostyled archbishop was Dr. William May, and his death is mentioned in Le Neve's Fasti," and by Strype, as having occurred on Aug. 8, 1560, or two months before the date of the commission. Again, Dr. Lee makes no attempt to explain how it was that when Elizabeth designed to seize the episcopal revenues the bishops attempted to dissuade her, and offered for her acceptance out of the revenues of their sees - Canterbury, £200; Ely, £200; London, £100; Hereford, 100 marks; and Chichester 100 marks. This offer, as we gather from Strype, could not have been made later than September, and the alleged consecrations of the Register are only said to have taken place in December; and yet here are men giving away portions of their revenues some time before their alleged consecration, though proof of consecration is required before they could be instituted into them. Nor again does he attempt to deal with the difficulty that the writs in Rymer empower Parker not only to confirm, but to consecrate Barlow and Scory, no less than Sandys or Davys. We say nothing at present (because it is a question which affects jurisdiction and not validity) of the absurdity of the position which makes Barlow confer jurisdiction on Parker, and which makes him also receive afterwards his own jurisdiction at the hands of the man he himself had consecrated! But until these and numerous other points have been cleared up it is useless to speak of Anglican consecrations with any degree even of probability.

[ocr errors]

The argument, also, which Dr. Lee attempts to found upon the "constant tradition to the validity of his orders would have weight, we acknowledge, if such tradition had been handed down without contradiction; but it has been contradicted by every generation, and the "Nag's head fable," judged extrinsically, carries as much weight with it as the other side. Both have been affirmed, both have been strenuously denied; and the list of

« ÖncekiDevam »